Telekinetic Projectile.


Rules Questions


I'm rolling up a Psychic for an upcoming campaign, and while I like where the character is going, he's going to be utterly useless in combat. Then I noticed the Lv 0 spell Telekinetic Projectile in the spell list.

Reading the spell description in UM, the description doesn't say whether or not you have to be holding the object you're throwing. I'd assume not, since that'd be kinda silly, but I wanted to check here. It would seem that you can throw any applicable object that is with the range of the spell. At least that's how I'd interpret it.

My plan was to carry bags of caltrops and when combat starts, throw them out and use them as ammunition for the spell.

Scarab Sages

That would be fine. I would think you can also simply telekinetically draw an arrow or sling bullet from a quiver to launch. The spell just says "throw an object". There is no mention that the object needs to be unattended.


Yeah could also carry some arrows with you.

Carry some smoke pellets and a few other items that go off when destroyed/doesn't need targetting.

low level you could throw a thunderstone with it. In theory it'd go off if the TKProjectile did enough damage to it. Posslbe splash damage for acid or alchemist fire.

Granted the rules for that are kinda weird area sometimes.

Caltrops are pretty fun yeah. Just be sure to look up the durability of those since TKProjectilve does damage to the target and the launched item.

The Concordance

Worth noting that since this spell isn't Effect: Ray, it isn't subject to the -4 firing into melee penalty that ranged weapons suffer.


Okay I have a question that is... almost off topic; you use the spell shrink item on a boulder that is large size, you shrink the Boulder to the smallest you can get which I believe with this spell is diminutive, if you go from large, I think. And when you throw the pebble using TK, enlarge it mid flight. how much force would strike with? And what would the damage be?


Pathfinder doesnt use physics... You do damage as a large item, which is roughly the same damage you would do as a 4th level kineticist.


Techicnally if you were using this spell?

It would only ever do the damage of said spell. Even if you somehow found a way to throw shrink the moon down and then TK projectile it.

Additionally if you enlarged it mid flight techicnally speaking the spell would fizzle. It would no longer be a valid target and while common sense/physics says it would continue moving to some extent.. rules don't allow for that..

If you wanted to do this the best you could do is aim at the roof above them, damage the room/item then rescale it. So the big item feel straight down from the roof under its own power

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShieldLawrence wrote:
Worth noting that since this spell isn't Effect: Ray, it isn't subject to the -4 firing into melee penalty that ranged weapons suffer.

It's still a ranged attack even though it's not a ray. The penalty still applies.


Nobody should be making definitive statements in this regards. There are no rules in official sources that state that a ranged attack, for the sake of being a ranged attack, receives a -4 penalty. The rules limit it to weapons and rays (not ranged attacks). While the Kinetic Blast is not listed as a ray, it is my opinion that it is intended as a ray and thus subject to the -4 penalty,

The only applicable rule on ranged attacks appears to be that they all get a chance to critical.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Weapon-like spells are not limited to Rays. If you cast a spell that includes a ranged attack or a ranged touch attack, then you will need to have precise shot to avoid the -4 penalty for shooting into melee.

Telekinetic projectile, Acid splash, snowball, acid arrow, and the like are not magically exempt form the rules for ranged attacks. I have never seen anyone run it that way, and if it gets a faq it will be to confirm that the penalty applies.

If you plan a build around not needing precise shot because that spell is not a "weapon", be prepared to get shut down hard by table variation.


I'll be honest, I'm not sure why any caster that can take this spell would. Since you have to hit normal AC anyway, and not Touch AC, wouldn't it be better to just carry around a ranged weapon like a sling or a crossbow? You have the same accuracy, but you'd be dealing better damage.


Occult class casters are a bit limited in their casting availability.

In fact I think most of them don't have any of those touch ac lv 0 spells like acid touch.

Additionally it does bludging. And depending on your class and build there are modifirs to it (such as occultist's evocations).

Plus it weighs nothing for you to carry. So a caster without much str can get a lot more use out of this. Or a caster with str can have two damage types. Or they don't havet o spend money on a xbow and bolts.

and no one should use slings with the current rules on them. They're almost unusuable without being speced into them.'

For the 3 classes occultis psychich and spiritualist I think it is the only offensive lv 0 spell to take.

honestly except for the range, i think it is more useful than a xbow on a caster. Depending on what you launch as the projectile there can be some other uses. As the item may break from the TK projectile's damage so there can be extra effects due to that (say athunder stone, or one of the alchimcal weapon bombs).

So it has its own uses, and place. just like crossbows do. It is good to have it as an option.


Imbicatus wrote:

Weapon-like spells are not limited to Rays. If you cast a spell that includes a ranged attack or a ranged touch attack, then you will need to have precise shot to avoid the -4 penalty for shooting into melee.

Telekinetic projectile, Acid splash, snowball, acid arrow, and the like are not magically exempt form the rules for ranged attacks. I have never seen anyone run it that way, and if it gets a faq it will be to confirm that the penalty applies.

If you plan a build around not needing precise shot because that spell is not a "weapon", be prepared to get shut down hard by table variation.

Regardless your experience, there isn't an actual lack of rule for what you're stating is a rule. I understand, and even agree, with your interpretation of the rules (although my interpretation makes it a ray in order to accommodate my interpretation) , but it's not the actual RAW of the rules. RAW, if it's not a blast, and not a ray, then it's not suffering the -4 penalty. Anything other than that is interpretation, which should not be stated as definitive.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Ventnor wrote:
I'll be honest, I'm not sure why any caster that can take this spell would. Since you have to hit normal AC anyway, and not Touch AC, wouldn't it be better to just carry around a ranged weapon like a sling or a crossbow? You have the same accuracy, but you'd be dealing better damage.

Also rule of cool applies. which is more fun? Shooting a crossbow, or throwing cards/rocks/coins/dead rats at someone? :-)

My only concern is when the caster starts throwing odd stuff. Acid, liquid ice, and more exotic stuff like Tanglefoot bags (4 lbs) Tangleburn bags (5 lbs) and thunderstones (1 lb).

Personally I'd trade touch vs normal AC for a tangle, or an acid splash, but an official ruling would be good.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally think this spell needs a lot more description, and thus GMs would need to give their own ruling on it. I'll ask a few of my own questions to throw around the ideas, then I'll try to answer them and some others on this thread.

Q

1. Why is this spell a ranged attack that uses Dex? You're telekinetically controlling it with your mind, it shouldn't have anything to do with Dex.

2. With this spell, you can throw a grain of sand with the same amount of force as an avergae human striking with a club.

3. This spell lacks the unattended, nonmagical object part of the mage hand spell description. As I read it, you can take an object off someone's or even out of their hands with this spell, and the break it.

A

1. Don't know

2. I think the reasoning behind this is you can propel a lighter object with more force, making the damage sort of balance out.

3. This is really overpowered. I'd go with the rules from mage hand.

4. I'd say that alternitively, you can do an attack as if you threw the thing instead. So yes to throwing alchemist's fire and such as a touch attack, but you don't get the bludgeoning damage. Yes, this under this ruling, you can try to deal 2d6 slashing damage by throwing a greatsword, but you'll take big minuses from throwing a melee weapon and likely nonproficiency as well.

5. (If this is even a question anymore) Yes, you do take the -4 for firing into melee.


Strangely you have five answers but only three questions. Cut and paste error?

As for answer 4...

Occult Adventures wrote:
The type of object thrown doesn’t change the damage type or any other properties of the attack, even if you throw a weapon or magic item in this way.

To me this says that you only get the normal 1d6 bludgeoning damage no matter what object you throw. So no 2d6 slashing damage from throwing a greatsword.

Sovereign Court

I'd be comfortable with letting splash weapons thrown this way deal splash damage in their usual radius though.


The last two answers were answers to questions already sort of said on the thread. I understand that the spell specifically states that it does 1d6 bludgeoning damage, I'm just tossing around an alternate idea that I would house rule as a GM. Sure, it makes the spell slightly more powerful, but in my opinon there should be some thing that makes this more powerful than just a light crossbow.

The Concordance

Captain collateral damage wrote:
The last two answers were answers to questions already sort of said on the thread. I understand that the spell specifically states that it does 1d6 bludgeoning damage, I'm just tossing around an alternate idea that I would house rule as a GM. Sure, it makes the spell slightly more powerful, but in my opinon there should be some thing that makes this more powerful than just a light crossbow.

I consider it better than a crossbow because I don't need to load it, it weighs nothing, it has some fun side effects (throwing things like thunderstones), it isn't technically subject to Firing into Melee penalty since it isn't a ray or weapon like spell, etc.

Scarab Sages

ShieldLawrence wrote:
it isn't technically subject to Firing into Melee penalty since it isn't a ray or weapon like spell, etc.

It absolutely is subject to the firing into melee penalty.

Sczarni

^ good find.

Now we just have to find a Developer quote that overrides the Developer quote stating that Developer quotes don't count for anything.


^ No need. The Developer quote stating that Developer quotes don't count for anything is a Developer quote and therefore doesn't count for anything.


Why not carry around 50 copper pieces. 50 copper pieces only weights 1 lb. Besides being extremely cheap and easy, it's great that you can throw pennies at the villains for 1d6 damage.


FitzMalark wrote:
Why not carry around 50 copper pieces. 50 copper pieces only weights 1 lb. Besides being extremely cheap and easy, it's great that you can throw pennies at the villains for 1d6 damage.

100 pieces of chalk don't have a listed weight and only cost one gold. Great for marking invisible enemies too.


Since this thread is back, I'll mention that we now have a FAQ clarifying that Telekinetic Projectile does suffer from the usual ranged attack penalties such as the -4 penalty for firing into melee.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

What's the call on Telekinetic Projectile throwing things in others' possessions? I'd assume no, because a zero level spell automatically disarming a foe sounds powerful.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Telekinetic Projectile. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.