Force Orbs - Target the Ground or wat??

[Danceofmasks]

Hmm ... the floor beneath someone's feet is actually the square beneath them, not the square they're in.
Therefore, the creature above that floor is adjacent, and secondary attack is cool.
The creatures around that square is also adjacent (one square diagonally down), but due to the hard floor squares beneath them blocking some corners, they can claim cover.

Edit:
Actually, upon reading the spell again, it's a ranged attack, not an area effect.
So ... err ... all secondary attacks suffer no penalties (unless they can claim cover normally), but the initial floor square can claim cover?

 

[DemonLord57]

Using Force Orb on the ground would make you roll an attack int vs ref, which you could miss. the you would still have to roll an attacks on your secondary targets, so what would the advantage be?

one spell/power is not going to let you extra attacks vs the same target.

You miss the point. The point is that he wants to be sure of being able to attack all of the targets. If he attacked a creature and missed the first hit, the rest don't get attacked.

The real question is: Why go with Force Orb instead of Grasping Shadows or Icy Terrain. Grasping Shadows is pretty much strictly better, and Icy Terrain is very likely better if he wants to hit multiple targets and is attacking the ground for that (knock prone + difficult terrain >> 2 more average damage)

 

[Danceofmasks]

The character may have been pregenerated?
Irregardless, these things are good to know.

Also, I can't seem to find rules for hitting objects anywhere ... I know Disintegrate auto-hits unattented objects, but how does Force Orb hit?

 

[DemonLord57]

The character may have been pregenerated?
Irregardless, these things are good to know.

Also, I can't seem to find rules for hitting objects anywhere ... I know Disintegrate auto-hits unattented objects, but how does Force Orb hit?

Yeah, I didn't see any rules about hitting objects. But I think it's reasonable to assume that the ground can be considered an object. It's unusual to see object as a valid target of powers anyway, so this will rarely be valid anyway. I agree that it is good to know, though

 

[MarkB]

It sounds legit to me as the planet would be an object.

But then, would you make secondary attacks against each target adjacent to the planet?

 

[underfoot007]

Yeah, I didn't see any rules about hitting objects. But I think it's reasonable to assume that the ground can be considered an object. It's unusual to see object as a valid target of powers anyway, so this will rarely be valid anyway. I agree that it is good to know, though

Since you are targeting the ground under a creater, the ground would get cover ? what is the AC of the ground as well? I would not let anyone auto hit the ground.

 

[Kraydak]

But then, would you make secondary attacks against each target adjacent to the planet?

Force Orb is "ranged" so I think (haven't looked carefully) you only hit all targets adjacent to the planet that you have line-of-effect to. Again, I haven't researched the question in any detail, and the truth of this answer has some interesting implications even without Very-Large-Object cheese.

 

[Stalker0]

In general when a power has a set application and you think you find a way to reliably make it into another application of greater effect (such as changing a single-target-and-maybe-secondary-target into multiple-targets-all-the-time), you've found a loophole

Thing is...this isn't a strictly better interpretation, you are paying a penalty for using the ability this way, namely the bigger damage on the initial hit.

Further, if we compare this interpretation to scorching burst, we have an attack that gains +2 damage and has a better range over scorching burst....sounds about right for an encounter vs at will power.

 

[Simplicity]

I think the power is pretty explicit.

Target: one creature or object.

So, yes. You can target a section of ground (as an object). Don't miss or you'll feel like an idiot.

 

[Keenath]

Hmm ... the floor beneath someone's feet is actually the square beneath them, not the square they're in.

I'm confused. Where do you get this information? That seems like a really weird thing to claim out of the blue, and it doesn't even sound like a particularly believable ruling...