Say a PC is going up against a devil. Would they be able to overcome the devil's physical resistance by casting telekinetic projectile and hurling a single silver piece with the spell?
The main issue comes from the sentence "No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage.” Now, it gets weird because it's a question of if the word "trait" is referring to the 2e-specific definition (i.e. forceful, deadly d8, etc.) or if it's using the general definition of "trait" (i.e. "a distinguishing quality or characteristic").
By a similar vein, how pure is a silver piece? Going by how calculating silver items work, a low-grade silver coin would be worth 20 gp (20 gp per bulk, minimum 1 bulk), but we fundamentally know that a silver piece is worth one-tenth of a gold piece. So...would the coin not be pure enough to be able to trigger the properties of the silver?
I get that by pure RAW you would be able to apply the material property, but from a RAI standpoint it seems kinda silly that an adventurer can get over any and all silver-related weaknesses/resistances due to almost always having a silver piece on hand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always read Telekinetic Projective in the exact opposite way. Treating the phrase "No specific traits" as natural language and not the game key word "trait".
Yes there is no "silver" trait so the point is arguable either way, depending on which premise you accept.
There is clearly some form of property that is silver
I do personally house rule it to work. Because I want it to encourage this type of play and thinking. Telekinetic Projectile is a cantrip but is not an especially strong attack, just an OK backup for a caster. I don't see that as silly or over powered. Its only certain casters that can do it. Its not as if it hoses those monsters.
I don't see that the purity of the silver piece comes into it. i don't think it matters if it is 90% or 99% pure. Silver is silver. It has a different weight and density to gold. I don't think you can read to much into the bulk rules. They are a simple abstraction so we don't have to think too hard about carrying capacty.
It doesn't actually get weird, because special materials are all covered by their own special trait, Precious. No precious trait, no precious material.
Thanks for that info. But precious is a crafting trait and the property of raw crafting materials, and certainly not the trait that would trigger weaknesses.
For example a Werewolf has Weaknesses silver 5Silver is the trait that is important, except that it is not a trait.
So its related but not totally conclusive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the object already determines bludgeoning/piercing/slashing, I'd say it would allow your silver piece to act as silver.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the object already determines bludgeoning/piercing/slashing, I'd say it would allow your silver piece to act as silver.
I don't agree. For instance, a sap does lethal damage instead of non-lethal so it's not damaging in the same way. That and a longsword used with it might appropriately deal bludgeoning damage if you toss it hilt first. IMO, if a magic weapon, say a flaming, frost, shock dagger, doesn't do fire, cold or electricity damage I don't know why it'd deal 'silver' damage.
PS: to give a mundane example, say you toss a lit torch at something: you aren't dealing any fire damage with it because its not dealing damage like a 'normal' example of the item would. It's using the general shape of the object but none of it's properties.
I think you are over valuing it. If you allow silver stones to work, then all you are doing is adding +5 damage to a very small number of monsters, or negating damage resistance of a few creatures. Plus its only for a cantrip which is very minor attack option.
The weapon user can just get a 6gp silver sheen alchemical consumable to do the same thing.
Its not unbalanced in the slightest. The more important thing is you have to know to use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are over valuing it. If you allow silver stones to work, then all you are doing is adding +5 damage to a very small number of monsters, or negating damage resistance of a few creatures. Plus its only for a cantrip which is very minor attack option.
The weapon user can just get a 6gp silver sheen alchemical consumable to do the same thing.
Its not unbalanced in the slightest. The more important thing is you have to know to use it.
I think you're UNDER valuing it. You say it just adding +5 damage but you're not really looking at all the options: look at a balor and cold iron once. That's +20. An adamantine coin gets you through the 22 resistance of a Dragonshard Guardian...
As to a small number of creatures, it's not unusual to see dungeons/areas with a theme so that you see a lot of fey in the dark forest or a bunch of constructs in the mad inventors castle. So it can seem a LOT more common than a look at the bestiary might seem suggest.
As to a sheen, Cold Iron Blanch (Greater) is 1700 gp while a cold iron chunk is 10 gp. A weapon user doesn't have these options to add on Adamantine or Orichalcum while any lump of the materials can be shot by the user of the cantrip.
As to unbalance, it sure is. In the hands of a Recall Information specialist that's prepared a sack of precious material 'coins', you've substantially improved the cantrip. It'd be like allowing a cantrip that causes elemental damage to freely change the damage type at will by swapping a material component but just that one, allowing it to avoid resistances and trigger vulnerabilities... It's be a huge boon just like allowing materials would for Telekinetic Projectile.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agree with Graystone about the possible overpowered nature outlined.
Looking at the spell, it says "You hurl a loose, unattended object that is within range...". The character is not providing the object because if they were, it would not be unattended. Additionally, the spell does not have a material component.
If there happens to be unattended silver objects around, ok maybe. But I would not allow a character to bring their own objects in order to overcome resistances or gain advance of weaknesses.
|
|
I think some may be assuming that a "Silver Coin" is actually "Pure Silver" when in reality it is almost certainly more like an alloy of (at best) 40% silver/40% nickel/20% tin. Minting Coins out of pure Copper, Silver, or Gold is just literally not even close to realistic to assume and it's never worked this way IRL, at least not until well after the industrial revolution changed everything and the governments of the world stopped using the Gold Standard and at this point Coins were pretty much only ever minted with high concentrations of valuable metals (90% or higher) to be sold to hobbyists, collectors, and doomsday preppers.
It's closer to a garden variety sling pebble (Perhaps even with the shoddy or improvised trait at that) than it is a Weapon with Silver Special Material Properties.
That's a big fat no from me without been touching on the RAW which graystone did a great job outlining.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there happens to be unattended silver objects around, ok maybe. But I would not allow a character to bring their own objects in order to overcome resistances or gain advance of weaknesses.
If I may split hairs a bit: for the situation in question the caster pulled out a silver piece and then dropped it, fulfilling the “unattended object” part of the spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at the spell, it says "You hurl a loose, unattended object that is within range...". The character is not providing the object because if they were, it would not be unattended. Additionally, the spell does not have a material component.If there happens to be unattended silver objects around, ok maybe. But I would not allow a character to bring their own objects in order to overcome resistances or gain advance of weaknesses.
Well I'm just glad that people are discussing this spell. Its been a problem child for some time with really poor wording. It is not as if it is a bad cantrip in fact it is the best single target damage cantrip so it should be fairly popular.
The "unattended object" is a weird limitation. I really only think it is supposedly only to stop you from using objects held or worn by other people. Dropping something from your hand is a free action. So its not much of a limitation anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are over valuing it. If you allow silver stones to work, then all you are doing is adding +5 damage to a very small number of monsters, or negating damage resistance of a few creatures. Plus its only for a cantrip which is very minor attack option.
The weapon user can just get a 6gp silver sheen alchemical consumable to do the same thing.
Its not unbalanced in the slightest. The more important thing is you have to know to use it.
I think you're UNDER valuing it. You say it just adding +5 damage but you're not really looking at all the options: look at a balor and cold iron once. That's +20. An adamantine coin gets you through the 22 resistance of a Dragonshard Guardian...
As to a small number of creatures, it's not unusual to see dungeons/areas with a theme so that you see a lot of fey in the dark forest or a bunch of constructs in the mad inventors castle. So it can seem a LOT more common than a look at the bestiary might seem suggest.
As to a sheen, Cold Iron Blanch (Greater) is 1700 gp while a cold iron chunk is 10 gp. A weapon user doesn't have these options to add on Adamantine or Orichalcum while any lump of the materials can be shot by the user of the cantrip.
As to unbalance, it sure is. In the hands of a Recall Information specialist that's prepared a sack of precious material 'coins', you've substantially improved the cantrip. It'd be like allowing a cantrip that causes elemental damage to freely change the damage type at will by swapping a material component but just that one, allowing it to avoid resistances and trigger vulnerabilities... It's be a huge boon just like allowing materials would for Telekinetic Projectile.
You are looking at extreme examples. The answer you are after for most normal situations is 10gp Cold Iron Blanch. Thats not much.
The dragonshard guardian is a level 22 monster with immunities to almost everything. So for starters your level 20 wizard - who is for some reason using a cantrip despite having a huge number of much better spells (the framing your balance question is just wrong as the wizard would do something else anyway) - would have to make sure he had a rounded object for bludgeoning adamantine. But really should be trying to work out that he needs to use sonic or an indirect attack instead.
However the 24 resistance is something the level 20 martials can just smash straight through anyways. I had level 9 martials doing criticals in the mid 90s for damage in my last gaming session, 24 resistance is useful but its just not going to last.
Why you insist on taking away a minor option on a cantrip for balance reasons is beyond me. Its just not unbalanced. It just seems like more wizard bashing
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some may be assuming that a "Silver Coin" is actually "Pure Silver" when in reality it is almost certainly more like an alloy of (at best) 40% silver/40% nickel/20% tin. Minting Coins out of pure Copper, Silver, or Gold is just literally not even close to realistic to assume and it's never worked this way IRL, at least not until well after the industrial revolution changed everything and the governments of the world stopped using the Gold Standard and at this point Coins were pretty much only ever minted with high concentrations of valuable metals (90% or higher) to be sold to hobbyists, collectors, and doomsday preppers.
I'm aware that silver coins are typically only part silver. In some historic economies they got steadily worse and often had very little actual silver in them.
Really it is a yes/no question to the GM. Is it a pure enough silver object to count as silver or not? If the local currency is sufficiently debased then he might say no. Big deal, go get another small silver object that is not a coin. But for most this level of detail is beyond them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are looking at extreme examples. The answer you are after for most normal situations is 10gp Cold Iron Blanch. Thats not much.
I'm not sure why it the "most normal situation". If you're higher level and you don't want to keep losing actions reapplying a blanch I don't see why the "most normal situation" wouldn't be to use the higher duration. There is a huge difference between 1 min and an hour. You too seem to be going to the extreme but in the other direction.
The dragonshard guardian is a level 22 monster with immunities to almost everything. So for starters your level 20 wizard - who is for some reason using a cantrip despite having a huge number of much better spells (the framing your balance question is just wrong as the wizard would do something else anyway) - would have to make sure he had a rounded object for bludgeoning adamantine. But really should be trying to work out that he needs to use sonic or an indirect attack instead.
You assume that they have a sonic or indirect attack is handy and ready to use. You also are looking at wizard when others have the cantrip. Is it so unbelievable that the cantrip might be the best option after making a good Recall Knowledge check? It scales and is usable every round: 9d6+ stat mod + ignoring resistance doesn't sound bad to me.
Why you insist on taking away a minor option on a cantrip for balance reasons is beyond me. Its just not unbalanced. It just seems like more wizard bashing
Why are you ignoring bards, witches, sorcerers and oracles? They can cast it too. :P
As to the rest... It's far from bashing but preventing the cantrip to perform much better than expected and clearly against the way it reads. Again, I'd have the exact same complaint if someone tried to find a way that Produce Flame could deal any elemental damage instead of fire: it'd be overpowered as it could effortlessly bypass resistances and trigger vulnerabilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not forget fighters can cast and use this too via multiclassings.
Not the point.
Your are still complaining about the balance of an option which is at best a plan B. Is not the main approach of the class, and is still suboptimal. So really a side issue at best.
The high cost of the greater alchemical items is irrelevant. They are still cheap to characters of the level that will use them.
Adide from which high level martials will have adamantine weapons. All it's really doing is allowing this one option not to suck so bad.
The cantrip reads both ways. It probably shouldn't work to allowing Silver sling stones to count. I agree about RAI. But there is a solid raw argument that it does. Because "traits" are a rules object and silver is not a trait.
Balancing every last option into equivalence leads to a boring bland and empty game. Don't do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not forget fighters can cast and use this too via multiclassings.
Not the point.
So can a cleric/bard/oracle/ect that are primarily a healer/buffer. It's a fine attack between buffs/heals. It is the point that you shouldn't fixate on a single option, class or tactic when you examine things.
Your are still complaining about the balance of an option which is at best a plan B. Is not the main approach of the class, and is still suboptimal. So really a side issue at best.
Seems odd you're SO invested in a suboptimal side issue. The problem with that argument is that it cause it to be abnormally strong for that category of options: it could bypass every physical damage resistance and trigger every physical damage vulnerability. I don't know how you can't see it doesn't fit with the other options.
The high cost of the greater alchemical items is irrelevant. They are still cheap to characters of the level that will use them.
It's the action cost that impacts more which is why you have to look at the higher cost. Secondly, I'd argue it's far from irrelevant when used on a regular basis. I'm not buying true strike scrolls to spam them so I'm not buying alchemical items with a MUCH higher cost to spam them.
Aside from which high level martials will have adamantine weapons. All it's really doing is allowing this one option not to suck so bad.
Will they? Mithral seems like an option for lower strength/high dex ones [say a thief]. Or an Orichalcum one. Or what if your weapon isn't a metal one? I'm not sure where you got the mandatory adamantine. Just look at the specific magic weapons once and you'll see mandatory adamantine isn't a thing.
As to sucking, I'm not sure how it'd suck compared to Produce Flame. I'm not sure why you want it to be SO much better than Produce Flame.
The cantrip reads both ways. It probably shouldn't work to allowing Silver sling stones to count. I agree about RAI. But there is a solid raw argument that it does. Because "traits" are a rules object and silver is not a trait.
You really can't and have it make sense. A flaming log never does fire damage. A magic item does nothing extra. A poisoned weapon doesn't poison. A diseased arm doesn't inflict the disease. But somehow a silver coin is the one thing that is allowed? No, it doesn't follow.
I'm more inclined to say it still inherits the Precious trait as the weapons are called "Precious Material Weapons": it never says the material loses the trait when made into a weapon. "Weapons made of precious materials are more expensive and sometimes have special effects": So if they aren't Precious, they'd no longer have special effects. It fits better than the other option.
Balancing every last option into equivalence leads to a boring bland and empty game. Don't do it.
Making a single option overpowered and a clear option for most over similar options makes the game even blander as those other options never see the light of day because one is clearly better. Don't do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I'm with you basically no where on this thread
You really can't and have it make sense. A flaming log never does fire damage. A magic item does nothing extra. A poisoned weapon doesn't poison. A diseased arm doesn't inflict the disease. But somehow a silver coin is the one thing that is allowed? No, it doesn't follow.
I assume you are talking about small versions of these being thrown by the spell. Your statement is incorrect. Bludgeoning/Piercing or Slashing is dealt and it is a mundane property of the object as judged by the GM. So some mundane properties of the object do apply. There is absolutely no reason non-trait, non-magic properties of the item thrown would not have an effect.
The reason for the text "No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage" is clearly to stop people from throwing with the spell a +2 greater striking flaming poisoned dagger and asking for more damage. No one is arguing that point. Just the bits which don't tightly fit into that rules definition.
A sharp edge or a blunt edge is not a trait or a magical property. "Silver" is clearly not a trait or a magical property.
|
|
If I may split hairs a bit: for the situation in question the caster pulled out a silver piece and then dropped it, fulfilling the “unattended object” part of the spell.If there happens to be unattended silver objects around, ok maybe. But I would not allow a character to bring their own objects in order to overcome resistances or gain advance of weaknesses.
I would not allow such an intentional circumvention of something that I said would not work. That is a very hard NO.
I assume you are talking about small versions of these being thrown by the spell.
I don't understand: the object limit is 1 bulk. IMO, you can find a log, magic item, poison weapon or diseased arm that's 1 bulk. Heck an ENTIRE halfling is only 3 bulk...
Your statement is incorrect. Bludgeoning/Piercing or Slashing is dealt and it is a mundane property of the object as judged by the GM. So some mundane properties of the object do apply. There is absolutely no reason non-trait, non-magic properties of the item thrown would not have an effect.
You just pointed out why you're wrong: it DOESN'T directly inherit Bludgeoning/Piercing or Slashing. A DM may make a dagger deal B damage when you shoot it hilt first. A broken bottle might be B or S or P on the whim of the DM. So you really can't say the object has ANY properties apply and there is every reason non-magic properties don't apply. Again, do you allow torches to deal fire damage?
The reason for the text "No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage" is clearly to stop people from throwing with the spell a +2 greater striking flaming poisoned dagger and asking for more damage. No one is arguing that point. Just the bits which don't tightly fit into that rules definition.
It's NOT clearly there just for magic because it doesn't stop with just magic properties. For the reason it doesn't allow you to tack on magic, it doesn't allow poison and for the same reason it doesn't allow you to tack on special materials: the reason one doesn't work is the EXACT same reason the others don't.
A sharp edge or a blunt edge is not a trait
It actually is. Versatile B is a blunt edge and Versatile P is a sharp edge.
or a magical property.
It can be. What is Keen if not a sharp edge? Or Serrating a "bladed edge separates into jagged, swirling shards that spin along the blade".
"Silver" is clearly not a trait or a magical property.
Clearly, I don't agree. It clearly does more than normal materials as the description says they have "special effects".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A sharp edge or a blunt edge is not a traitIt actually is. Versatile B is a blunt edge and Versatile P is a sharp edge.
A flaming torch would not deal fire damage. As there is a damage Trait called Fire that is clearly banned by the spell text from applying. Similarily Poison.
So which property does a dead halfling have? Bludgeoning/Piercing or Slashing.
These are neither traits or magical properties.
In fact even if I was talking about a sword or a club that statement would be true.
Bludgeoning/Piercing or Slashing is not a trait of a weapon. It is another non magical property of a weapon. Yes Versatile is a trait but only applies to some of them, and it stil leaves the other properties of the weapon intact when you discount it
Again this is a technical rules discusion. Not a discussion about what is intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not allow such an intentional circumvention of something that I said would not work. That is a very hard NO.If I may split hairs a bit: for the situation in question the caster pulled out a silver piece and then dropped it, fulfilling the “unattended object” part of the spell.If there happens to be unattended silver objects around, ok maybe. But I would not allow a character to bring their own objects in order to overcome resistances or gain advance of weaknesses.
Why can't the object be small? A sling stone seems a fair analogy. Its got enough weight to be effective. It is an object. Whats the difference between hurling an object off the floor and dropping an object first?
I guess I'm not really seeing your objection here.
I do admit I was not thinking of logs or dead halflings when I entered this discussion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not allow such an intentional circumvention of something that I said would not work. That is a very hard NO.If I may split hairs a bit: for the situation in question the caster pulled out a silver piece and then dropped it, fulfilling the “unattended object” part of the spell.If there happens to be unattended silver objects around, ok maybe. But I would not allow a character to bring their own objects in order to overcome resistances or gain advance of weaknesses.
Do you allow players to choose what kind of damage they do with the spell based only on what is already lying around ?
Because I have seen it in many places that casters carry around pebbles, shards and pins just so that they can choose the best kind of damage to inflict with this spell.
And it is not that overpowered to do this when the martial just switches weapons, or uses a shifting Rune, to also get the best kind of damage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not allow such an intentional circumvention of something that I said would not work. That is a very hard NO.If I may split hairs a bit: for the situation in question the caster pulled out a silver piece and then dropped it, fulfilling the “unattended object” part of the spell.If there happens to be unattended silver objects around, ok maybe. But I would not allow a character to bring their own objects in order to overcome resistances or gain advance of weaknesses.
Do you allow players to choose what kind of damage they do with the spell based only on what is already lying around ?
Because I have seen it in many places that casters carry around pebbles, shards and pins just so that they can choose the best kind of damage to inflict with this spell.
And it is not that overpowered to do this when the martial just switches weapons, or uses a shifting Rune, to also get the best kind of damage.
The caster chooses the damage type per the spell. The spell doesn't care what the object it. It only cares what damage type the caster is doing. The caster does not need to provide the material component for the spell. For RP, if a caster wants to have something ready.. Ok. But they don't have too.
It is different to try and have something ready to gain a greater benefit from the spell than what the spell provides like overcoming DR or activating a weakness.
The spell is just a cantrip. It should not be overpowered.
I GM PFS only. So I go by what the spell says. The spell does not say to add additional effects from the object. Why? because the object is unattended. Which means it is something that was not provided by the caster.
Like I said, if there were unattended objects made of special materials already in the area, I would likely let those be used. But having the player drop an object or two and then say "Oh look, a cold iron pellet, how lucky! Let's use it against that fey."
That gives the spell too much power.
There is a bulk limit on what can be thrown by the spell. It is unlikely that a dead halfling will meet the bulk limit requirement. A log might. A tree trunk? Likely not.
|
|
I would not allow such an intentional circumvention of something that I said would not work. That is a very hard NO.If I may split hairs a bit: for the situation in question the caster pulled out a silver piece and then dropped it, fulfilling the “unattended object” part of the spell.If there happens to be unattended silver objects around, ok maybe. But I would not allow a character to bring their own objects in order to overcome resistances or gain advance of weaknesses.
Why can't the object be small? A sling stone seems a fair analogy. Its got enough weight to be effective. It is an object. Whats the difference between hurling an object off the floor and dropping an object first?
I guess I'm not really seeing your objection here.
I do admit I was not thinking of logs or dead halflings when I entered this discussion.
If the object is mundane, I don't have a problem. The problem comes in when having that very specific object that works just perfect for the situation. It increases the power of a cantrip to become overpowered.
Because of the bulk limits, the object is going to be small. The spell does not have a material component requirement. It is unlikely a dead halfling will meet the bulk limits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bludgeoning/Piercing or Slashing is not a trait of a weapon. It is another non magical property of a weapon.
It's a property of the weapon but NOT necessarily a property of the object you're tossing. AGAIN you can toss a javelin on a way you couldn't as a weapon and have it deal B damage. As such, the weapon properties don't really matter, just what is "appropriate" for an object of that shape.
Again this is a technical rules discusion. Not a discussion about what is intended.
Sure, and I've already covered that: NOTHING says that material loses the Precious trait when made into an item: "Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait". It's still made of those "Valuable materials with special properties" and if the spell tells you it loses said trait... If you try to claim silver is triggering something, silver has a trait. Same with adamantine, cold iron, ect and the spell specifies an ITEM, so it's talking about traits and things that include non-weapons: would you say a lump of silver has the trait? An ingot? An item made of it? When does it lose the trait to you? The core book specifically calls out weapons made of them "Precious Material Weapons", "Weapons made of precious materials are more expensive and sometimes have special effects." I have yet to see a place where it tells you to remove such a trait. So if a spell ignores your "precious materials are more expensive and sometimes have special effects", well isn't that the crux of the argument?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I GM PFS only. So I go by what the spell says. The spell does not say to add additional effects from the object. Why? because the object is unattended. Which means it is something that was not provided by the caster.
I'll say I disagree with you on this point: I see no reason someone would be disallowed from bringing their own items just in case: for instance, it's completely plausible to not find an object on a sand dune [other than sand]. As such, a caster might keep a bag/pouch of variously shaped trinkets to drop with different shapes: some pebbles, some nails, some pottery shards, ect and when combat starts, they can just upend the bag with an action and dump the contents on the ground making it 'unattended'.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The caster chooses the damage type per the spell. The spell doesn't care what the object it. It only cares what damage type the caster is doing.
The type of object does seem to matter.
If you hit, you deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage—as appropriate for the object you hurled—equal to 1d6 plus your spellcasting ability modifier.
|
|
I GM PFS only. So I go by what the spell says. The spell does not say to add additional effects from the object. Why? because the object is unattended. Which means it is something that was not provided by the caster.I'll say I disagree with you on this point: I see no reason someone would be disallowed from bringing their own items just in case: for instance, it's completely plausible to not find an object on a sand dune [other than sand]. As such, a caster might keep a bag/pouch of variously shaped trinkets to drop with different shapes: some pebbles, some nails, some pottery shards, ect and when combat starts, they can just upend the bag with an action and dump the contents on the ground making it 'unattended'.
I don't disagree. Like I said, I only care if someone is trying to game the system by having that perfect object to use that is not reasonably expected to be in the area normally.
|
|
The caster chooses the damage type per the spell. The spell doesn't care what the object it. It only cares what damage type the caster is doing.The type of object does seem to matter.
If you hit, you deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage—as appropriate for the object you hurled—equal to 1d6 plus your spellcasting ability modifier.
Your example becomes a GM decision than. What you are saying is that if a character said "I am going to use this Rock and do piercing damage" it would be up to the GM so determine if the rock is an appropriate object for piercing damage. If the GM doesn't agree, the caster would need to pick a different damage type.
The spell doesn't care what the object is.
What is much more common with the spell, from my experience, is that it is cast and I have ask what damage type they wish to do. Some will know they want to a specific type of damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bludgeoning/Piercing or Slashing is not a trait of a weapon. It is another non magical property of a weapon.It's a property of the weapon but NOT necessarily a property of the object you're tossing. AGAIN you can toss a javelin on a way you couldn't as a weapon and have it deal B damage. As such, the weapon properties don't really matter, just what is "appropriate" for an object of that shape.
SO you are ignoring all properties of the object or just the ones you think don't apply. The rule text says to ignore "specific traits and magical properties"
NOTHING says that material loses the Precious trait when made into an item: "Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait". It's still made of those "Valuable materials with special properties" and if the spell tells you it loses said trait... If you try to claim silver is triggering something, silver has a trait. Same with adamantine, cold iron, ect and the spell specifies an ITEM, so it's talking about traits and things that include non-weapons: would you say a lump of silver has the trait? An ingot? An item made of it? When does it lose the trait to you? The core book specifically calls out weapons made of them "Precious Material Weapons", "Weapons made of precious materials are more expensive and sometimes have special effects." I have yet to see a place where it tells you to remove such a trait. So if a spell ignores your "precious materials are more expensive and sometimes have special effects", well isn't that the crux of the argument?
Yes the rules are clear that the Precious trait would be lost for the purposes of determining what this spell does.
But you continue to miss the RAW argument:
Flame, Poison, Precious, Versatile are traits and are out.
Striking, Potency and all runes are magical properties and are out.
Silver, Cold Iron, Budgeoning, Piercing , Slashing are mundane properties and are not excluded so they are in.
Yes the GM is instructed to potentially reinterpret Budgeoning, Piercing , Slashing as many objects won't have that property naturally and certainly the weapons that have that property aren't being wielded normally.
Taking away the Precious Trait does not take away any special properties that the object has. I don't see that it does anything. Ignoring the Poison trait on a iron dagger does not stop it from being a iron dagger, it just means the specifics of the poison don't work.
Precious says "Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait". Precious is a bonus additional descriptive trait that affects crafting rules. The special properties of the materials clearly already exist separately of this trait. A Were Wolf is not allergic to Precious, it is allergic to Silver. Further Precious is a Trait that applies to raw materials. A silver dagger is not Precious, rather the silver in the dagger if extracted would be a Precious material.
Non Trait properties exist. Budgeoning is one of them. The Core Rule Book says Traits are keywords listed in the glossary. When you look for them they all have the tag "(trait)". Silver is listed as a material not a trait. Budgeoning is listed as a damage type not a trait. Poison has two entries as a damage type and another as trait. Am I wrong here? It seems that Trait is defined and is properly replicated in the online rules.
The bottom line is the mundane properties of the object still apply when it is thrown through Telekinetic Projectile
I do admit I was not thinking of logs or dead halflings when I entered this discussion.
Apologies: the "1 bulk" limit still applies so these particular objects are too large.
The caster chooses the damage type per the spell. The spell doesn't care what the object it. It only cares what damage type the caster is doing. The caster does not need to provide the material component for the spell. For RP, if a caster wants to have something ready.. Ok. But they don't have too.It is different to try and have something ready to gain a greater benefit from the spell than what the spell provides like overcoming DR or activating a weakness.
The spell is just a cantrip. It should not be overpowered.
I GM PFS only. So I go by what the spell says. The spell does not say to add additional effects from the object. Why? because the object is unattended. Which means it is something that was not provided by the caster.
As a PFS GM you are confined by the strict interpretation of the rules. You only get a right to reinterpret something if it is unclear or a significant problem. Obviously that still gives you the GM lots of room because you get to judge that statement.
You do have to think about balance yes, but this is hardly game breaking. It takes a cantrip, which is a fallback option to be used when you aren't worried about the encounter or can't do anything better, up to being a moderate tactic. But only if you are aware of the monsters weakness. It is still going to be less effective that the caster's A game of their top two spell slots.
This is a GM style that favours balance over innovation. Personally I think innovation is better as its more fun, where as too much emphasis on balance leads to a boring game and the Illusion of Choice problem that leaves players thinking that nothing that they do matter.
I would allow it as a GM but only if the player spends at least 2 actions throwing a bunch of silver coins prior. I wouldn't allow dropping them as a free action.
Just because of the rule of cool and because it's clever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think innovation is better as its more fun, where as too much emphasis on balance leads to a boring game and the Illusion of Choice problem that leaves players thinking that nothing that they do matter.
Much like toddlers asking for more snacks, TV, pushes on the swing, etc., it's not a question of whether you're going to have to say no. It's a question of when you're going to say no.
"One more cookie?"
"Okay."
"One more cookie?"
"Okay."
"One more cookie?"
"Okay."
"One more cookie?"
"Okay."
"One more cookie?"
"No, that's enough."
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH
You can allow a silver piece to do silver damage. Are you then going to allow a piece of ice to do cold damage? A pinch of sand to blind an opponent? Can you use telekinetic projectile to bring an unattended object to yourself?
Sure, it makes real life sense that a magic user who can send objects flying would carry around special materials. But it opens up a Pandora's box of slippery slopes and sooner or later, you're going to have to be the killjoy that quashes your players' creativity.
The specific spell telekinetic projectile is not the same as a general telekinesis ability. If you want to let telekinetic projectile become some sort of telekinesis catch-all, that's fine, but you need to realize that players can be super creative, and recognize that they're probably going to just keep expanding its usage until you say no.
Personally I think innovation is better as its more fun, where as too much emphasis on balance leads to a boring game and the Illusion of Choice problem that leaves players thinking that nothing that they do matter.Much like toddlers asking for more snacks, TV, pushes on the swing, etc., it's not a question of whether you're going to have to say no. It's a question of when you're going to say no.
"One more cookie?"
"Okay."
"One more cookie?"
"Okay."
"One more cookie?"
"Okay."
"One more cookie?"
"Okay."
"One more cookie?"
"No, that's enough."
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHYou can allow a silver piece to do silver damage. Are you then going to allow a piece of ice to do cold damage? A pinch of sand to blind an opponent? Can you use telekinetic projectile to bring an unattended object to yourself?
Sure, it makes real life sense that a magic user who can send objects flying would carry around special materials. But it opens up a Pandora's box of slippery slopes and sooner or later, you're going to have to be the killjoy that quashes your players' creativity.
The specific spell telekinetic projectile is not the same as a general telekinesis ability. If you want to let telekinetic projectile become some sort of telekinesis catch-all, that's fine, but you need to realize that players can be super creative, and recognize that they're probably going to just keep expanding its usage until you say no.
That all obviously a judgement call. I'm sure the GMs out there can handle the one more cookie problem. The stuff I was talking about is clearly in the game as the spell does use any small object. We aren't going outside the rules into free inovation here.
But to the cases you bring up. Cold is an energy trait and so clearly doesn't work by RAW. A lump of ice is just a blunt object.
A pinch of sand is not one object so its not a legal object to use. A small fagile bit of sand stone will either shatter with a inconsequential puff, or impact as a blunt object per normal. Maybe with an inconsequential puff at the end.
Yes I would like to see a telekinesis spell in the game. With option on something on the lines suggested and with rules around. Its not so easy to do.
Something that will cause rules problems is throwing a small alchemical flask and have it shatter on impact. That is perfectly legit by the rules. The GM pretty much has to arbitrarily stop it at that point because to allow it to combine would start to break the game. Becuase it is stacking the effects of two actions into one.
The best answers are clear:
a) say the flask shatters on impact and treat it like a thrown grenade, totally ignore the damage of the spell because the object is not hard enough.
b) have the flask shatter before it is propelled, looses most of its contents at that point, and resolve damage for the spell with the sharp flask fragments, ignoring the contents of the flask.
But the problem of stacking up explosive flasks or stacking glyphs already exists in the game and is not particular to this vector. No this is not the same as silver on an object as the silver effect normally does apply as a modifier to a weapon or attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The stuff I was talking about is clearly in the game as the spell does use any small object. We aren't going outside the rules into free inovation here.
I disagree.
As a matter of fact, I think it's pretty clear this is against RAI. I admit it may be RAW, in which case it is a loophole, but I'd argue the absence of a tag is not strong evidence of intent. It's just a poorly designed tag system because they're writing as if they tagged everything, but they didn't tag everything.
Raven Black's pointing out of using Mage Hand to push something onto someone is another great example where I think RAI is pretty clear in the negative, but RAW may actually go the other way.
While it goes against the general ethos of the game - and I agree that in general, I want players to be able to be creative - I think expanding cantrips is too disruptive to the game. To wit: my kids once tried to use ray of frost to water walk across a river.
Basically, I'm a cantrip originalist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you continue to miss the RAW argument:
Flame, Poison, Precious, Versatile are traits and are out.
Striking, Potency and all runes are magical properties and are out.
Silver, Cold Iron, Budgeoning, Piercing , Slashing are mundane properties and are not excluded so they are in.
Silver and Cold Iron are not traits because Precious exists. The Precious trait is what enables an item to apply effects relevant to the specific precious material the item consists of. If you remove Precious, that implicitly means it is no longer 'Silver' for purposes of determining special results from a weapon or item being Silver.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As others have mentioned I'm not sure this is much supported by the rules or balanced if you are allowed to use silver pieces (and as people have said silver coins probably don't have enough silver in them anyway).
Admittedly, I am tempted to allow as it's quite cool but would probably treat it the same as sling bullets in terms of costs etc to have something made from the relevant special material which you can use with telekinetic projectile.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Silver and Cold Iron are not traits because Precious exists. The Precious trait is what enables an item to apply effects relevant to the specific precious material the item consists of. If you remove Precious, that implicitly means it is no longer 'Silver' for purposes of determining special results from a weapon or item being Silver.
If that were true then you would see the trait Precious show up on items.
It doesn't show once ever.You would also see it show as a trait on SilverSheen or on weapons like Sparkblade and HolyAvenger
It can't be trait as Precious is a Category. Werewolves are not weak towards the Catergory of things that are Precious. A Cold Iron weapon does nothing extra to a werewolf
It is clear that a Cold Iron weapon is not Precious only a lump of Cold Iron is. See there is this mysterious trait you are looking for.
The argument you are making is a loose generalisation, and could only be valid in a maybe they intended it to be like this sort of hopeful way. Its not in the rules, you are just trying to add it in to justify the result you prefer.
A object has plenty of properties like height, weight, length, mass, bulk, piercing, slashing, colour etc etc that are not affected and are largely retained when the object is thrown with Telekinetic Projectile. Non magical properties exist. They are in the game. The actual material used is merely one of them. Whether that material is Precious or expensive or comes from Spain matters not. Silver or Cold Iron is what counts.
Yes it is annoying, for consistancy Silver should have been a trait. Its just that it is not.
The stuff I was talking about is clearly in the game as the spell does use any small object. We aren't going outside the rules into free inovation here.I disagree.
As a matter of fact, I think it's pretty clear this is against RAI. I admit it may be RAW, in which case it is a loophole, but I'd argue the absence of a tag is not strong evidence of intent. It's just a poorly designed tag system because they're writing as if they tagged everything, but they didn't tag everything.
Raven Black's pointing out of using Mage Hand to push something onto someone is another great example where I think RAI is pretty clear in the negative, but RAW may actually go the other way.
While it goes against the general ethos of the game - and I agree that in general, I want players to be able to be creative - I think expanding cantrips is too disruptive to the game. To wit: my kids once tried to use ray of frost to water walk across a river.
Basically, I'm a cantrip originalist.
It would have to be a very very small non flowing river that they could step over before I'd entertain that. But would you allow them to create a slippery spot in a path maybe recasting every 5 minutes? I would but with a modest DC. Why? Its creative, its not over powered, you can imagine simple mundane things that could do the same.
The Intention discussion is a different one. I read it that way myself, which you can see as I haven't updated my spell guide just yet. I'll wait a day to see if anyone brings up something important. I was certainly in the camp that said the object only matters for the phyical damage type.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has recently caught my attention that the description of spell attacks mentions that "Spell attacks don’t deal any damage beyond what’s listed in the spell description."
I take this as applying to Telekinetic Projectile too. So no applying any damage due to weakness to anything beyond the damage type dealt by the spell.
So, no weakness to silver damage even if you fling silver pebbles.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has recently caught my attention that the description of spell attacks mentions that "Spell attacks don’t deal any damage beyond what’s listed in the spell description."
I take this as applying to Telekinetic Projectile too. So no applying any damage due to weakness to anything beyond the damage type dealt by the spell.
So, no weakness to silver damage even if you fling silver pebbles.
except weakness is not an increase of the damage dealt by the spell. It's an increase of the damage taken by the target. Or to put it another way, would you deny weakness to the S/P/B dealt by TK projectile, or any other spell? How about spells that deal elemental damage to a creature weak to it? No, weaknesses have always applied and should still apply to TK projectile unless you read the "no specific traits" part to mean materials
The "doesn't deal any damage beyond" etc. is demonstrated best by Acid Splash, and how it is the worst cantrip unless facing monsters weak to acid
Good point. And here I thought we could finally put at least one irritating rules topic to rest.
I'm not sure why there was change from the 1e version of the spell which stated, "if you hit, you deal 1d6 points of bludgeoning damage to both the target and the object."
Using that description is basically saying there is a telekinetic force enveloping the object and it only deals bludgeoning so your damage is the spell damage.
What gets confusing is the new wording where the damage type depends on the object. If the object is actually doing the damage the line that no extra damage happens does not make sense to most because it sounds like the object is touching the target.
I guess you could envision it as the object is enveloped in tele-force so tightly it changes the damage.
For my purposes I'm going to ignore "No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage." for the most part, house rule. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean mostly for projectiles, for instance I think it would be cool to have someone fling poisoned arrows at their opponents. It doesn't make them more dangerous than an archer just gives them a little fun to fall back on. Just my 2 cents.
Necro-