Hi everyone.
I was wondering, if someone cast Telekinesis in Violent Thrust mode, (or similar spells like Sonic Thrust) to hurl diferent weapons or objects to one target, ¿Can be applied generic ranged weapon feats to this attacks?
Like "Point-blank Shot", "Precise Shot" or "Deadly Aim". (I assume that things like Rapid and Multi shot are beyond every imaginable limit).
Personally i would think that a rotund "no" should be the answer, but ... well, ask is cheap.
Sorry about my crap-english.
any idea ?
If it involves a ranged attack roll, then feats like point blank shot, precise shot, etc., should apply normally (just like 'shooting into melee would apply normally). Do note that Deadly Aim doesn't work with ranged touch attacks.
Since violent thrust just calls for ranged attack rolls, I'd guess all of those feats could apply.
But you are right, rapid shot and multishot can't be applied in this fashion due to how they work.
Incidentally does anyone disagree that, due to their weight to damage ratio, colossal-sized javelins (4d6 damage each) are the best weapons to hurl via telekinesis?
Incidentally does anyone disagree that, due to their weight to damage ratio, colossal-sized javelins (4d6 damage each) are the best weapons to hurl via telekinesis?
Disagree:) Medium chakrams are 1d8 damage and 1 lb.
Thanks for the tip! I thought it was a lost cause.
Yay, medium chakrams are far more usable with this than colossal jabalins, but even in that case i prefer use arrows, even being just 1d4, they are easy enough to carry around in every situation in your quiver and throw them to the ground easily. Chakrams are big enough to some DM to crap about where you are carying that sharp metal disks.
Of course if you have a dimensional bag and ten ultra-sized jabalins with ten ultra-sized corks in the points (to not broke the bag), well, you can go with them.
Thanks for the tip! I thought it was a lost cause.
Yay, medium chakrams are far more usable with this than colossal jabalins, but even in that case i prefer use arrows, even being just 1d4, they are easy enough to carry around in every situation in your quiver and throw them to the ground easily. Chakrams are big enough to some DM to crap about where you are carying that sharp metal disks.
Of course if you have a dimensional bag and ten ultra-sized jabalins with ten ultra-sized corks in the points (to not broke the bag), well, you can go with them.
Don't worry about that, I just expect a GM to do it as well, just doing it better, so better work on ways to defend against it if you want to use this tactic.
Disagree:) Medium chakrams are 1d8 damage and 1 lb.
But you're limited to 15 objects, so that'd be 15d8 at 15th level. How is that preferable to the 60d6 for 15 colossal javelins?
You should do collosal arrows and add flame arrows to them. Since they are ammo you can enchant all 50 of them with GMW too.
Yeah, though it'd cost you 166+ gp for each arrow and they'd only be useable once. And, being arrows, they'd only deal damage as colossal daggers; so that'd be roughly 1d10+1d6 fire damage each.
Of course if you have a dimensional bag and ten ultra-sized jabalins with ten ultra-sized corks in the points (to not broke the bag), well, you can go with them.
I simply bundle the javelins together and cast shrink item on the lot for easy portability.
yeah.. i was looking the Shrink item spell and don't say anything about bundles. You can use it fifteen times, of course!
The description also gives an example of shrinking a fire and it's fuel, but i supose in the case that the "fuel" is a single item, like a burning torch.
aaaand... Roaming shadow, look the description:
You can hurl a total weight of up to 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level).
(That one is with Sonic Thrust)
Because the total combined weight you can thrust is 25lbs.
Check the spell description: "You can hurl up to a total weight of 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level)."
Edit: Ninja'ed
How do you figure that?
First, your arrows have to masterwork so they can be made magical. To add the flaming enhancement they first need a +1; making them the equivalent of +2 weapons. So, for fifty +1 flaming colossal arrows it'd cost 8,312.5 gp; or 166.25 for 1 arrow. And, being ammunition, the arrow is destroyed after a single shot.
Also pretty sure shrink item only effects 1 object. A bundle of javelins is not one object.
I disagree. If they're bound together into a bundle, with rope or string, then the bundle is effectively one object until they're unbundled. Would you say that a sack of coins can't be shrunk via the spell?
Because the total combined weight you can thrust is 25lbs.Check the spell description: "You can hurl up to a total weight of 25 pounds per caster level (maximum 375 pounds at 15th level)."
How do you figure that?First, your arrows have to masterwork so they can be made magical. To add the flaming enhancement they first need a +1; making them the equivalent of +2 weapons. So, for fifty +1 flaming colossal arrows it'd cost 8,312.5 gp; or 166.25 for 1 arrow. And, being ammunition, the arrow is destroyed after a single shot.
Also pretty sure shrink item only effects 1 object. A bundle of javelins is not one object.I disagree. A bundle is effectively one object until they're unbundled. Would you say that a sack of coins can't be shrunk via the spell?
I think he intended to flame the arrows whit spells, not buying them.
And if shrink a container shrinks the things contained, i would say "Hell, no!". That could end shrinking an entire house with people inside! xD (There is a limit to what you can shrink but aniway... ) the spell is intended to shrink a single items, put all of them together and asume it's one doesn't seem to work. Else, it would be easy to shrink as many items as you want.
Shrink item on a boulder that is the exact weight your telekinesis can throw. use permanency if you're at max level. it'll do 1d6 per 25 lbs. I do this with my mages and rings of telekinesis as a very nice weapon that doesn't use spells (assuming telekinesis comes from ring).
Shrink item on a boulder that is the exact weight your telekinesis can throw. use permanency if you're at max level. it'll do 1d6 per 25 lbs. I do this with my mages and rings of telekinesis as a very nice weapon that doesn't use spells (assuming telekinesis comes from ring).Why bother? If you change the the volume and mass of the boulder, you're also changing the weight. That shrunken boulder would be no more powerful thrown than a natural stone of the exact same size, so you're really wasting spells.
He shrinks it only for transport... shrinked items return to their size just by letting them fall to the ground, easy enough for a quick "Giant-stone-in-your-face"
He shrinks it only for transport... shrinked items return to their size just by letting them fall to the ground, easy enough for a quick "Giant-stone-in-your-face"Shrink item on a boulder that is the exact weight your telekinesis can throw. use permanency if you're at max level. it'll do 1d6 per 25 lbs. I do this with my mages and rings of telekinesis as a very nice weapon that doesn't use spells (assuming telekinesis comes from ring).Why bother? If you change the the volume and mass of the boulder, you're also changing the weight. That shrunken boulder would be no more powerful thrown than a natural stone of the exact same size, so you're really wasting spells.
Um, yea that. I didn't mean for you to use the item in it's shrunken form as a weapon. At that point you may as well throw a handkerchief at the enemy.
I think he intended to flame the arrows whit spells, not buying them.
Ah. My mistake then; I'd misunderstood.
That could end shrinking an entire house with people inside! xD
Sure... if the house is only 1 cubic foot per caster level; though not the people since they're creatures rather than objects and so can't be shrunk via this spell. So you could maybe shrink a big dollhouse full of dolls if that's your thing. ;)
the spell is intended to shrink a single items, put all of them together and asume it's one doesn't seem to work.
I don't see how it can be otherwise. Most every object is simply an amalgamation of multiple different objects bound together in one fashion or other. A piece of clothing is made of woven fabric held together with thread with additional buckles, buttons and whatnot sewn together. Weapons, tools, furniture; they're all made up of multiple parts glued or tied together. So what's the difference between using a rope to tie different objects into a bundle and sewing panels of cloth together with thread to make a shirt? Does the spell disallow some objects based on their relative craftsmanship or aesthetics?
the spell is intended to shrink a single items, put all of them together and asume it's one doesn't seem to work.I don't see how it can be otherwise. Most every object is simply an amalgamation of multiple different objects bound together in one fashion or other. A piece of clothing is made of woven fabric held together with thread with additional buckles, buttons and whatnot sewn together. Weapons, tools, furniture; they're all made up of multiple parts glued or tied together. So what's the difference between using a rope to tie different objects into a bundle and sewing panels of cloth together with thread to make a shirt? Does the spell disallow some objects based on their relative craftsmanship or aesthetics?
¿Probably? Yes.
Magic is not logic, and the rules to use it are not always logical. But you could try to nail the jabalins together! that should make "one" item. There are many examples for logic going to take a walk over rules. ¿why can't you put more than two rings or more than one amulet? Because the rules say yo can't, not by logic.
Magic is not logic, and the rules to use it are not always logical. But you could try to nail the jabalins together! that should make "one" item.
So, nails good, rope bad?
There are many examples for logic going to take a walk over rules. ¿why can't you put more than two rings or more than one amulet? Because the rules say yo can't, not by logic.
Fair enough; let's ignore logic. So is there anywhere in the rules that says that a bundle shouldn't count as a single object?
don't mistake me, i like logic, well... it's logical, but some rules are done to put limits, so, i don't think that rope some items togueter is enough to consider it one only item, or that shrink a container would shrink the contained (Logic, in the last, speak of something crushed or ripped).
At the end? It's the GM who will have a word in that until someone put a rule about that XD.
Anyway, i'll be glad if someone more express his opinion in the original discussion about ranged weapon feats applied to this or not xD.
Anyway, i'll be glad if someone more express his opinion in the original discussion about ranged weapon feats applied to this or not xD.
Sorry about the thread jack.
Um, yea that. I didn't mean for you to use the item in it's shrunken form as a weapon. At that point you may as well throw a handkerchief at the enemy.Well, you did say use permanency, which I assumed made the shrinking, you know, permanent. Personally though, I think throwing 15 objects is likely to do more damage than that sinlgle boulder. Even with a couple misses, those static damage modifiers add up.
Permanent shrink items can be shrunk and unshrunk infinite times, but only by the original caster. just depends on if you want to re-use the boulder. Maybe it's special, or maybe it has other properties. Just a matter of preference.
To restate, you are making a magic attack roll, that happens to be ranged, not a ranged attack roll. I believe that is a distinction, and one that prevents most such feats that you seem to be eyeing.
humm. Magical rays are affected by them, even being it a "magic attack roll", at first i thought that it would work partially like a one-use spiritual weapon, the spiritual weapon don't use feats or anything because it's It who does the attacks, not you, you only direct it to the enemy you want in little pieces, but with telekinesis... "you" are hurling the objects, and esentially a thrown object is affected by Ranged Weapon Feats.
Of course most rays come from "you", or your hand or another appendage, and in this case the objects hurled need not being wielded or anything, that is, the genesis of mi doubts :P.
Ray: Do rays count as weapons for the purpose of spells and effects that affect weapons?
Yes. (See also this FAQ item for a similar question about rays and weapon feats.)
For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.
The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.