im after an official clarification on whether telekinesis can be used in this way. in my gaming group we have a 14th level character ( 3 rogue, 6 sorcerer and 5 arcane tricster) and he uses the violent thrust option of telekinesis on arrows with greater magic weapon and flame arrow on them. with his current skills etc this works out as 11 attacks at a +12 to hit with each hit doing d4+d6+2. overall this means that if everything hits and he doesnt crit on any of them the average damage out put is 88. this doesnt even take into account his point blank shot feat and the fact that he is nearly always ivisible adding another 4d6 to the total damage.
i think the gm started to have a problem with this tactic when said character flew invisibly up to a beholder and hit it for 116 damage at the start of a fight, killing it out right before it even became aware of him.
any replies would be extremely helpful. though i am more interested in if this is a legal use of the 3 spells.
cheers, mark.
There is no real abuse for the 3 spells, it is a good combo but I think your DM is forgetting some things :
First Point Blank Shot works with weapons, not spells (even though some splat books say you can apply weapon-only feats to spells, I think it's better to avoid this kind of things).
Second, 11 flaming arrows might be enough to provide some light like a torch. When the PC is invisible and carrying the arrows, the source of light is invisible, but the light can be seen and therefore infiltration is more complex.
Third, don't forget that if the PC drops the arrows before he cast his Telekinesis spell, the arrows are no longer invisible and so bye bye sneak attack.
Geez, I hope not; I just gave one of my players a x3 telekinesis str ability 3/day.
|
His BAB is +7, so either he's got a +5 charisma bonus or he's counting the +3 of Greater Magic Weapon bonus, which he shouldn't;
"You must succeed on attack rolls (one per creature or object thrown) to hit the target with the items, using your base attack bonus + your Intelligence modifier (if a wizard) or Charisma modifier (if a sorcerer)." - that's the attack roll you have to use, no other bonuses are permitted.
Also, your DM should note that Telekenesis has a verbal component. Standing close behind somebody whilst chanting away might well give your position away; you can't cast and maintain your move silently.
Edit: Of course, the DM response to this should be to replace the BBEG with a team of BEGs. This tactic can really hurt a single opponent but it has no radius effect and it eats time and spells.
Anyway; I like this. You're level 14, you're supposed to be bad to the bone - the only issue is whether your arcane trickster is overshadowing the rest of the party.
in answer to this reply ive seen an official dnd book suggesting that you use point blank shot on spells, complete arcane i think it was.
secondly flame arrows only burst into flame when used offensively.
lastly the flame arrows spell is always cast before combat and normally energy substatuted for sonic effects.
some other points id like to make is that said arcane trickster is going to eventually get the energy admixture feat to bump the flame arrow (7th spell slot) and this will add another d6 to all of the attacks again! on top of that he is also looking forward to getting greater heroism (6th spell) to give him a further +4 to hit.
this whole situation just seems to snowball with additional effects every level gained
cheers, crabshtick.
There is no real abuse for the 3 spells, it is a good combo but I think your DM is forgetting some things :
First Point Blank Shot works with weapons, not spells (even though some splat books say you can apply weapon-only feats to spells, I think it's better to avoid this kind of things).
Second, 11 flaming arrows might be enough to provide some light like a torch. When the PC is invisible and carrying the arrows, the source of light is invisible, but the light can be seen and therefore infiltration is more complex.
Third, don't forget that if the PC drops the arrows before he cast his Telekinesis spell, the arrows are no longer invisible and so bye bye sneak attack.
uhhhhh...no...that player is definatly playing with the shady area of the rules. see the above post.
I would allow the idea.
The thing is if they kept doing it over and over they would soon encounter a BBEG with a reverse arrows spell (or whatever its called) on him/her so all those attacks would be automatically redirected back at the caster. It has limitations and if the player insists on using that strategy to beat all the bad guys then the bad guys must get tougher and smarter (at least on occasion) to provide a challenge.
I would also think that their to hit calculations need to be reviewed and that the DM needs to make them aware that they can use the combo but to abuse it means that the bad guys will use it and counter it. You don't want an arms race, you want fun and cooperation.
Edit: I also think it is a shady but use of the rules. And they should be discouraged from doing things the DM would think as "creative bending" unless they wanted to see what "creative bending" does from the DM's side of the board.
I play with a clear set of rules that provide the neccesary consistency for a good game. You break it then you deal with it.
I would allow the idea.
The thing is if they kept doing it over and over they would soon encounter a BBEG with a reverse arrows spell (or whatever its called) on him/her so all those attacks would be automatically redirected back at the caster. It has limitations and if the player insists on using that strategy to beat all the bad guys then the bad guys must get tougher and smarter (at least on occasion) to provide a challenge.I would also think that their to hit calculations need to be reviewed and that the DM needs to make them aware that they can use the combo but to abuse it means that the bad guys will use it and counter it. You don't want an arms race you want fun and cooperation.
ooorah.
|
I accidentally deleted my post.
Suffice to say that a 14th level wizard using maximized empowered scorching rays does more average damage.
I wouldn't allow the sneak because I don't think he has the control to go for 'precision damage'.
Otherwise, yes, the spell combination is generally good.
The last point (and others beat me to it) is that sonic should have the damage reduced by one die and that is why it isn't allowed as a substitution.
hi one and all,
well i think i may as well come clean as the player of this particular character. the reason that i brought this all up is that i myself was sleightly concerned at the level of power i seemed to have. i have no wish to overshadow the other players. however i loved the way my character had developed and didnt want my idea banned out right. this spell combo developed naturally through fighting lots of pesky drow, whos spell resistance i never seemed to get past.
some good points have been raised though.
firstly i think that energy substatution should be allowed but the die code drops from d6 to d4 like the orb spells for example.
someone said that the magical bonuses on the arrows shouldnt be allowed to add to the hit chance, is this a general concensus?
i am looking for ways to just tone down the overall effects so that some balance can be restored.
cheers, mark.
His BAB is +7, so either he's got a +5 charisma bonus or he's counting the +3 of Greater Magic Weapon bonus, which he shouldn't;
"You must succeed on attack rolls (one per creature or object thrown) to hit the target with the items, using your base attack bonus + your Intelligence modifier (if a wizard) or Charisma modifier (if a sorcerer)." - that's the attack roll you have to use, no other bonuses are permitted.
Anyway; I like this. You're level 14, you're supposed to be bad to the bone - the only issue is whether your arcane trickster is overshadowing the rest of the party.
good point on the bab as it is +7 and my cha is +3 dont know how i made 7+3+3 12 though!
cheers, mark.
|
|
i am looking for ways to just tone down the overall effects so that some balance can be restored.cheers, mark.
I think if you drop the energy sustitution and go with the RAW for attack bonus then that might well be what you need to balance it more.
+10 instead of +12 to hit.
a damage type that's more likely to encounter proofing.
making the DM aware that telekenesis has a verbal component, and so threatens your invisibility.
none of these things stops it being a bad-ass spell combo, but together they do rein it in a little bit.
Oh, and Crabshtik - if you want to quote people you can just click 'reply' to the top right of their post, then it all gets grey borders to delineate the quote from your post. Just makes everything easier to read.
|
|
I'm for the magic weapon not affecting the attack roll.
You're not using the weapon as 'intended'. So, if you used a sword, for instance, you're not swinging it, you're throwing it. Sure, it can still do damage, but no 'to hit' bonus for the magical nature since you're, essentially, using it wrong.
And it doesn't say you get a magic enhancement bonus on the attack roll in the spell description. I think that this is a situation where it would have said it if it had been allowed.
And the spell is an attack, so the moment you cast the spell, you cease to be invisible (just like if you made a normal melee attack). And while I don't have a problem with you attacking from invisible, in my campaign I certainly would not allow sneak attack damage based on the spell description.
thanx to everyone that responded, it has been very helpful. im going to ring up my gm in a little while and discuss where we take it from here.
cheers, mark.
Contributor
|
No offense, but with a +10 or +12 on each attack, he's very unlikely to hit with all of them at 14th level. Take a look at the AC of CR 14 monsters. You're looking at a 22-30 range (just browsing the MM). NPCs should be in a similar range. He'll be lucky to hit with more than half and in some cases with any. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
This is high level D&D. He could be casting Disintigrate or Finger of Death, after all. Or be a Charging, Smiting, Power Attacking mounted Paladin with a lance...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I remember pulling this trick in 2e with a paladin with a wild tk talent. It was cheesy and not entirely legal then too.
I'd dig around for a sage advice answer on this topic, but my recollection is that tk is not precise enough to emulate a weapon. The arrows shouldn't do their regular damage and the user of tk certainly shouldn't be able to apply any weapon-related feats to the use of tk in this manner.
I remember pulling this trick in 2e with a paladin with a wild tk talent. It was cheesy and not entirely legal then too.
I'd dig around for a sage advice answer on this topic, but my recollection is that tk is not precise enough to emulate a weapon. The arrows shouldn't do their regular damage and the user of tk certainly shouldn't be able to apply any weapon-related feats to the use of tk in this manner.
how do you contact sage advice? also arrow damage is reduced from a d6 to a d4. and in response to the previous post we ambushed the beholder. the whole party came in from different directions flying and i was the only invisible one, so id not get its anti-magic. we had all realised that with a beholders low ac id stand the best chance of killing it.
crabshtick.
What about flasks of acid or alchemist fire instead? Ranged touch plus additional effects.