Force Orb versus Object

[Rashak Mani]

Pebble in the square would have have cover from the PC in the square.

Allies don't give cover to ranged fire...

The spells says adjacent enemies. I'm not sure the "ground" is a "object"... hhmm...

I keep joking with the rogue that he should wear a feather on his hat... so that when he gets surrounded I can blast the feather away and hit surrounding foes.

 

[KarinsDad]

The spells says adjacent enemies. I'm not sure the "ground" is a "object"... hhmm...

If your PC drops 100 feet onto the ground, I bet it'll feel like an object.

The answer to the OP's question seems apparent. The spell can target objects, ground is an object (one can use a pick to damage it, correct?), a square on the ground is size medium, so it has AC 5 (DMG page 65).

 

[Switchback]

When you miss an object, let's say a vase 40 feet away on a stand, where does the miss go? If you miss a targeted enemy with a Force Orb, apparently it hits nothing instead of the creature, doing no splash damage... So is it possible to 'miss' the pebble on the ground, and if so, how do you determine the results of that?

As the per the rules, 'missing' the ground would be no different than missing a creature and do nothing. It would be nearly impossible to miss, but it still is rather hard to visualize how the spell is just disregarded on a miss nowadays.

 

[valeren]

just wanted to share a pic from our current 4e play by post campaign

 

[dark666105]

i would think it would play out something like this. pc seeing he is very outnumbered and surrounded thinks fast and in a all or nothing move charges a force orb in his hands and throws it to the ground.
classic ninja smoke bomb maneuver but i would say that since the pc is in the blast he would technically be a secondary target also since it doesnt list it as enemies and objects but creatures and objects. sorta like a suicide move (though not so suicide as im sure unless you are low it wouldnt kill you) to take as many as you can with you.

 

[Rashak Mani]

Secondary targets are enemies according to spell description

 

[vagabundo]

I've had this come up in play. The wizard wanted to target the ground at someone's feet using Force Orb.

So it has an AC of 5, cool. He also argued that the creature occupying the square was Adjacent to the ground and therefore a secondary target.

 

[PHGraves]

If your PC drops 100 feet onto the ground, I bet it'll feel like an object.

The answer to the OP's question seems apparent. The spell can target objects, ground is an object (one can use a pick to damage it, correct?), a square on the ground is size medium, so it has AC 5 (DMG page 65).

...and here, again, is the precipice of that slippery slope:
-When you hit a large creature with Force Orb, all enemies adjacent to that creature are hit, not just adjacent to one of the squares occupied by the creature.
-The ground is, at least outside, actually part of the planet. While it would be much easier to hit, any enemy standing on the planet would therefore be 'adjacent' to the target.

Granting the current argument, would you allow this?
If not, what would be your argument against this (outside of "because it's stupid')?


As with my original post, let me state that I cannot find anything in the books that leans one away or the other on this, so have fun the way you want. I am genuinely curious.

 

[PHGraves]

Also, nobody is using "object" to refer to "unoccupied square." They're using it to refer to objects like "the ground" and "a pebble."

So squares containing only "the ground" are not unoccupied?

You can honestly make that argument with a straight face?

 

[KarinsDad]

...and here, again, is the precipice of that slippery slope:
-When you hit a large creature with Force Orb, all enemies adjacent to that creature are hit, not just adjacent to one of the squares occupied by the creature.
-The ground is, at least outside, actually part of the planet. While it would be much easier to hit, any enemy standing on the planet would therefore be 'adjacent' to the target.

Granting the current argument, would you allow this?
If not, what would be your argument against this (outside of "because it's stupid')?

I think the intent of the spell is to not actually allow this. I think the intent is to have a mini-splatter, or to target an object. Course, the first time my Wizard used this, he did use it against an object (he hit the boulder in the DMG encounter and then hit the drake).

However, intent is not necessarily what is written.

Given what is written, one has two options here:

1) Disallow it.
2) Allow it in a reasonable fashion.

I think allowing it in a non-reasonable fashion as you suggest as an option is not worth talking about. I doubt that there are many DMs that would allow such a unbalancing option, so why discuss it?

Given the utlity of Force Orb (my Wizard PC has used it 3 times in about 18 or 19 encounters, he only keeps it for the range), I think that #2 is reasonable and when I ran this thread past my DM, he thought so too.

This option is more useful and slightly more potent than Scorching Blast. The same number of targets, can be used amongst allies, and 2 extra points of damage on average. But, still weaker than Force Orb at its best.