The text for the TELEKINETIC PROJECTILE cantrip says:
"No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage."
Would a creature that is immune to non-magical attacks be immune to damage from this spell?
Interesting. By the rules yes because it's a spell, but I can see the argument for magic immune creatures not to be immune since the magic is throwing a non-magical item with intense speed and force.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The text for the TELEKINETIC PROJECTILE cantrip says:
"No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage."
Would a creature that is immune to non-magical attacks be immune to damage from this spell?
Yes, because that text is referring to using, say, a Flaming Greatsword on an enemy. You don't deal D12 dice, you don't deal D6 Fire damage on top of it, nor do any Striking runes apply. Anything that the object would do to modify the attack doesn't apply.
The attack itself is still otherwise magical in nature via the cantrip traits, and therefore would bounce off such a creature.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unambiguously yes
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Telekinetic Projectile you are throwing an existing object, which may be viewed slightly differently to say Pummeling Rubble where possibly you are creating rocks to throw sometimes.
There is certainly no rules basis to say it is anything other than magical.
A Globe of Invulnerability will protect against Telekinetic Projectile.
The spell itself says No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage.
So I think you have to assume it is magical.
Note that there is a gap in the language, in that things that aren't traits or magical properties of the object, could count
Example. A Cold Iron +2 Striking Flaming Great Sword is going to do
a) magical damage because of Telekinetic projectile damage, a rock would still do magical damage, this item doesn't do any extra
b) no extra damage from striking (traits or magical properties don't apply)
c) no fire damage (traits or magical properties don't apply)
c) slashing damage, because the physical shape of the object is relevant. Though the GM is within his rights to say it hit hilt first and did bludgeoning damage instead.
c) Cold Iron damage. Because like the physical shape of the object it is relevant. Cold Iron is not a trait or magical property. Likewise Silver/Adamantine etc
I'm a bit lost here with the answers.
Phil has asked one question in the subject line and a different converse question in the text.
Could someone deconvolute the consensus here with an answer to this question...maybe quote it...
Does kinetic projectile deliver magical damage?
The spell says:
" 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."
No mention of magical.
Question to answer...Does kinetic projectile deliver magical damage?
Question to answer...Does kinetic projectile deliver magical damage?
Yes it does. In the same way that Pummeling Rubble is magical damage But I guess I'd better let the other posters respond.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit lost here with the answers.
Phil has asked one question in the subject line and a different converse question in the text.
Could someone deconvolution the consensus here with an answer to this question...maybe quote it...
Does kinetic projectile deliver magical damage?
The spell says:
" 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."No mention of magical.
Question to answer...Does kinetic projectile deliver magical damage?
It appears I misread the question, talking about affecting magic-immune creatures. Whoops.
Well, all spells have the Magical trait. Here's what the Magical trait has to say:
Something with the magical trait is imbued with magical energies not tied to a specific tradition of magic. A magical item radiates a magic aura infused with its dominant school of magic.
Some items or effects are closely tied to a particular tradition of magic. In these cases, the item has the arcane, divine, occult, or primal trait instead of the magical trait. Any of these traits indicate that the item is magical.
Seems pretty clear that the spell itself, which is creating the attack, is Magical, since it expressly states that it's infused with magical energy. But to be clear, Magical isn't a damage type, but is more similar to, say, making strikes with a Silver or Cold Iron weapon, wherein effects which require those things would still triger.
So, let's say we have Telekinetic Projectile going up against, say, a Ghost Commoner. It has Resistance 5 to all damage except Ghost Touch, Force, or Positive damage, doubling versus non-magical damage. Simple enough.
Telekinetic Projectile is limited to Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing, depending on which object is being used, and any traits or effects provided by the object is subsumed by the energy of the spell, even if it is, for example, a +1 Striking Ghost Touch Dagger. This means that it is not Ghost Touch, Force, or Positive damage. The spell itself, however, is Magical, so it's considered a Magical attack, meaning the damage dealt by Telekinetic Projectile is only reduced by the standard value, not the increased value.
I hope that better answers your question.
I'm a bit lost here with the answers.
Phil has asked one question in the subject line and a different converse question in the text.
Could someone deconvolution the consensus here with an answer to this question...maybe quote it...
Does kinetic projectile deliver magical damage?
The spell says:
" 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."No mention of magical.
Question to answer...Does kinetic projectile deliver magical damage?
The "mention" of magical is the fact that it's a spell attack, specifically an evocation spell attack for those wondering. Likewise, burning hands doesn't say anything in the spell's text about it being magical, but it's a spell, so it's also magical unless something specifically says otherwise. And pre-empting the point that burning hands is fire damage: Fire damage is a type of energy damage, not magic damage. You can have magical and non-magical fire in the same way you can have magical and non-magical bludgeoning damage.
Question to answer...Does kinetic projectile deliver magical damage?Yes it does. In the same way that Pummeling Rubble is magical damage But I guess I'd better let the other posters respond.
Thanks Gortle, much appreciated
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. The spell doesn't specify that it deals magical damage because it doesn't need to. Because it's a spell.
Yes, it is magical bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage.
I've previously run it as not being magical damage, specifically to allow it to affect golems with full effect, but I can definitely see the rules not backing that up.
To me it made more sense that say, immunity to magic, would protect the immune thing from being telekinetically thrown and not protect it against things telekinetically thrown at them. That interpretation sees the damage caused by having an object forced very quickly towards a target, instead of as the telekinesis forming the damage and the object only determining the shape of impact.
After thinking through this a bit more, I'd say the second interpretation is more closely aligned with the mechanics of the spell and with the rules as they are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I'd prefer it to be non magical damage. That how I visualise the spell - the magic is in the throw only. But there no support for that in the game. That sort of distinction is never made. It would complicate other spells as well.
Up to you as a GM if you want to customise it.
|
I would disagree with many, but its just MY interpretation, for MY campaign. While the generation of the effect is magical, the damage itself it just damage. Using telekinetic energy to throw an otherwise mundane object does not, IMO, change the nature of the damage. I would agree that something like globe of invulnerability would block it, but that is due to the propulsion being neutralized moreso than the object being physically blocked. Without the magical propulsion, the object would simply fall.
The idea that the rock (or whatever) being "thrown" with telekinetic projectile suddenly changing to a magical effect is troublesome to me. How does it compare to hand of the apprentice? How about a sword that becomes magical by way of a potency rune? Would a creature such as a will-o-wisp or golem suddenly become immune to a sword because you added a +1 rune? I wouldn't think so. How about dragon claws? Is it immune to the slashing damage simply because it is immune to magic and the claws, while physically manifested, are magical based?
Then you have the case of something like ki strike. Does the entire flurry of blows become magical and therefore a creature immune to magic is immune to the punchy-damage? Or is it just immune to the extra 1d6 of damage that is clearly magical in nature? Would it be immune to the +1 to hit because it is magically sourced? How would this impact handwraps of might blows? Does magic immunity render the creature immune to the damage now that the attack carries the magic trait?
Using this mental exercise, I would say an magically-immune target would not be immune to the damage from telekinetic projectile. This is a different situation than say hurtling stone which specifies an 'evoked' magical stone. Elemental toss would need to be adjudicated depending on how you feel about "a chunk of your elemental matter," though I rule it similarly to hurtling stone.
OTOH, I do realize that under this premise it does make telekinetic projectile patently better (read: more utility) than the energy-based cantrips which are clearly magical, and I admit it can be problematic from a balance perspective as we look at the effects of some other spells. However you decide to rule the damage from telekinetic projectile, be prepared to make a number of similar evaluations regarding other spells/effects.
|
Tossing my voice into the hat with the others.
Telekinetic projectile deals physical damage by way of a magical spell attack, akin to similar spells like hand of the apprentice or hydraulic push. It'll help you bypass some of a ghost's resistance, but also be completely useless against a golem.
That being said, if the only two options are 1) PC is useless and player is unhappy, or 2) throwing player a bone so they can contribute, I'm probably going to go with #2, because at the end of the day it's a game and we do it to have fun.
In one of the recent Paizo livestreams the GM allowed a Witch to telekinetically project a silver dagger at a Devil in order to bypass its resistance. Normally, that wouldn't work, but the party was having a tough time and the Witch was out of options.
But also don't forget to remind the player that your generosity may come at the cost of a future tasty snack or beverage next time you game together ^_^
|
|
Personally, I would not equate hand of the apprentice or telekinetic projecile to hydraulic push. IMO, the latter creates [read: evokes) the water used by the spell as opposed to the two former taking an existing mundane object and using telekinetic magic to hurl it. That may not be meaningful to your evaluation, but it is to mine.
Also, personally I try to keep consistency in my rulings as much as possible so I generally don't do tings as you describe with the devil encounter. IMO, either you rule that telekinetically projected objects are magic or not. Otherwise, it creates inconsistencies that your players (ie the characters) are unable to apply to all future situations. Unless, of course, you used it as an establishment of how you will rule similarly moving forward.
Course, if you are using it to extort GM rewards for the GM, then I certainly cannot object to it :-D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In one of the recent Paizo livestreams the GM allowed a Witch to telekinetically project a silver dagger at a Devil in order to bypass its resistance. Normally, that wouldn't work,
Yeah that the thing I understand this to be strictly correct. Because silver is not a trait nor is it a magical property, it is a physical property so it counts. I think this is RAW. Yeah opinions are a bit divided and I've argued other positions before myself.
The idea that the rock (or whatever) being "thrown" with telekinetic projectile suddenly changing to a magical effect is troublesome to me. How does it compare to hand of the apprentice? How about a sword that becomes magical by way of a potency rune? Would a creature such as a will-o-wisp or golem suddenly become immune to a sword because you added a +1 rune? I wouldn't think so. How about dragon claws? Is it immune to the slashing damage simply because it is immune to magic and the claws, while physically manifested, are magical based?
Yes to all. If you don't like the flavor of that then feel free to change it in your game, but you're not really throwing a wrench in the other side's way of seeing things. All of those are magical effects, and the fact that they're physical doesn't change anything. Let's not forget: physical is not the opposite of magical in PF2, it is a type of damage and can be magical or non-magical. If I remember correctly the +1 weapon example is even explicitly shown as an example of overcoming non-magical resistances.
For instance, you might encounter a monster that’s resistant to non-magical bludgeoning damage, meaning it would take less damage from bludgeoning attacks that weren’t magical, but would take normal damage from your +1 mace (since it’s magical)
Then you have the case of something like ki strike. Does the entire flurry of blows become magical and therefore a creature immune to magic is immune to the punchy-damage? Or is it just immune to the extra 1d6 of damage that is clearly magical in nature? Would it be immune to the +1 to hit because it is magically sourced? How would this impact handwraps of might blows? Does magic immunity render the creature immune to the damage now that the attack carries the magic trait?
Yes, it would be immune to the damage, but you're only looking at one side of the coin here. Magical damage can also be a good thing or a bad thing, as certain things are resistant to non-magical damage, and if you rule that some is magical and some is not then the full resistance still applies to the non-magical part. And as for the +1 to hit: no, because that's not an effect of the spell on the target, but just part of the calculation of the attack roll in the same way that adding your trained proficiency is part of an attack roll. However, it's immune to the strikes anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
Using this mental exercise, I would say an magically-immune target would not be immune to the damage from telekinetic projectile. This is a different situation than say hurtling stone which specifies an 'evoked' magical stone. Elemental toss would need to be adjudicated depending on how you feel about "a chunk of your elemental matter," though I rule it similarly to hurtling stone.
If you have to rely on flavor text to make a ruling that's a good sign you're in homebrew territory.
OTOH, I do realize that under this premise it does make telekinetic projectile patently better (read: more utility) than the energy-based cantrips which are clearly magical,
Why is energy damage from a spell clearly magical but physical damage from a spell dependent upon how it's described? Again, physical is not the opposite of magical. It's just a type of damage. A house on fire wouldn't cause magical damage, for example.
and I admit it can be problematic from a balance perspective as we look at the effects of some other spells. However you decide to rule the damage from telekinetic projectile, be prepared to make a number of similar evaluations regarding other spells/effects.
I would disagree with the "however you rule it" part. If you rule it that magical attacks do magical damage unless the spell says otherwise than you don't really need to make all of these off-the-cuff rulings. A player can easily look at an effect, see if it's magical, and decide for themselves.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because silver is not a trait nor is it a magical property, it is a physical property so it counts.
It actually is a trait: Precious. "Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because silver is not a trait nor is it a magical property, it is a physical property so it counts.It actually is a trait: Precious. "Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait."
You're precious!
Because silver is not a trait nor is it a magical property, it is a physical property so it counts.It actually is a trait: Precious. "Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait."
Well if anyone finds a halfling out there with a vulnerability to Precious, I guess it could be revelant.
|
I would disagree with many, but its just MY interpretation, for MY campaign. While the generation of the effect is magical, the damage itself it just damage. Using telekinetic energy to throw an otherwise mundane object does not, IMO, change the nature of the damage. I would agree that something like globe of invulnerability would block it, but that is due to the propulsion being neutralized moreso than the object being physically blocked. Without the magical propulsion, the object would simply fall.
The idea that the rock (or whatever) being "thrown" with telekinetic projectile suddenly changing to a magical effect is troublesome to me. How does it compare to hand of the apprentice? How about a sword that becomes magical by way of a potency rune? Would a creature such as a will-o-wisp or golem suddenly become immune to a sword because you added a +1 rune? I wouldn't think so. How about dragon claws? Is it immune to the slashing damage simply because it is immune to magic and the claws, while physically manifested, are magical based?
Then you have the case of something like ki strike. Does the entire flurry of blows become magical and therefore a creature immune to magic is immune to the punchy-damage? Or is it just immune to the extra 1d6 of damage that is clearly magical in nature? Would it be immune to the +1 to hit because it is magically sourced? How would this impact handwraps of might blows? Does magic immunity render the creature immune to the damage now that the attack carries the magic trait?
Using this mental exercise, I would say an magically-immune target would not be immune to the damage from telekinetic projectile. This is a different situation than say hurtling stone which specifies an 'evoked' magical stone. Elemental toss would need to be adjudicated depending on how you feel about "a chunk of your elemental matter," though I rule it similarly to hurtling stone.
OTOH, I do realize that under this premise it does...
I think that if the magic was only in the throwing, the object would keep its magical properties. Which by RAW it does not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes to all.
Making golems effectively immune to physical attacks definitely doesn't seem correct.
Making golems effectively immune to physical attacks definitely doesn't seem correct.
Yes to all.
Imagine a ghost/ethereal construct. Spirit/Soul Golem? Super scary stuff, that.
Making golems effectively immune to physical attacks definitely doesn't seem correct.
Yes to all.
Fair enough. I took it for granted that the examples given would actually be examples of creatures that are immune to all magical effects and/or magic damage. Looking at them again it is blatantly obvious this is not the case. They both go out of their way to describe what they're immune to as opposed to simply being immune to "magic damage" or "magical effects" or something similar. This is something that I overlooked, but the other points remain valid. It also coincidentally means that the examples are kind of irrelevant, but still, I should have done my due diligence.
For those wondering, the specific examples:
Will-o-wisp:
Immunities Magic
Clarifying sentence:
Magic Immunity A will-o’-wisp is immune to all spells except faerie fire, glitterdust, magic missile, and maze.
Golems:
Immunities Acid, Bleed... Magic (see below)
Below:
"A golem is immune to spells and magical abilities other than its own, but each type of golem is affected by a few types of magic in special ways."
A +1 weapon is neither a spell nor a magical ability. It is an item with the magical trait, not an ability.
It seems to me as if immunity to "magic" is not the same as immunity to "magical damage" in the same way that crit immunity has special rules, and is explained when it comes up.