You are making an *ATTACK ROLL* against someone with one and not the other?
Not required by the rules. It's been pointed out to you many times that a reflex save is also a possibility, or a situation where a miss is impossible (the Indiana Jones example). And yet I'm the one accused of arguing for the sake of the argument...
I'd add that with a fixed DC to avoid a falling object, the elements of a direct attack are somewhat missing. In a direct attack, I would think that the aggressor would be either aiming via an attack roll or affecting the DC via spellcasting stat modifier, etc. If the DC to avoid a falling object is fixed, the agressor is less involved with the actual result and only indirectly involved in the outcome (compare with trap trigger).
|
I guess dropping a boulder on somebody isn't murder then. (looks up)
And maybe that's not even war if you just happen to 'position' your planes so that the bombs roll out above your 'non-target's' cities. Gravity did it.
A lot of countries would consider it an act of war for your planes to be in their airspace at all, whether you shower them with bombs, or birthday invitations.
I believe that falling objects require an attack roll (if your are throwing it down) or a Reflex save (if it is simply dropped). Not both.
The former will break invisibility, the latter will not.
The idea that I could drop a 5x5 boulder into someone's square and then have it completely miss them and deal no damage because I didn't "make an attack roll" is patently ridiculous.
|
I believe that falling objects require an attack roll (if your are throwing it down) or a Reflex save (if it is simply dropped). Not both.
The former will break invisibility, the latter will not.
The idea that I could drop a 5x5 boulder into someone's square and then have it completely miss them and deal no damage because I didn't "make an attack roll" is patently ridiculous.
As has been pointed out, the idea that you can lift a 5x5 boulder with telekinesis is patently ridiculous.
As has been pointed out, the idea that you can lift a 5x5 boulder with telekinesis is patently ridiculous.I believe that falling objects require an attack roll (if your are throwing it down) or a Reflex save (if it is simply dropped). Not both.
The former will break invisibility, the latter will not.
The idea that I could drop a 5x5 boulder into someone's square and then have it completely miss them and deal no damage because I didn't "make an attack roll" is patently ridiculous.
I never mentioned telekinesis in my post so I don't see how it has any baring on my comment whatsoever.
As has been pointed out, the idea that you can lift a 5x5 boulder with telekinesis is patently ridiculous.
A paper-mache boulder, or a soap-bubble boulder then.
The discussion at hand hinges on the dropping, not the object dropped.
I guess dropping a boulder on somebody isn't murder then. (looks up)
And maybe that's not even war if you just happen to 'position' your planes so that the bombs roll out above your 'non-target's' cities. Gravity did it.(...)
In short, your post was nothing but a straw man filled with nasty words that had no relevancy to the discussion and were only intended to make people react viscerally and derail the train of logic.
I submit myself to appropriate punishment for using 'nasty words'.
Is a 5 year ban appropriate? Or does not agreeing with you necessitate more than that?Seriously, it seems like you're getting pissy because people are taking the topic in directions not conducive to the logic you use to support your argument. Guess what: people are entitled to do so, you don't get to define the entire frame of debate even if you find it preferable to constrain discussion to the aspects which support your position.
Personally, I don't find the action/non-action distinction relevant to define 'targeting' (besides the fact that ending a spell IS an action anyways), and think moving objects into position for an intended effect is just as much 'targeting' as aiming an acid flask at a square is, and isn't fundamentally different than shooting a bow, which involves arranging the bow and arrow to point to the target and then releasing the string. What does 'targetting' mean? I would say arranging for something to be effected by an effect, e.g. to target/effect A but not B. Moving an object above A but not B would satisfy that requirement. I would also count Delayed Blast Fireballs as attacks when they trigger.
I never said your position has ABSOLUTELY no merit, or that you are 'wrong', I've just presented my position.
I find absolutely nothing 'nasty' in my post.
Feel free to report it to the management if you are so aggrieved.
Seriously, it seems like you're getting pissy because people are taking the topic in directions not conducive to the logic you use to support your argument.
You're reading way too much into it.
Simple fact: your statements had 0% relevance to the matter at hand and were filled with "loaded" words (what I referred to as "nasty" words -- meaning not curses or impolite or any of that, but viscerally negative in meaning); "bombs", "murder", "war". They were a straw-man, and a pretty blatant one.
I havn't gotten "pissy". If anything, your reply is a dozen times pissier than my post.
PS. Ending concentration on a spell is not an action. Dismissing a spell is a standard action, but ceasing to concentrate is not an action at all. If it was an action, especially a standard action as it was stated, then you would either never be able to be interrupted when it wasn't your turn, or you would lose your next turn's standard action when you failed a concentration check. You're right that it's not relevant to the matter at hand, but james keeps saying that it's a standard action, so I keep refuting it.
If you want to drop a object on a target to actually hit them then you would have to aim, make a touch attack and as a result become visible.
Can you please cite to me where in the rules this is stated? EDIT: I apologize if you've already done so, but I believe that a re-citation at this point would be useful either way.
Well if you want to aim what you are dropping to actually hit something then yeah it would be a standard action.
Would that mean if there was a cave-in it wouldn't hit me unless the cave made an attack roll?
Seriously, if something about as large as the square you are in are falling into that square, you're going to get hit whether or not it was aimed at you or not, unless you move.
Dropping an object on a creature requires a ranged touch attack. Such attacks generally have a range increment of 20 feet. If an object falls on a creature (instead of being thrown), that creature can make a DC 15 Reflex save to halve the damage if he is aware of the object.
This is saying something different than I've seen you state. Your statement is that it always requires a ranged touch attack and, if it falls a certain distance, also has a reflex save for half. What it actually says is that objects that are thrown down at a creature require a ranged touch attack, while objects that fall on a creature require a Reflex save. Which is what other people have been telling you.
Dropping objects, in general, doesn't hit anyone... you have to aim to do so. Just as you have to pick a square to fire a crossbow bolt into rather than pick a line in order to hit an invisible target, so must you aim to hit someone by dropping an object. Even if the target is really in the square in front of your targeted square, if you pick the wrong square and fire your crossbow, you miss.
-James
So let's use another, slightly different example.
Hiro the level 1 commoner is climbing up a slanted (let's say 30 degree incline) 5' diameter stone tunnel (which has sides at least 1' in thickness). Unknown to him, Wizz the Villain has already sealed the bottom of the tunnel with a stone shape and is levitating a 4.9999' diameter spherical rock into place at the other side of the tunnel. He then dismisses the spell he was using to levitate the rock, causing it to fall into the tunnel and roll inevitably down towards Hiro. Does this break Wizz's invisibility spell? Clearly, no attack roll is needed, as there is literally no possible way for Hiro to avoid the rock.
Dropping an object on a creature requires a ranged touch attack. Such attacks generally have a range increment of 20 feet. If an object falls on a creature (instead of being thrown), that creature can make a DC 15 Reflex save to halve the damage if he is aware of the object.This is saying something different than I've seen you state. Your statement is that it always requires a ranged touch attack and, if it falls a certain distance, also has a reflex save for half. What it actually says is that objects that are thrown down at a creature require a ranged touch attack, while objects that fall on a creature require a Reflex save. Which is what other people have been telling you.No. It would be both. If you are throwing an object at someone you would be making a normal attack (i.e. throwing a spear, etc) and that's dealt with under the falling objects section!
1. Dropping an object on a creature requires a ranged touch attack. Period. If you wish to hit them by dropping the object, you must make a ranged touch attack.
2. If the creature is aware of the object the creature can make a REF save to halve the damage. This does not mean that the creature is automatically hit!! It just means that if they are hit, but were aware of the object falling on them they can halve the damage.
This is, to be blunt, not what the rules state. You're combining the two even though the rules don't tell you to.
And perhaps it does no damage to Hiro, perhaps it crushes him to death, perhaps it pins him like an avalanche. Does he get a REF save to avoid any of that? Would bonuses to TRAPs apply?
All completely irrelevant. You claim that dropping an object on a person always requires an attack roll or it misses, and that because it requires an attack roll it breaks invisibility. None of those things have anything to do with attack rolls.
Personally that seems better modeled as a trap imho.
But it isn't a trap at all in the mechanical sense. It's an emergent situation.
Also I figure that a 75th level caster could do more damaging things, don't you?
Here is where you lose me. Where the bleeding hell did you get that from? I never mentioned Wizz's caster level and he isn't doing anything that would require him to be higher than the level needed to cast stone shape. As a 4th level wizard spell, he'd need to be 7th level and thus could shape 17 cubic feet of stone. He wouldn't need to use nearly that much to seal off the undescribed entrance to a 5' wide tunnel. A grate a couple inches thick would be more than enough to prevent Hiro from breaking through it.
No. It would be both. If you are throwing an object at someone you would be making a normal attack (i.e. throwing a spear, etc) and that's dealt with under the falling objects section!1. Dropping an object on a creature requires a ranged touch attack. Period. If you wish to hit them by dropping the object, you must make a ranged touch attack.
2. If the creature is aware of the object the creature can make a REF save to halve the damage. This does not mean that the creature is automatically hit!! It just means that if they are hit, but were aware of the object falling on them they can halve the damage.
I was wrong about the distance requirement, not sure where I got that from. Mea culpa. Probably confusing it in my mind with if it falls less than 30feet it does half damage. Sorry about that.
-James
From d20pfsrd - Falling:
Dropping an object on a creature requires a ranged touch attack. Such attacks generally have a range increment of 20 feet. If an object falls on a creature (instead of being thrown), that creature can make a DC 15 Reflex save to halve the damage if he is aware of the object. Falling objects that are part of a trap use the trap rules instead of these general guidelines.The circumstances dictate whether you have a ranged touch attack or a Reflex save. One implies aiming (ranged touch attack), the other implies not aiming (Reflex save) but depends on the square(s) affected (compare with AoE spells).
That is how you guys are reading it, however I disagree.Dropping an object on a creature is NOT throwing it. The two lines are not two different situations, but the same one.
When you DROP an object on a creature the object FALLS on the creature and is not being THROWN.
Is my English incorrect here? I'm not thinking so.
Think about it for a second, you are claiming that a target with a touch AC of 50 but doesn't have evasion is automatically hit by everything dropped on them! It doesn't even pass the 'is this reasonable' test.
-James
I agree, it does not seem reasonable, unless being hit is somehow a foregone conclusion. I'll concede that an attack roll is in order. Now how do we determine the ranged touch attack modifiers in the case of a TK spell for which concentration is no longer being considered? Are they static as with a trap, or are they caster-involved calculations?
I would go through the following line of reasoning:Simply ceasing concentration is not controlling or aiming in any fashion. It would not get the benefits of actually trying to drop the thing on someone's head.
Likewise the time of the fall is not directly controlled like it would be in the case of a trap, which would be carefully constructed (likely with a pressure plate, etc).
To me the item would fall harmlessly, much like you would treat a disarm attempt causing a weapon to fall. You don't have that make a chance to hit someone, so why give it to this?
Likewise simply dropping something from a height without aiming is going to always miss in D&D, so it is consistent.
Does that seem reasonable? As reasonable as attacking creatures in opposite sides of you with a longspear while in a 5' wide corridor during a full attack action. As reasonable as automatically missing a target down a 5' corridor because you can't see them and aimed for the square directly behind them instead of the one that they were in... et cetera.
-James
That seems reasonable. And should not void Invisibility.
Now how about the splash capability from that urn of Green Slime that somehow dropped outta the sky?
|
|
I never mentioned telekinesis in my post so I don't see how it has any baring on my comment whatsoever.As has been pointed out, the idea that you can lift a 5x5 boulder with telekinesis is patently ridiculous.I believe that falling objects require an attack roll (if your are throwing it down) or a Reflex save (if it is simply dropped). Not both.
The former will break invisibility, the latter will not.
The idea that I could drop a 5x5 boulder into someone's square and then have it completely miss them and deal no damage because I didn't "make an attack roll" is patently ridiculous.
Oh, sorry for assuming that in a thread titled "TELEKINESIS AND INVISIBILITY" you were talking about... telekinesis. It's quite confusing when people pop in talking about similar but completely different subjects in the middle of a thread.
|
|
Simply ceasing concentration is not controlling or aiming in any fashion. It would not get the benefits of actually trying to drop the thing on someone's head.
There are no rules in the game for the chances of an unaimed object hitting someone so there is no point in arguing about what the rules say about it. If we're talking about dropping a large less dense object then you can probably assume the DC 15 reflex save to avoid it but a large dense object does less damage.
I would have to assume that an un-aimed smaller object would have an easier save DC. So the 375lbs rock much have a DC 10 reflex save to avoid. This is what I would suggest as a GM on the fly but ultimately it's a judgement call at your table because it's just not covered in the rules. Maybe you think the chance is lower.
In the end it's probably not enough damage to bypass your typical opponents DR even if you are talking about the rock hitting.
No. It would be both.
No, it wouldn't.
You have him levitating a 7500lb object don't you?
He gave a size, not a weight. Try not to make such assumptions as it only serves to derail the discussion at hand.
Oh, sorry for assuming that in a thread titled "TELEKINESIS AND INVISIBILITY" you were talking about... telekinesis. It's quite confusing when people pop in talking about similar but completely different subjects in the middle of a thread.
I wasn't talking about telekinesis. I was talking about falling objects and invisibility, which some of the discussion has turned towards. A giant could just as easily have dropped a boulder as a wizard could have used a spell.
Please don't be insulting. I dis nothing to warrant your hostile-looking caps. Also, try not to give in to assumptions either. They usually lead to miscommunications and other problems.
And earlier in the thread Ogre gave a weight to that object, which was never disputed so I took it as valid. Something wrong with reading the entire thread and using what was presented therein?
Anyway, its an aside to the main issue to begin with... which would be that as described it would not hit the target, and in order to hit the target it would need an attack roll which would break the invisibility.
-James
Applying what one poster says to what another poster has said is not only bad form, but also makes no sense in practical communication.
Applying what one poster says to what another poster has said is not only bad form, but also makes no sense in practical communication.
Sorry to offend you. I personally call it a conversation.
You figure out the weight of a 5' diameter rock, and we'll go with that. Or don't if that would offend you as well.
Suit yourself,
James
Again with the assumptions! Or is it that you make a practice of shading what a person says to support your own words?
I have yet to be offended in this discussion, though the manner in which you and Ogre communicate confounds me somewhat.
Well I guess I have no idea what the hell you're saying.
It's bad form to use things established in a thread within that same thread??
How about being called on using TK for something WAY to heavy to TK, and then changing up to another spell that the same object is still WAY too heavy for? Personally it seemed a VERY valid, and reasonable thing to reference. Why don't you think so?
So I'm sorry, I don't know where you're coming from or what your point, if anything, is here. Are you suggesting that it was Ogre's place to do so and I somehow stepped on his toes? (If so, shouldn't the same logic mean that he, not you, should call me on this?) So, no I don't follow whatever etiquette that you believe exists here that somehow I've committed some faux pas in your eyes.
The main issue is that if you are trying to drop something on someone you need to make a ranged touch attack which will cause you to break invisibility. Not a REF save, but a ranged touch attack. The target might ALSO get a REF save, but it's not an either or kinda thing (as you and others have stated, despite my quoting the passage and providing a link to it).
Simply letting something fall is not sufficient to hit them, which led us to Zurai's psuedo-trap that involved a spell that can lift 100lbs/level trying to hold up a 5' diameter rock (that looks to weigh in at multiple tons). But if he would go on to take the damage from the falling objects section then he's going to need to make a touch attack and go visible. If he wishes to claim (as he does) an auto-hit then he has to model it after something else entirely.
Now is it alright that I mention this to you, after all you're not Zurai? Or am I continuing to post 'in bad form' whatever you happen to mean by...
It's plenty clear that you disagree with Zurai and I on how the falling object rules work. Rather than backup your argument, however, you either (1) cling to the same rules text despite people telling you that you are mis-reading its meaning and (2) go off and find some other irrelevant topic to discredit.
Even if Zurai and I HAD given an obscene weight to the falling object in question or specifically stated we were using telekinesis, it would make little difference. Replace the boulder with something lighter, or the spell with a giant pushing the object off a cliff and our arguments would remain the same (which is that the victim is NOT protected by his armor class AND his saving throw and that running it in the manner you describe makes little to no sense in a number of circumstances--one of which Zurai was kind enough to provide [though the situation he described did strike me as a little contrived]).
You sir, are simply throwing straw man after straw man.
|
|
I wasn't talking about telekinesis. I was talking about falling objects and invisibility, which some of the discussion has turned towards. A giant could just as easily have dropped a boulder as a wizard could have used a spell.
If you are going to break context you should do it explicitly rather than correcting someone for assuming you are sticking to the subject matter. Dropping a rock physically IS different from releasing focus on a spell.
Please don't be insulting. I dis nothing to warrant your hostile-looking caps. Also, try not to give in to assumptions either. They usually lead to miscommunications and other problems.
I do apologize about the tone of my message. In retrospect starting any post with sarcasm is in poor taste.
As for CAPS, kindly refer to the thread title which I quoted via cut and paste.
As for CAPS, kindly refer to the thread title which I quoted via cut and paste.
Haha. Sorry, it hadn't occurred to me that you may have simply copied the title.
Great. Find rules for 'emergent situations' in there somewhere. They aren't directly modeled now are they?
This is quite silly.There literally cannot be rules for an emergent situation. That's the very definition of an emergent situation -- it's something that emerges as a result of rules interacting in a way that was not explicitly designed. Saying "but there aren't any rules for an emergent situation!" is laughable. An emergent behavior or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective.
Emergent situations are the results of the interactions of basic rules. In this case, an inescapable falling object.
So either you elect to use the rules for falling object traps, objects being dropped by someone, or something else. But whatever you do use, you need to do in a decent way. Imho, the way you have it set up it is most closely approximated by a trap. YMMV.
You use the rules for falling objects. There are two such possibilities: either a ranged touch attack or a reflex save.
You have him levitating a 7500lb object don't you? Now mind you I'm trusting Ogre's math on that which you never refuted, so if there is error there then the two of you can work that out.
...
PS: And Zurai came up with the other contrived scenario it just had the same exact problem with it that his prior one did for which Ogre called him out on. I still don't see what's wrong with doing the same exact thing while addressing the situation, why do you?
First, yes I did refute Ogre's argument, by way of pointing out that it's utterly irrelevant what is being levitated.
Second, I never stated what Wizz was using to levitate the rock, nor the composition of the rock. Why? Because it's irrelevant to the discussion, and you know it. If you simply must know, he's using Wizz's rock mover, a variant of telekinesis that can only be used to lift and move rocks, but can affect up to 1 ton of rock per caster level.You know that your argument doesn't stand up to the example, so you're desperately throwing out straw men and every other logical fallacy you can come up with to try to derail it. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
I'm on Zurai's side for this one. The example I'd use is flaming sphere. If you direct flaming sphere to a specific area containing an enemy, you're not losing invisibility. Your command to the sphere is just to change location -- you didn't instruct the sphere to attack. It automatically does that where it goes.
Likewise, you're directing where the telekinesis rock drops. You tell the rock where to drop, but you don't actually instruct the rock to attack. The direction it drops (the attack roll) is decided by you, but the spell you're using doesn't directly deal damage (it just holds a rock up).
And as you are currently reading it, you need not have a tunnel or a form fitting object. EVERY dropped object automatically hits everything that doesn't have evasion in its path as you read things!
And the way you're reading it, EVERY object that is not aimed and isn't a trap automatically misses. Frankly, that's ludicrous.
My apologies, I was misreading the 3.5 FAQ. I think a more applicable example would be the flaming sphere creating a fire that engulfs foes. The spell effect indirectly causes the damage.
In the case of telekinesis dropping a rock, the damage from the spell is indirectly related to lifting the rock with the spell. Gravity actually propels the rock to the earth.
PC A misses with a projectile weapon against a target. What chance does he have to hit someone nearby?
Now 3.0 had rules for hitting cover, but they were removed in 3.5. This is what you are wanting here.
No, it's one of your strawmen. Missing with a ranged weapon has nothing to do with falling objects. When you miss with a ranged weapon, you've already rolled an attack roll and missed. No attack roll has been made for an undirected falling object. By your rules, avalanches, meteors, hail, and so on will all magically miss all creatures 100% of the time, because they are not aimed and don't make attack rolls.
You still haven't gone through the section on dropping objects on someone. Its four small sentences. It's can't take you that long.
In return, you still havn't gone through the scenario I gave you. It can't take that long.