Telekinesis and Invisibility


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Do attacks made with telekinesis count as "direct" attacks for the purpose of breaking invisibility? One could argue that an object hurled with that spell is as much an indirect attack as a summoned monster or mage's sword spell. Thoughts?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
FallingIcicle wrote:
Do attacks made with telekinesis count as "direct" attacks for the purpose of breaking invisibility? One could argue that an object hurled with that spell is as much an indirect attack as a summoned monster or mage's sword spell. Thoughts?

It's about as direct as shooting an arrow.

Sovereign Court

Your spell will directly affect the target as a result of the magic used, the moment it is cast.

So yes.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
FallingIcicle wrote:
Do attacks made with telekinesis count as "direct" attacks for the purpose of breaking invisibility? One could argue that an object hurled with that spell is as much an indirect attack as a summoned monster or mage's sword spell. Thoughts?

The moment you take an offensive action that requires a target, you break Invisibility. to hurl an object at someone you've picked a target and rolled a to hit roll, the moment the attack is made, you've broke invisibility. It's a slam dunk ruling in this case.

Dark Archive

What if you were to use the telekinesis to lift a large object over an enemy's head and then just stop using the telekinesis so that it falls on them?

Sovereign Court

Yep, that still counts.


Morgen wrote:
Yep, that still counts.

Actually, no, it doesn't.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Zurai wrote:
Morgen wrote:
Yep, that still counts.
Actually, no, it doesn't.

I'm inclined to agree with Zurai on this one.

Shadow Lodge

This is why you let your summoned Shadow Demon do all your telekinesis for you.

I'm inclined to agree with Zurai that dropping an object would not drop invisibility but then the subsequent attack roll would likely be lower (or maybe a reflex save would be more appropriate?) and the damage would probably be lower as well.

This brings up an interesting question though. Would transmute rock to mud above a creature break invisibility? It's very similar to dropping things with telekinesis, it's an indirect attack.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
0gre wrote:

This is why you let your summoned Shadow Demon do all your telekinesis for you.

I'm inclined to agree with Zurai that dropping an object would not drop invisibility but then the subsequent attack roll would likely be lower (or maybe a reflex save would be more appropriate?) and the damage would probably be lower as well.

This brings up an interesting question though. Would transmute rock to mud above a creature break invisibility? It's very similar to dropping things with telekinesis, it's an indirect attack.

I might be mistaken, but I think falling object rules allow a reflex save rather than an attack roll.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
I might be mistaken, but I think falling object rules allow a reflex save rather than an attack roll.

It depends on what is falling. Essentially you have used telekenisis to improvised trap. If you designed a crude falling stone block trap, it would be a melee attack. If you design a tiny cave in type trap then it would be a reflex save.

Either way it probably should not be a very effective attack, in comparison to actually directing the attack.


Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:

Your spell will directly affect the target as a result of the magic used, the moment it is cast.

So yes.

If I use telekinesis to fling the creature itself, then it is the target of the spell and that would certainly be a direct attack, no question. But if I use telekinesis on an object to fling that at the creature, isn't the target of the spell the object? Sounds kind of similar to summoning a creature and having it attack, or casting mordenkainen's sword and having it attack, or cutting a rope and having a chandalier fall on someone.

Sovereign Court

Quote:
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

I would say that using the Combat Manuever or Violent Thrust aspect of the spell cause the invisibility to cease. However if you were using the Sustained Force aspect of TK to move a cauldron of hot oil above an enemy then cease concentration you do not terminate your Invisibility.

The falling object would have a chance to hit (attack roll) OR give a Reflex save but it is not directed nor rolled by the Invisible Telekineticist. The DM would assign a to hit and roll or assign the DC.

--Vrock Slide!


Needs More Zasz wrote:
What if you were to use the telekinesis to lift a large object over an enemy's head and then just stop using the telekinesis so that it falls on them?

'So that it falls on them'

If you are attacking them, you become visible.

If you are merely dropping the object, then the object falls into the square of the enemy doing no damage.

People confuse the damage guidelines for deadfall traps and the like. Then they come to absurd results and claim some kind of victory over the system.

If you are attacking then you become visible, if you are not attacking then you're not going to hit them.

-James


james maissen wrote:
If you are attacking then you become visible, if you are not attacking then you're not going to hit them.

That's fortunately not what the rules state.


Zurai wrote:
james maissen wrote:
If you are attacking then you become visible, if you are not attacking then you're not going to hit them.
That's fortunately not what the rules state.

The rules state:

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.

So go take your acid damage with some old 1e Ranger giant type damage to boot.

-James

Sovereign Court

It's no different that using TK to spring a trap you already know is there.

For example your party rogue has managed to bypass the pressure plate trigger of the scything blades of doom trap. You run into a random encounter in the next corridor and decide to fall back from the Troll into the trapped hallway. As you retreat you cast invisibily sphere on the party, but the hungry Troll is using it's Scent to follow you. As it enters the danger zone of the trap you use TK to "step" on the pressure plate with a Sustained Force. BOOM Trap is set off, Troll is hit for 300d6 of damage and your party remains invisible.

The trap is making the attack, not you. In my earlier example gravity brings the floating cauldron of boiling liquid splashing down (which I would give a DC 20 Reflex).

--Masterwork Vrock Picks


james maissen wrote:
Zurai wrote:
james maissen wrote:
If you are attacking then you become visible, if you are not attacking then you're not going to hit them.
That's fortunately not what the rules state.

The rules state:

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.

And the rules for invisibility specifically state that indirect attacks do not reveal the invisible person. Ceasing to concentrate on a spell is not a direct attack. If that spell is holding up a dangerous object above an unsuspecting person, it would be an indirect attack. Which is specifically allowed by invisibility.


Zurai wrote:


And the rules for invisibility specifically state that indirect attacks do not reveal the invisible person. Ceasing to concentrate on a spell is not a direct attack. If that spell is holding up a dangerous object above an unsuspecting person, it would be an indirect attack. Which is specifically allowed by invisibility.

Yeah, like dismissing your Wall of Force to let that acid pool flow freely into the chamber that just so happens to contain an enemy.


Zurai wrote:


And the rules for invisibility specifically state that indirect attacks do not reveal the invisible person. Ceasing to concentrate on a spell is not a direct attack. If that spell is holding up a dangerous object above an unsuspecting person, it would be an indirect attack. Which is specifically allowed by invisibility.

Yes, but dropping an object on a target to actually hit them for that damage requires a touch attack. That's a direct attack buddy. QED.

-James


james maissen wrote:


Yes, but dropping an object on a target to actually hit them for that damage requires a touch attack. That's a direct attack buddy. QED.

-James

Either an attack roll or reflex save, just like you quoted above. In this case, a reflex save.

I'd say the difference is in amount of targeting involved. If you're standing on a ledge, holding a boulder and dropping it exactly when the opponent is below - it&#836;'s an attack roll. If you have a bunch of rocks in a net above the enemy and cut the net - it's a reflex save to avoid.


james maissen wrote:

Yes, but dropping an object on a target to actually hit them for that damage requires a touch attack. That's a direct attack buddy. QED.

-James

How is this any different from remotely triggering a deadfall trap, which is specifically and explicitly allowed by invisibility?


stringburka wrote:
james maissen wrote:


Yes, but dropping an object on a target to actually hit them for that damage requires a touch attack. That's a direct attack buddy. QED.

-James

Either an attack roll or reflex save, just like you quoted above. In this case, a reflex save.

I'd say the difference is in amount of targeting involved. If you're standing on a ledge, holding a boulder and dropping it exactly when the opponent is below - it&#836;'s an attack roll. If you have a bunch of rocks in a net above the enemy and cut the net - it's a reflex save to avoid.

Actually reread the quoted passage, it's always an attack roll.

There's ALSO a REF save if it's dropped rather than thrown (and the target can see it coming).

And it's an attack against the target and breaks invisibility for the guy trying to drop the rock in that fashion.

-James


Zurai wrote:
james maissen wrote:

Yes, but dropping an object on a target to actually hit them for that damage requires a touch attack. That's a direct attack buddy. QED.

-James

How is this any different from remotely triggering a deadfall trap, which is specifically and explicitly allowed by invisibility?

How's making an attack different from remotely triggering a device?

Call your held crossbow a 'trap' that's being 'remotely' triggered by that lever on it that others call a 'trigger'...

You're making a touch *attack* and you are using your BAB, etc to do so. Is that too complicated a scenario for you to comprehend?

You cast a fireball and the target just *happens* to be in the area. Why should that break invisibility? After all you're just casting the fireball, it's the fireball that's burning the target...

Sheesh. Find something worthwhile to argue, there are enough ambiguous things in D&D.

-James

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Needs More Zasz wrote:
What if you were to use the telekinesis to lift a large object over an enemy's head and then just stop using the telekinesis so that it falls on them?

Because unless you use an actual attack roll, it's an automatic miss unless the enemy in question is just sitting around scratching it's privates instead of actively defending itself.

The moment you take an action (and dropping telekinesis is an action even if it's a Free one) to do damage to someone you drop invisibility. Because that's the way the spell works, not based on science, but intent.


LazarX wrote:
The moment you take an action (and dropping telekinesis is an action even if it's a Free one) to do damage to someone you drop invisibility. Because that's the way the spell works, not based on science, but intent.

This is false. Dealing damage does not cause you to lose invisibility. Making a direct attack does. You can deal damage to someone without making a direct attack. For example, dispelling a wall of force that was holding back a lava stream. It is an action performed by you that results in damage to another creature, but it is not an attack nor a spell that targets a foe or includes a foe in its area.


The spell states, "The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature."

There's nothing in there about direct vs indirect attacks, it simply says -attacks-.

So, if you drop a rock on someone's head with the intent to harm them, is it either a direct attack or an indirect attack? I'd say "yes". So, it drops the invisibility.


LilithsThrall wrote:
There's nothing in there about direct vs indirect attacks, it simply says -attacks-.
Invisibility wrote:
Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.

Sure seems like the spell references direct and indirect attacks to me. Maybe you should read a little more closely before making blanket statements next time.


Zurai wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
There's nothing in there about direct vs indirect attacks, it simply says -attacks-.
Invisibility wrote:
Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.
Sure seems like the spell references direct and indirect attacks to me. Maybe you should read a little more closely before making blanket statements next time.

I really should have read that spell description rather than just skim it.


Zurai wrote:


This is false. Dealing damage does not cause you to lose invisibility. Making a direct attack does.

A direct attack.. like firing a crossbow bolt at them, casting a fireball, or dropping a rock on a target...

-James


james maissen wrote:
Zurai wrote:


This is false. Dealing damage does not cause you to lose invisibility. Making a direct attack does.

A direct attack.. like firing a crossbow bolt at them, casting a fireball, or dropping a rock on a target...

-James

What's the difference between dropping a rock on a target by ceasing to concentrate on levitation and dropping a rock on a target by triggering a deadfall trap when they're beneath it?

EDIT: Actually, you could make a much better argument for triggering the trap being an active, direct attack than you could for ceasing concentration.


Zurai wrote:


What's the difference between dropping a rock on a target by ceasing to concentrate on levitation and dropping a rock on a target by triggering a deadfall trap when they're beneath it?

EDIT: Actually, you could make a much better argument for triggering the trap being an active, direct attack than you could for ceasing concentration.

I haven't really bothered to argue about the trap triggering.

I figure the fact that you are making an attack counts as making an attack. I'm kinda silly that way.

Here's a fun question for you:
PC A is flying above NPC B. He quick draws one of 100 daggers he has in bandoleers then drops it. Does it hit NPC B without an attack? This a free action to make this attack? Baring the DM limiting the number of free actions allowed in a round, rinse repeat...

Now go have fun with it,

James
PS: For fun, PC A is disarmed by a flying NPC C. Who's BAB is used to make the touch attack on NPC B down below?


james maissen wrote:
I figure the fact that you are making an attack counts as making an attack. I'm kinda silly that way.

But making an attack doesn't automatically drop invisibility. Making a direct attack does. A direct attack is defined as follows:

  • Any spell targeted at a foe.
  • Any spell that includes a foe in its area of effect that does not only affect allies.
  • No actions directed at unattended objects are attacks.
  • Causing harm indirectly is not an attack.
  • Opening doors, talking, eating, climbing stairs, summoning monsters and ordering them to attack, cutting the ropes holding up a bridge while enemies are on the bridge, and remotely triggering traps are all not attacks.

    So, first, telekinesis is directed at an unattended object (the rock). Not an attack.
    Ceasing to concentrate on telekinesis is in and of itself not an attack.
    Indirectly dropping a rock on someone's head by pulling a cord is specifically allowed ("remotely triggering traps").
    Indirectly dropping a rock on someone's head by ceasing concentration on a spell is ...

    All logic points to "allowed".

  • Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Okay OP you've now heard the answers to your question as given by several people.

    You're now on your own as to choosing which one you want to go with.

    Good luck.


    Zurai wrote:


    Indirectly dropping a rock on someone's head by ceasing concentration on a spell is ...

    A standard action that is also something that requires an attack roll by you in order to hit them. It is thus a direct attack and breaks invisibility.

    Pulling a lever to trigger a trap that fires crossbow bolts into a square is one thing. The trap is making the attacks.

    Aiming at a target and then triggering a crossbow bolt to hit that target would break the invisibility as you are the one making the attack here.

    -James


    james maissen wrote:
    Zurai wrote:


    Indirectly dropping a rock on someone's head by ceasing concentration on a spell is ...
    A standard action

    False. It's actually not any kind of action at all.

    Quote:
    that is also something that requires an attack roll by you in order to hit them.

    Debatable, but OK.

    Quote:
    It is thus a direct attack and breaks invisibility.

    Not proven. Your conclusion does not follow from your hypotheses.

    Quote:
    Aiming at a target and then triggering a crossbow bolt to hit that target would break the invisibility as you are the one making the attack here.

    Who is aiming? No one has mentioned aiming with regards to this question except you. We're talking about dropping a 5' diameter rock onto a 5' square indirectly (ie, you're not actually standing there and holding the rock yourself, you're causing the rock to fall through indirect action).

    Shadow Lodge

    james maissen wrote:

    Here's a fun question for you:

    PC A is flying above NPC B. He quick draws one of 100 daggers he has in bandoleers then drops it. Does it hit NPC B without an attack? This a free action to make this attack? Baring the DM limiting the number of free actions allowed in a round, rinse repeat...

    You have to make a touch attack which is not a free action. Also, most GMs won't let you quick draw and drop 100 daggers in a round regardless of the RAW.

    I'm not entirely sure about the effect of using telekinesis to drop an object but lets put this in perspective here. You are burning a 5th level spell to do a maximum of 4d6 damage. That's right, the max damage you can do dropping something with TK is 4d6. As far as I'm concerned go to town with that. It's a fraction compared to the indirect damage you can do with Summon Monster. Heck use that same 5th level spell to summon 1d4+1 lantern archons and they are doing 4d6 per round minimum bypassing all DR.

    This is why I asked about rock to mud with is an area effect power that does a lot more indirect damage.

    Shadow Lodge

    Zurai wrote:
    Who is aiming? No one has mentioned aiming with regards to this question except you. We're talking about dropping a 5' diameter rock onto a 5' square indirectly (ie, you're not actually standing there and holding the rock yourself, you're causing the rock to fall through indirect action).

    Here I have to disagree with you. You cannot pick up a 5' diameter rock with telekinesis even at the highest level. 375 lbs is the max and a 5' diameter rock is much heavier than 375 lbs.

    There definitely has to be some aiming involved.

    Shadow Lodge

    Rock densities

    "A cubic yard of rock would weigh around 2,300 kilograms or about 5,000 pounds. "

    A 5' diameter rock is roughly 1.5 to 2 cubic yards or 7500 lbs, 20 times the weight you can lift with telekinesis.

    They suggest 94 lbs per cubic foot of rock so with TK you can pick up a cube of stone 1.6' per side.


    Just because this argument is pretty stupid anyway, let's make it dumber.

    Instead of a 5' piece of rock, you've got a latice-work of punji sticks.


    0gre wrote:
    Zurai wrote:
    Who is aiming? No one has mentioned aiming with regards to this question except you. We're talking about dropping a 5' diameter rock onto a 5' square indirectly (ie, you're not actually standing there and holding the rock yourself, you're causing the rock to fall through indirect action).

    Here I have to disagree with you. You cannot pick up a 5' diameter rock with telekinesis even at the highest level. 375 lbs is the max and a 5' diameter rock is much heavier than 375 lbs.

    There definitely has to be some aiming involved.

    Fine, "we're talking about dropping a 5' diameter object that would cause at least 1 point of damage if dropped that weighs 375 pounds or less". Whether that's a rock or a rabid were-ferret polymorphed into a large but very light cactus doesn't matter.

    For that matter, what if the rock were at the top of a slanted chute (ala Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom) that your enemies were climbing, such that they could not avoid being hit?


    My feel here is that there is a difference between holding a rock in your hand and letting it go while aiming it for someone's head, and holding a rock with your Telekinesis Spell and turning the spell off {while aiming it for someone's head from another vantage point}.

    It's the change of vantage that makes it INDIRECT. Now that particular vantage point might not necessarily be geographically dissimilar like my example, but some mechanism/technicality/situation creates separation, in this case, gravity, and this separation creates Indirectness.

    On the other side, though, if one were to mentally wind up with their telekinetic throwing stone, and pitch at someone's skull, that would be a direct attack and break Invisibility, regardless of directionality.

    Just an opinion. Isn't this where we discuss our opinions of mechanics and technicalities and situational modifiers?

    =)


    Invisibility wrote:
    Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear.

    It seems like the common element in all of the things listed is that there is some kind of intermediary between the attacker and his target, thus making it "indirect." If I cut the rope holding up a bridge, I'm attacking the rope, the fact that the rope is what is holding up the bridge is a secondary consequence on my action. Liekwise, if I summon a monster, the spell merely creates a creature, an intermediary, which then attacks for me. Thus, I am not attacking, the creature is.

    Taken to its extreme one could argue that if I pull the trigger on a crossbow, thats an indirect attack because that is merely springing the mechanism that happens ot shoot a bolt at someone. That line of thinking is clearly beyond what was intended by the rules. After thinking about this, I think I have determined a good way of definitively separating the two. That being, does the caster make an attack roll, the direct result of which is to harm or affect the target? In the case of a summoned monster, for example, the caster isn't making the attack roll, the summoned creature is, that is why it is an indirect attack. If I set off a trap, the trap is making the attack roll against its victims, not me. If I attack the rope holding up a bridge, the attack roll, and the result of that attack, the damage, are dealt to the rope, not the creatures on the bridge.

    So where does telekinesis fit into all of this? In the case of violent thrusts with telekinesis, this is clearly a direct attack. An attack roll is made, stuff is flung at the target and damage (or things like pinning, pushing, etc) is inflicted as a direct result of that attack roll. It shouldn't be considered to be any less direct of an attack than throwing an object yourself. So what about objects that are moved with sustained force and then dropped on the target? Again, we come back to the atatck roll. Is the caster making an attack roll in this case? I think he would be. After all, moving something above someone and dropping it is just as direct as throwing something at them. So IMO, that use of telekinesis would also be considered a direct attack and break invisibility.

    But it doesn't end there. If I use telekinesis (or anything else) to break off a stallagtite, chandalier or some other ceiling fixture which then falls on the target, that would, IMO, not be a direct attack. It's a subtle difference between lifting and dropping the stallagtite myself, but there is a difference.

    Thoughts?


    FallingIcicle wrote:

    So where does telekinesis fit into all of this? In the case of violent thrusts with telekinesis, this is clearly a direct attack. An attack roll is made, stuff is flung at the target and damage (or things like pinning, pushing, etc) is inflicted as a direct result of that attack roll. It shouldn't be considered to be any less direct of an attack than throwing an object yourself. So what about objects that are moved with sustained force and then dropped on the target? Again, we come back to the atatck roll. Is the caster making an attack roll in this case? I think he would be. After all, moving something above someone and dropping it is just as direct as throwing something at them. So IMO, that use of telekinesis would also be considered a direct attack and break invisibility.

    But it doesn't end there. If I use telekinesis (or anything else) to break off a stallagtite, chandalier or some other ceiling fixture which then falls on the target, that would, IMO, not be a direct attack. It's a subtle difference between lifting and dropping the stallagtite myself, but there is a difference.

    Thoughts?

    What's the distinction between ceasing concentration on telekinesis to drop a harmful object, and pulling a lever that causes an antimagic field to spring into effect on your telekinesis-held harmful object, dropping it? Why does one action (which is not actually even an action in mechanical terms) reveal you but the other does not, when both have identical in game results?


    @Zurai: The problem with your argument is that it is based solely on mechanics and logic. Logically and mechanically, there is no difference whatsoever between placing pressure on a crossbow trigger (a direct attack) and placing pressure on trap trigger (an indirect attack). The game says otherwise, however.

    Unlike IRL, the laws of a magical universe are allowed to take additional circumstances into account beyond the physical and logical. Intent is one of these additional factors. The magic that powers invisibility fails if you attack. Trying to 'logic' your way around that restriction always fails.

    Shadow Lodge

    Zurai wrote:
    0gre wrote:
    Zurai wrote:
    Who is aiming? No one has mentioned aiming with regards to this question except you. We're talking about dropping a 5' diameter rock onto a 5' square indirectly (ie, you're not actually standing there and holding the rock yourself, you're causing the rock to fall through indirect action).

    Here I have to disagree with you. You cannot pick up a 5' diameter rock with telekinesis even at the highest level. 375 lbs is the max and a 5' diameter rock is much heavier than 375 lbs.

    There definitely has to be some aiming involved.

    Fine, "we're talking about dropping a 5' diameter object that would cause at least 1 point of damage if dropped that weighs 375 pounds or less". Whether that's a rock or a rabid were-ferret polymorphed into a large but very light cactus doesn't matter.

    For that matter, what if the rock were at the top of a slanted chute (ala Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom) that your enemies were climbing, such that they could not avoid being hit?

    Hey I've got no trouble with dropping things, I just didn't like your 5' stone.


    If the "rock" (whatever it is you are dropping) is simply an unguided fall then it should be the DC 15 reflex save throw for avoiding a falling object. In this cause I would have it be the indirect attack and therefore not break invisibility (this would be the "cease concentration" that Zurai is talking about since you aren't aiming simply letting it fall in the general vicinity and hoping it people don't move).

    If you take the "dropping it on them" approach and roll to hit then I would go with the direct attack (since you are specifically trying to hit someone) and make it the attack roll.

    Both of these are supported by the falling item damage rules since it provides for both the reflex save in an unguide scenerio and an attack roll in the guide scenerio.


    Mynameisjake wrote:

    @Zurai: The problem with your argument is that it is based solely on mechanics and logic. Logically and mechanically, there is no difference whatsoever between placing pressure on a crossbow trigger (a direct attack) and placing pressure on trap trigger (an indirect attack). The game says otherwise, however.

    Unlike IRL, the laws of a magical universe are allowed to take additional circumstances into account beyond the physical and logical. Intent is one of these additional factors. The magic that powers invisibility fails if you attack. Trying to 'logic' your way around that restriction always fails.

    This is nothing but a cop-out. It's perfectly possible to use logic to determine the effects of invisibility. There is a logical, game mechanical difference between shooting a crossbow at someone and triggering a trap. When you're shooting a crossbow at someone, you're targeting that person with a direct attack. When you're triggering a trap (or ceasing to concentrate on a spell), you're not. That's the difference.


    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.


    Quandary wrote:

    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.

    Yes, because both of those are directly relevant to the discuss...

    Oh, wait, no, actually, neither of those are even remotely applicable.

    To be more specific:

    The question "is it murder" has no bearing on the question "is it a direct attack". You can murder someone with what the game considers an indirect attack for the purposes of invisibility.

    The question of a declaration of war via bombing also has no bearing on the question "is it a direct attack". Acts of war can be direct or indirect. Furthermore, dropping bombs out of a plane is a fundamentally different matter than remotely triggering a trap, not because of the level of technology, but because of level of involvement.

    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.

    1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Telekinesis and Invisibility All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.