This is a bit of discussion, but I'm asking rules questions (in bold, if someone just wants to comment on those) too, so please comment on the spell, help with the rules issues, or both!
You fling an object weighing up to 5 pounds at the target. You must succeed at a ranged attack (not a ranged touch attack) to hit your target; if you hit, you deal 1d6 points of bludgeoning damage to both the target and the object. 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.
Some have dissed this knack as worthless, but I think it can be handy for these reasons:
- 1. If you primarily use a melee weapon, you don't have to drop it and draw a ranged weapon if a situation arises when you want to hit something at distance. (Granted, short range)
- 2. It gives you a way to attack even if you are tied up or unarmed. (Yes you may have other spells for this, but maybe not.)
- 3. The spell says target, but not living target. Locked in a cell? Any reason you couldn't target the cell wall with the keys hanging on the wall? (No damage to either, but the keys are inside the cell now.)
- 4. I see nothing indicating where the "thrown" item must be, other than within your range. If someone is between you and your target, as long as your target is within range, couldn't you avoid cover by flinging a pebble on the ground that has nothing between it and your target? This still wouldn't avoid penalty if the target is in melee, but it would help.
- 5. Others have mentioned "throwing" something like a thunderstone for additional effect, but I don't want to repeat every item discussed in other threads.
- 6. If an ally causes an enemy to drop a weapon (disarming them, stunning them, etc.), you can "throw" their weapon at a wall or blank square as far from them as possible so they can't pick it up again.
Any reason these uses wouldn't work? Thanks!
Should this have been posted elsewhere, even though I'm asking some rules issues? Or are "can I use spell X to do Y?" not considered rules questions? (I'm trying to learn and get these things right!)
In the meantime, I'd really appreciate it if I could get feedback on the bold items above (especially #4 on avoiding cover penalty) before I try to use such strategy in a real session.
Thanks!
3. this spell acts just like a normal ranged/throwing weapon target wise, if you can shoot at a wall you can use this spell at that same wall
4.i think you are correct, I would rule that as long as you have both of these:
1. line of sight to both the object and the guy you want to throw it at
2. the object has line of effect to the guy you want to throw it at
i think you will still take penalties to-hit if the guy has concealment though, as that directly affects your ability to aim at him
6. seems perfectly valid to me, as long as the weapon is under the 5lb limit (and if you can get tot it before they pick it up again)
Thanks for the response, Ridiculon!
Can you be clear about whether you mean concealment or cover? I don't think either applies.
Let's say I'm using the spell to fling a rock at a wizard who's got two bodyguards between me and him. I don't think cover or concealment would apply if there's nothing between the rock's original location and the target.
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.
I would think use the rock's starting square and the wizard's square and apply the rules above. Neither cover nor concealment should apply if the squares in between are empty.
I just don't know if there are limitations regarding where the object I am "throwing" needs to be. Any such limitations would probably affect my ability to use the spell for examples 3, 4, and 6 in my original post (the ones on which you commented).
the difference between concealment and cover is the same difference between Line of Sight and Line of Effect. The issue here (and this is definitely an edge case) is that the lines are not the same. your lines both have two parts and the second part of each line is different
......LoE2
.....E___R
..L..|..../
..o..|.../
..S..|../.<----LoE1+LoS1
..2..|./
......|/
.....Y
Y-you
E-Enemy
R-rock
The spell requires that you have both line of sight(LoS) and line of effect (LoE) to the primary target of the spell (the rock). The spell then allows you to make a ranged attack with the rock as your weapon. Ranged attacks require both line of sight and line of effect. The spell is letting you move the origin point of the line of effect for the ranged attack, but it makes no mention of moving the origin of your line of sight(like this spell does). Therefore you need to be able to see your target, from your own square, in order to make the ranged attack.
In short, cover between the rock's square and the target of the ranged attack you want to make with the rock will apply, however concealment will not apply there. Concealment between your square and the target of your ranged attack will apply, but not cover (unless it also provides concealment, which it usually does).
EDIT: sorry, the formatting for that picture turned out a little goofy