Force Orb versus Object
- Thread starter Rashak Mani
- Start date
As promised I am posting my second query to Cust Serv regarding Force Orb:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is an enemy inside a hollow object considered to be adjacent to it, if said hollow object is the target of Force Orb?
Would it matter how large the hollow object was?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The response from Charles:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A creature inside of an object is not adjacent to it. Please review the rules for adjacent and range on page 273 of the Player's Handbook.
Please let me know if you need anymore help!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So not every question gets DM's discretion type answers.
And what do you know, on pg.273 the term adjacent is defined in paragraph about adjacent squares (which is even in boldface type). Color me embarassed.
This seems workable from a gaming standpoint. It also puts a kink in global minion annihilation plans using the entire planet as an object for casting Force Orb.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is an enemy inside a hollow object considered to be adjacent to it, if said hollow object is the target of Force Orb?
Would it matter how large the hollow object was?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The response from Charles:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A creature inside of an object is not adjacent to it. Please review the rules for adjacent and range on page 273 of the Player's Handbook.
Please let me know if you need anymore help!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So not every question gets DM's discretion type answers.
And what do you know, on pg.273 the term adjacent is defined in paragraph about adjacent squares (which is even in boldface type). Color me embarassed.
This seems workable from a gaming standpoint. It also puts a kink in global minion annihilation plans using the entire planet as an object for casting Force Orb.
Last edited:
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Not necessarily.
Consider a chair occupying 1 square. A person sitting on that chair occupies the same square. We cast Force Orb at the chair.
Does the person occupy a square adjacent to any square occupied by the chair? No - there are eight squares adjacent to any square occupied by the chair, and the person is in none of them.
Consider a cart occupying 4 squares, 2x2. A person in the cart occupies one of those squares (call it A1). We cast Force Orc at the cart.
Does the person occupy a square adjacent to square A1? No. Does he occupy a square adjacent to A2, B1, or B2? Absolutely - the square he occupies (A1) shares an edge with A2 and B1, and shares a corner with B2. So does he occupy a square adjacent to any square occupied by the cart? Yes, he does.
Consider a person standing on the planet. Does the person occupy a square adjacent to any square occupied by the planet? Yes, he does - the planet occupies all squares, including the eight squares which are adjacent to the square the person occupies.
-Hyp.
I don't really want to try very hard to defend cust serv's responses to my queries. IMO they didn't try very hard to answer my first set of questions at all. And now that I've read your post, I think they didn't put enough thought into answering the second one either. But by workable, I really meant that they furnished clear guidelines on the adjacent issue (which happened to be RAW).
The response contradicts itself in the cart example (and surely many other situations) by saying "no, not adjacent", and then pointing to guidelines that will often say yes. When I posted I must have inferred a non-existant "intervening barrier" clause, where the edge of the object would block the effect.
However, I don't see a problem with RAW for chair and cart issues. Answers may not be completely sensible, but they will be consistent. As for Planetary targeting, I think the assumption of Cust Serv and myself is that no square is adjacent to the whole planet, because all squares are part of the planet.
The response contradicts itself in the cart example (and surely many other situations) by saying "no, not adjacent", and then pointing to guidelines that will often say yes. When I posted I must have inferred a non-existant "intervening barrier" clause, where the edge of the object would block the effect.
However, I don't see a problem with RAW for chair and cart issues. Answers may not be completely sensible, but they will be consistent. As for Planetary targeting, I think the assumption of Cust Serv and myself is that no square is adjacent to the whole planet, because all squares are part of the planet.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Check p273 again: "Two creatures or objects are adjacent if one of them occupies a square adjacent to a square occupied by the other."
I occupy a square. Is the square next to me "a square occupied by the planet"? If so, the planet and I are adjacent.
-Hyp.
I am resolved to not even mention cust serv anymore in this thread. The more I think about it, the more irritated I am that they made such little effort to guide.
As for my own self, I believe that the planet doesn't occupy squares per se, because it is composed of all squares. The notion is entirely meta-gamey, but in this case I draw a line in the sand. It is different from other large objects (e.g. wagons, big statues, etc.) which do occupy multiple squares.
In addition, at some point common sense has to have a role in interpreting rules. I rate RAW first, fun second and, when it matters, common sense is third priority. To me, common sense clearly weighs against globicide, and I think fun does to. So if RAW is ambiguous, other two factors decide.
Edit: I admit that I'm not sure if squares that are above an object are supposed to be considered adjacent. To me, it seems as if the term square is sometimes just a unit of length, width or height (like a yard). I'm under the impression that, in most cases, rules are supposed to be judged as if there were only two dimensions.
As for my own self, I believe that the planet doesn't occupy squares per se, because it is composed of all squares. The notion is entirely meta-gamey, but in this case I draw a line in the sand. It is different from other large objects (e.g. wagons, big statues, etc.) which do occupy multiple squares.
In addition, at some point common sense has to have a role in interpreting rules. I rate RAW first, fun second and, when it matters, common sense is third priority. To me, common sense clearly weighs against globicide, and I think fun does to. So if RAW is ambiguous, other two factors decide.
Edit: I admit that I'm not sure if squares that are above an object are supposed to be considered adjacent. To me, it seems as if the term square is sometimes just a unit of length, width or height (like a yard). I'm under the impression that, in most cases, rules are supposed to be judged as if there were only two dimensions.
Last edited:
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Let's ignore the planet for a moment, and have the man standing on a table.
If the table only occupies a single square, then the man is not adjacent to the table.
If the table is ten feet long, though, then the table occupies two squares, and the man occupies one square. The second square the table occupies is adjacent to the square the man occupies; therefore the man and the table are adjacent.
-----
So back to the planet - if we have a very very small planet that only occupies a single square, and a person is standing on that planet, he is not adjacent to the planet.
But if the planet occupies more than one square, then there are squares which the planet occupies that are adjacent to the square the person occupies, and the planet and the person are thus adjacent.
In both these examples, we are considering a square to be a two-dimensional unit - a grid projected down from the sky, if you like. Nowhere are we considering the concept of 'vertically adjacent' to exist.
-Hyp.
I understand what you are getting at. It is literal application of RAW. And I don't think RAW actually forbids any number of over-powered uses of this spell.
My point is that conclusion regarding globicide via Force Orb is a foregone one. There is no interpretation of the rules that can allow low level wizards to globally exterminate minions, short of WOTC directly coming out and saying so (at which point I go back to playing 3ed).
I had hoped that those people I contacted for help, would actually give me ammunition to close off this possibility. But it seems that counseling DM's discretion is what they are best at now. They must have gotten instructions to avoid stepping into grey areas or something.
My point is that conclusion regarding globicide via Force Orb is a foregone one. There is no interpretation of the rules that can allow low level wizards to globally exterminate minions, short of WOTC directly coming out and saying so (at which point I go back to playing 3ed).
I had hoped that those people I contacted for help, would actually give me ammunition to close off this possibility. But it seems that counseling DM's discretion is what they are best at now. They must have gotten instructions to avoid stepping into grey areas or something.
PHGraves
First Post
What I find this boils down to is a matter of definitions. Not so much the definition of "adjacent", but of "object", "square", and "unoccupied square" as they pertain to targeting.
Much of this discussion revolves around using a target definition of "object" (as nobody has yet tried to use "creature") to, in some way, target a occupied or unoccupied square. This, at least to my mind (ymmv), meets with varying levels of success:
"I target the chair/barrel/[tiny or larger object in the square]."
This fits perfectly into the definition of "Object" in regards to targeting. What is more, there are relatively specific rules in the DMG for targeting objects from size "tiny" to "huge".
"I target the pebble/bit of lint/leaf/[smaller than tiny object in the square]."
Should be perfectly do-able, but runs into two issues. As there is no set AC for smaller than "tiny" (nor larger than "huge"), the solution can vary from DM to DM. Also, this can start a bizarre escalation if overused: After too many uses, angry DM starts declaring that the rooms are perfectly spotless, with nary a mote of dust or loose pebble to be found. Player responds by bringing bags of pebbles/dirt/etc to spread through an adventure. The whole thing becomes relatively ridiculous.
"I target the square (he's standing in)."
I seem to find this one a bit more cut and dried than others. We are now using "object" to refer to an occupied or unoccupied square.
As far as I can tell by the books, the only thing that can target an occupied square (not an object in the square, but the square itself) is an Area attack. Even then, the target list deals with creatures/objects/enemies/allies.
My issue with using "object" to mean "unoccupied square" is one of definition and logic. "Unoccupied square" is already used in a handful of powers as a target. This, in itself might not be damning, as "creature" can encompass "enemy" quite handily. What causes my issue is that there are two powers that list both "object" and "unoccupied square" as targets. Regardless of the powers in question (Light and Ghost Sound), the fact remains that they used "object or unoccupied square" for the target of these powers.
If "object" could refer to an unoccupied square, why would Light and Ghost Sound not simply list "object" as the sole target?
Much of this discussion revolves around using a target definition of "object" (as nobody has yet tried to use "creature") to, in some way, target a occupied or unoccupied square. This, at least to my mind (ymmv), meets with varying levels of success:
"I target the chair/barrel/[tiny or larger object in the square]."
This fits perfectly into the definition of "Object" in regards to targeting. What is more, there are relatively specific rules in the DMG for targeting objects from size "tiny" to "huge".
"I target the pebble/bit of lint/leaf/[smaller than tiny object in the square]."
Should be perfectly do-able, but runs into two issues. As there is no set AC for smaller than "tiny" (nor larger than "huge"), the solution can vary from DM to DM. Also, this can start a bizarre escalation if overused: After too many uses, angry DM starts declaring that the rooms are perfectly spotless, with nary a mote of dust or loose pebble to be found. Player responds by bringing bags of pebbles/dirt/etc to spread through an adventure. The whole thing becomes relatively ridiculous.
"I target the square (he's standing in)."
I seem to find this one a bit more cut and dried than others. We are now using "object" to refer to an occupied or unoccupied square.
As far as I can tell by the books, the only thing that can target an occupied square (not an object in the square, but the square itself) is an Area attack. Even then, the target list deals with creatures/objects/enemies/allies.
My issue with using "object" to mean "unoccupied square" is one of definition and logic. "Unoccupied square" is already used in a handful of powers as a target. This, in itself might not be damning, as "creature" can encompass "enemy" quite handily. What causes my issue is that there are two powers that list both "object" and "unoccupied square" as targets. Regardless of the powers in question (Light and Ghost Sound), the fact remains that they used "object or unoccupied square" for the target of these powers.
If "object" could refer to an unoccupied square, why would Light and Ghost Sound not simply list "object" as the sole target?
Similar Threads
