Telekinetic Haul doesn't specify an "unattended" object.


Rules Discussion


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That means that by RAW it can be used to pluck an object off a creature-- or even potentially lift a creature up with said object if it is attached or the creature doesn't let go. (Unless there's a a general spell rule I'm overlooking somewhere.) This wouldn't necessarily be outrageous for a 5th level spell, especially when you compare it to the PF1 5th level Telekinesis, except that it doesn't allow a save. So I think is probably unintended.

Mostly flagging for the sake of GMs. I dunno what I'm gonna do with it yet-- I think there is probably a place for a spell that can move unwilling creatures better than the 2nd level "Telekinetic Maneuver" can, but it seems like it should probably have a save attached to it.


This was discussed in some minor detail here a short time ago.

Basically I find it odd that Telekinetic Haul doesn't have any rules around it that forbid it from being used offensively. The rules also don't cover bulk and damage very well. After all if you can move a 1 ton boulder with telekinetic haul and smash a gate with it, what kind of damage would that do? Against a creature?

There are a lot of odd scenarios that this spell opens up.


I’ll probably go with a reflex or the object is removed/taken/moved from the creature and if the creature is wearing the object or otherwise bound to it, they instead move with the object. Not sure on the damage aspect. Might have to come down to situation.

Thanks for bringing it up, this is one of those types of things I like having defined at least at my table before it comes up in play.


It is just super weird to me that there is no DC specified for such a use. And no rules for whether a successful save would even stop the item from being effected. This feels like a spell that was designed with a specific purpose but wasn't thought through all of the possible scenarios that it could apply to.

Bad guy with a sword? Levitate that sword 20 feet up. Bunch of Kobolds blocking your way? Drop a 1 ton boulder on em.

Oversight is putting it mildly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The dropping thing is pretty much covered by the dropped objects/falling objects rule.
It's a DC 15 reflex save to hit someone with a falling object.
It does 0 damage on a critical success , 1/4 of of falling damage on a standard success , 1/2 on a fail and full falling damage on a critical failure.
In one turn, a flat 20 points damage at best.

Consider the DC and the potential damage, because of how slowly it moves,and it's not so advantageous.

Even with a full minute of use, it maxes out at 200 points of damage(I think).

I think putting an 80 bulk object onto of a person should do more than that, but I haven't found a rule regarding the bulk of a falling object.
Just putting it on them gently would be enough to immobilize most creatures.

If you can use it on occupied clothes or armor, it becomes a multi-target,no save Levitate spell, allowing you to add a new target each time you sustain it.

It probably should require a spell DC Vs Athletics check save.

Or maybe it should be a Ritual that acts like the oil of weightlessness.


Wait for someone to cheese an encounter in PFS using this and I'm sure it will be errata'd immediately after. There is no excuse for forgetting to mention the targeted object is supposed to be unattended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FlashRebel wrote:
Wait for someone to cheese an encounter in PFS using this and I'm sure it will be errata'd immediately after. There is no excuse for forgetting to mention the targeted object is supposed to be unattended.

I mean there are plenty of excuses, from "it really doesn't matter that much" to "we forgot about it"

Both completely valid excuses.


Vlorax wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Wait for someone to cheese an encounter in PFS using this and I'm sure it will be errata'd immediately after. There is no excuse for forgetting to mention the targeted object is supposed to be unattended.

I mean there are plenty of excuses, from "it really doesn't matter that much" to "we forgot about it"

Both completely valid excuses.

A spell available at 9th level that can disarm or remove an enemy from an encounter without a saving throw or an attack roll required is kind of a big deal.


FlashRebel wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Wait for someone to cheese an encounter in PFS using this and I'm sure it will be errata'd immediately after. There is no excuse for forgetting to mention the targeted object is supposed to be unattended.

I mean there are plenty of excuses, from "it really doesn't matter that much" to "we forgot about it"

Both completely valid excuses.

A spell available at 9th level that can disarm or remove an enemy from an encounter without a saving throw or an attack roll required is kind of a big deal.

@Vlorax, I see we have a similar sense of humor.


FlashRebel wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Wait for someone to cheese an encounter in PFS using this and I'm sure it will be errata'd immediately after. There is no excuse for forgetting to mention the targeted object is supposed to be unattended.

I mean there are plenty of excuses, from "it really doesn't matter that much" to "we forgot about it"

Both completely valid excuses.

A spell available at 9th level that can disarm or remove an enemy from an encounter without a saving throw or an attack roll required is kind of a big deal.

Not really. As GM it's a simple matter of saying,

"no your lvl 5 spell doesn't completely invalidate encounters of any level as that's clearly not the intended power level of the spell"

And then we continue, not a big deal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vlorax wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Wait for someone to cheese an encounter in PFS using this and I'm sure it will be errata'd immediately after. There is no excuse for forgetting to mention the targeted object is supposed to be unattended.

I mean there are plenty of excuses, from "it really doesn't matter that much" to "we forgot about it"

Both completely valid excuses.

A spell available at 9th level that can disarm or remove an enemy from an encounter without a saving throw or an attack roll required is kind of a big deal.

Not really. As GM it's a simple matter of saying,

"no your lvl 5 spell doesn't completely invalidate encounters of any level as that's clearly not the intended power level of the spell"

And then we continue, not a big deal.

Sure, but that position doesn't mean that the Spell in question shouldn't be errata'd. There is obviously some targeting restrictions that are missing, so what is wrong with asking for them to be added?


beowulf99 wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Vlorax wrote:
FlashRebel wrote:
Wait for someone to cheese an encounter in PFS using this and I'm sure it will be errata'd immediately after. There is no excuse for forgetting to mention the targeted object is supposed to be unattended.

I mean there are plenty of excuses, from "it really doesn't matter that much" to "we forgot about it"

Both completely valid excuses.

A spell available at 9th level that can disarm or remove an enemy from an encounter without a saving throw or an attack roll required is kind of a big deal.

Not really. As GM it's a simple matter of saying,

"no your lvl 5 spell doesn't completely invalidate encounters of any level as that's clearly not the intended power level of the spell"

And then we continue, not a big deal.

Sure, but that position doesn't mean that the Spell in question shouldn't be errata'd. There is obviously some targeting restrictions that are missing, so what is wrong with asking for them to be added?

I never said there was any harm in addressing it, I don't however think it's "inexcusable" or a big deal.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Telekinetic Haul doesn't specify an "unattended" object. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.