As the title.
The description from Telekinetic Projectile states:
You hurl a loose, unattended object that is within range and that has 1 Bulk or less at the target. Make a spell attack roll against the target. 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 specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage.
Okay, sounds simple enough. We can't take a +3 Major Striking weapon with a bunch of elemental runes dropped on the ground and toss it at a bad guy for added damage, nor can we take an object with the Light trait on it and throw it at an enemy in Darkness and counteract the effect, for examples.
But what if we're facing a Demon and have a Cold Iron object available to throw at them; does the object being made out of Cold Iron trigger Weakness from the Demon? It isn't the result of a magical property, nor does it benefit from specific traits. Would this be possible by RAW? And is it for or against RAI?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely not, the individual different materials do not each have their own Trait to govern how they work (for whatever reason) but they ARE all covered by the Precious Trait which IS something that is covered by TKP rules and indicates that no Previous Trait is imparted as part of the Spell Attack or Damage effects.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely not, the individual different materials do not each have their own Trait to govern how they work (for whatever reason) but they ARE all covered by the Precious Trait which IS something that is covered by TKP rules and indicates that no Previous Trait is imparted as part of the Spell Attack or Damage effects.
Thanks for the link.
Kinda annoying that apart from the rarity there's no "precious" trait under the "Precious material weapons ( Cold Iron, for example ).
ps: TKP stands for...?
I'd guess that TKP stands for TeleKinetic Projectile.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things like this are why I usually houserule Telekinetic Projectile to be a conjuration spell. No questions about what features/traits/materials/other synonyms are imparted from the existing object being used for the spell.
Absolutely not, the individual different materials do not each have their own Trait to govern how they work (for whatever reason) but they ARE all covered by the Precious Trait which IS something that is covered by TKP rules and indicates that no Previous Trait is imparted as part of the Spell Attack or Damage effects.
I don't think the Precious trait is what determines whether Weakness applies to damaging the enemy, though I can understand using it as a means to balance the cantrip out from being "overpowered." It kind of does bum me out that a character can't be prepared by, for example, purchasing Special Material ammunition to use with this cantrip to help with fighting certain monsters, which would make sense if you were a group of monster hunters, for example. If an Archer can do it, why can't a Spellcaster?
But now I am curious about another thing, and this kind of came up with a session we had last week:
Zombies have a weakness to Slashing, and one of our characters carries a Dagger on them, which defaults to Piercing damage. They decided they wanted to use it with Telekinetic Projectile by dropping it (a free action) and using Telekinetic Projectile with it to attack the Zombie.
Now, obviously the weapon deals Piercing damage by default. But it also possesses the Versatile (Slashing) trait. If a character uses such an object, could they choose to do Slashing damage with it (since it does possess the trait), or would the spell parameters of not permitting traits applying to the attack or damage roll deny the user the opportunity to change the damage type, and therefore the weapon must deal Slashing damage by default?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Daggers are great for Telekinetic Projectile. Point first for piercing, hilt first for bludgeoning, and spinning for slashing.
One of the benefits of the spell is that it can do any of those three damage types. Why take that away just because the character is using an existing item? Especially one that is capable of doing that type of damage.
Daggers are great for Telekinetic Projectile. Point first for piercing, hilt first for bludgeoning, and spinning for slashing.
One of the benefits of the spell is that it can do any of those three damage types. Why take that away just because the character is using an existing item? Especially one that is capable of doing that type of damage.
Can doesn't mean will, or that it's capable. A GM could reasonably argue that using certain parts of an entire object to strike with goes beyond the capacity of the spell; it is a cantrip, after all. And even if you want to say that it should be reasonable due to traits like Versatile, the spell by RAW disallows outside traits, such as Versatile, to apply to the attack. And this is an instance where the trait actually has an impact on the way a weapon can deal damage (by adding a type of damage the weapon can reasonably do).
I think it isn’t a good exact comparison to archers buying special ammo though.
An archer with a +2 bow needs medium grade special materials ammo, and a +3 needs high grade. That is very expensive.
Since TKP doesn’t use runes, allowing a wizard to hit every weakness with low grade ammo would be super cheesy lategame.
It isn't, and I don't disagree. But that's a fundamental problem with the differences of expected scaling, and demanding recurring cost poaching for benefitting from special materials throughout your adventuring career. After all, this wasn't something that existed in PF1, hence it being a new problem created by this edition (one that this edition didn't need, I might add), and there are no item bonuses to spell attack rolls, meaning the archer is more accurate by comparison (and therefore less likely to waste ammunition). And by the time the characters are level 19, where there is only an effective +1 difference in to-hit, a spellcaster spending actions for cantrips isn't a very wise use of actions in a combat where they are expected to sling actual spell slots or even focus spells every round against very difficult enemies.
We can still agree that at its base, low-quality costs, a Wizard who wants some Cold Iron Bullets in a pouch to fling at Demons pays the same amount of gold as an Archer who wants some Cold Iron Arrows in their quiver.
Can doesn't mean will, or that it's capable. A GM could reasonably argue that using certain parts of an entire object to strike with goes beyond the capacity of the spell; it is a cantrip, after all. And even if you want to say that it should be reasonable due to traits like Versatile, the spell by RAW disallows outside traits, such as Versatile, to apply to the attack. And this is an instance where the trait actually has an impact on the way a weapon can deal damage (by adding a type of damage the weapon can reasonably do).Daggers are great for Telekinetic Projectile. Point first for piercing, hilt first for bludgeoning, and spinning for slashing.
One of the benefits of the spell is that it can do any of those three damage types. Why take that away just because the character is using an existing item? Especially one that is capable of doing that type of damage.
I disagree that this is a reasonable GM ruling. The spell says that it can deal any of the three types of damage based solely on the whim of the GM and the description of the object being used.
If you hit, you deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage—as appropriate for the object you hurled
If a player has a particular item (especially one that they bring for the purpose of this spell) and can give a valid and reasonable justification for why it would do a particular type of damage, what reason does the GM have for denying it?
A nail would probably do piercing damage.
A shard of glass would do piercing or slashing.
A soup cup would probably do bludgeoning unless the cup was broken.
A stick: piercing or bludgeoning.
A rock: probably bludgeoning unless it is a particularly pointy or sharp shaped rock.
A dagger: why wouldn't it be able to do any of the three?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely not, the individual different materials do not each have their own Trait to govern how they work (for whatever reason) but they ARE all covered by the Precious Trait which IS something that is covered by TKP rules and indicates that no Previous Trait is imparted as part of the Spell Attack or Damage effects.
Ridiculous. Its quite clear in the rules. Play the rules. Your argument is totally spurious. For starters Wood and Cold Iron are not Precious. The Precious Trait does not exist on any weapons only on raw materials for crafting.
Then the Trait Precious actually has no effect on damage anyway. Its just an irrelvant secondary property. Its like claiming that the object being Black is somehow relevant to damage.
The actual text of the spell stops traits and magical properties, it explicilty includes physical properties like the shape of the object which does affect the type of damage Bludgeoning, Piercing, Slashing. Other physical properties are clearly included.
Stopping the trait of Precious is totally fine. It doesn't stop a silver coin from being silver. There is no Silver or Cold Iron trait.
House rule it if you don't like it and want it to be different. Cool. But the rules are clear.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allowing Telekinetic Projectile to inflict damage with other traits/properties beyond what it explicitly grants (B, S, P) is damn cool. It is also Too good to be true IMO.
Fling ice cubes to do cold damage, embers for fire damage ... why would one even need the other damage cantrips ?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Allowing Telekinetic Projectile to inflict damage with other traits/properties beyond what it explicitly grants (B, S, P) is damn cool. It is also Too good to be true IMO.
Fling ice cubes to do cold damage, embers for fire damage ... why would one even need the other damage cantrips ?
That is a total straw man. Who is proposing that?
Silver is not a different damage type.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I am incline to allow it since it is incredibly difficult for spell-users to overcome resistances and take advantage of weaknesses. Doesn't seem very logical that if I pick up a chunk of silver from the ground and hurl it at a lemure using telekinetic projectile it will resist part of the damage, but if I throw it with my bare hand it'll ignore the resistance. I think in my games I would allow a chunk of special material hurled with telekinetic projectile to take advantage of any material weaknesses if the player is prepared to lose said item since at that point I would rule it is ammunition and therefore expended or it is consumed by the magic of the spell. Either way, its gone. In the long run its not very cost effective, but at least it gives them some options.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sheesh people, if you are worried about someone exploiting telekinetic projectile then just limit how much special materials you give out as loot. Pretty simple really. I'll never understand why GMs are so worried about players breaking the game when they can do whatever they want to correct it, up to and including simply saying, "well, I did not realize this was going to be over-powered when I previously allowed it, but clearly it is, so I'm shutting it down."
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
My in-game interpretation:
I envision the spell enveloping the propelled objects within a shaped force field. It's how I make sense of soft items like a scarf or handkerchief being able to deal up to 134 hp of damage without achieving Mach speeds.
It also helps me make sense of precious materials not being useful. A werewolf isn't going to suffer weakness from being struck by a telekinetically propelled silver spoon because the force field prevents the silver from coming directly into contact with their tissue.
Side note:
I had an Occultist in PF1 who carried sets of cutlery to use with Telekinetic Projectile.
- Spoons for Bludgeoning damage
- Forks for Piercing damage
- Knives for Slashing damage
Allowing Telekinetic Projectile to inflict damage with other traits/properties beyond what it explicitly grants (B, S, P) is damn cool. It is also Too good to be true IMO.
Fling ice cubes to do cold damage, embers for fire damage ... why would one even need the other damage cantrips ?
That is a total straw man. Who is proposing that?
Silver is not a different damage type.
It feels the same.
Exploiting the spell by bringing marbles ( better big ones, so they are not ammunition and you can use them over and over ) of different materials with you is something clearly not meant.
The spell basically asks you to bring pointy, sharp and blunt ammunition.
Why would you not? Yes depending on the details that may take extra actions.
I am a frontliner when it comes down to ask paizo for more errata and more detailed descriptions, but this is one of the times it goes beyond what they could have done.The spell is just there to provide a higher damage die in exchange of elemental damage and reach, flat footed condition, persistent damage or anything else a spell may get.
Going for cold iron, silver or adamantite items to exploit, if intended, is something they would have easily covered with an extra line, given how important it is.
I'm just not seeing your point. Traits and magical properties. It is well enumerated. Why would they need to say more? There are so many thing in the game they could have cleared up with and extra line of two and they just have not. Why is it important? Your argument doesn't stack up.
Why is is an exploit because just because it is stated by omission?
It is going to be +5 damage to like 10% or less creatures if you know to use the right type. Its still going to be way less popular and less effective than Electric Arc even against those creatures. Its not going to outshine other weapons. Because alchemical items like Cold Iron Blanch exist and are cheap (10gp).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"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."
Can anyone tell me how the above triggers weaknesses beyond those to "bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage" ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"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."
Can anyone tell me how the above triggers weaknesses beyond those to "bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage" ?
The damage rules and yes it is talking about spells here too. The last paragraph covers these materials.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The damage rules and yes it is talking about spells here too. The last paragraph covers these materials."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."
Can anyone tell me how the above triggers weaknesses beyond those to "bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage" ?
But the spell clearly states the damage it does and that's it. Nowhere does it says that the spell should be considered as any kind of special material.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Allowing Telekinetic Projectile to inflict damage with other traits/properties beyond what it explicitly grants (B, S, P) is damn cool. It is also Too good to be true IMO.
Fling ice cubes to do cold damage, embers for fire damage ... why would one even need the other damage cantrips ?
That is a total straw man. Who is proposing that?
Silver is not a different damage type.
I did not intend any strawman here.
If I say okay when a player uses Telekinetic Projectile to propel silver coins and triggers a werewolf's weakness, even though nothing in the spell description's validates this, what can I say when they fling ice cubes at a fire mephit to trigger their weakness to cold ? Or when they fling embers at an ice mephit for the same purpose ?
How can I say no then when I previously said yes ?
But the spell clearly states the damage it does and that's it. Nowhere does it says that the spell should be considered as any kind of special material.The damage rules and yes it is talking about spells here too. The last paragraph covers these materials."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."
Can anyone tell me how the above triggers weaknesses beyond those to "bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage" ?
The spell itself did when it made the phyiscal properties of the item thrown relevant.
Its in the general damage rules. Exactly the same place that applies if its a silver sword.
Physical Damage
Damage dealt by weapons, many physical hazards, and a handful of spells is collectively called physical damage. The main types of physical damage are bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing.
at the bottom of that same rules section
While not their own damage category, precious materials can modify damage to penetrate a creature's resistances or take advantage of its weaknesses
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the spell clearly states the damage it does and that's it. Nowhere does it says that the spell should be considered as any kind of special material.The damage rules and yes it is talking about spells here too. The last paragraph covers these materials."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."
Can anyone tell me how the above triggers weaknesses beyond those to "bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage" ?
The spell itself did when it made the phyiscal properties of the item thrown relevant.
Its in the general damage rules. Exactly the same place that applies if its a silver sword.
Physical Damage
Damage dealt by weapons, many physical hazards, and a handful of spells is collectively called physical damage. The main types of physical damage are bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing.at the bottom of that same rules section
While not their own damage category, precious materials can modify damage to penetrate a creature's resistances or take advantage of its weaknesses
Only the "bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage" are specified as depending on the object though. Nothing else.
Allowing Telekinetic Projectile to inflict damage with other traits/properties beyond what it explicitly grants (B, S, P) is damn cool. It is also Too good to be true IMO.
Fling ice cubes to do cold damage, embers for fire damage ... why would one even need the other damage cantrips ?
That is a total straw man. Who is proposing that?
Silver is not a different damage type.
I did not intend any strawman here.
If I say okay when a player uses Telekinetic Projectile to propel silver coins and triggers a werewolf's weakness, even though nothing in the spell description's validates this, what can I say when they fling ice cubes at a fire mephit to trigger their weakness to cold ? Or when they fling embers at an ice mephit for the same purpose ?
How can I say no then when I previously said yes ?
If you get hit by a stone that has been in the freezer do you suffer any more damage that a regular stone? Not really.
Why does a wooden stake damage a vampire more than an iron stake? Not really sure but somehow it does.
If a player throws an icicle with telekinetic projectile its going to do piercing damage. If they throw a torch it will do bludgeoning damage.
Maybe a GM could choose to allow it to be cold/hot enough to trigger weakness. But then the GM is making stuff up because he wants to. By default if doesn't.
Special materials are part of the base game, and we have rules for it. Somehow silver hurts werewolves more just because they were hit by it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I am incline to allow it since it is incredibly difficult for spell-users to overcome resistances and take advantage of weaknesses. Doesn't seem very logical that if I pick up a chunk of silver from the ground and hurl it at a lemure using telekinetic projectile it will resist part of the damage, but if I throw it with my bare hand it'll ignore the resistance. I think in my games I would allow a chunk of special material hurled with telekinetic projectile to take advantage of any material weaknesses if the player is prepared to lose said item since at that point I would rule it is ammunition and therefore expended or it is consumed by the magic of the spell. Either way, its gone. In the long run its not very cost effective, but at least it gives them some options.
Does it seem logical that, when you throw an acid flask at a Troll, it deals acid damage, but, when you hurl it using Telekinetic Projectile, it does not ?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
TKP says nothing about damaging the thing you launch, so does the fragile acid flask break? That isn't a specific trait or magic property so going by the really narrow reading used to justify special metal damage, it'd be possible. But do you then acid damage? Or does an acid flask only do acid damage when thrown as a bomb, not if say, you take out the stopper and pour it over someone's head?
I think that's all rather straining. For me the point is that TPK doesn't really say what it does with special metals, so you have to guess at the intent. I think the intent of the spell is to do exactly what it says and nothing more. It's already got the biggest damage die size of all the cantrips and high flexibility in damage type.
Personally, I am incline to allow it since it is incredibly difficult for spell-users to overcome resistances and take advantage of weaknesses. Doesn't seem very logical that if I pick up a chunk of silver from the ground and hurl it at a lemure using telekinetic projectile it will resist part of the damage, but if I throw it with my bare hand it'll ignore the resistance. I think in my games I would allow a chunk of special material hurled with telekinetic projectile to take advantage of any material weaknesses if the player is prepared to lose said item since at that point I would rule it is ammunition and therefore expended or it is consumed by the magic of the spell. Either way, its gone. In the long run its not very cost effective, but at least it gives them some options.Does it seem logical that, when you throw an acid flask at a Troll, it deals acid damage, but, when you hurl it using Telekinetic Projectile, it does not ?
Somehow the TKP spell protects the flask and it doesn't break? Or the Spell cracks the flask too quickly and not much acid is thrown just the shards of the flask?
Yes its wierd. Technically you still end up saying no just the same no matter whether you allow extra physical properties to count or not, the problem exists.
...
It's already got the biggest damage die size of all the cantrips and high flexibility in damage type.
...
The flexibility of damage type is nice, but getting 1d6s isn't that big a deal. Several other cantrips get 1d6's and those that use 1d4s typically have other compensating benefits.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm not interested in a back and forth with pointed words and argumentation but I will say this.
The Precious Trait is THE part of the rules that defines what Special Materials are and what they do and is part of the Weapon, the RAW is crystal clear and the RAI is similarly almost 100% transparent as well.
If you're arguing that Weapons made of Special Materials and attacks generated by them do not possess the Precious Trait then you are saying that the Weapons themselves have and can gain no benefit from those Special Materials, I linked the Trait and rule in question which is precisely what grant those special properties, without applying the very function of the Precious Trait there ARE no special properties whatsoever and it is beyond a stretch to say that a Cold Iron Weapon does not interact with, use, and rely on the Previous Trait rules.
Weapons with Precious materials are not Schrodinger's cats, they do not exist in a quantum state where they both DO and do NOT have the Trait that governs and provides the benefit and it is inappropriate to assume that one can simply have it both ways whenever it might benefit the reader.
If you want to homebrew that you can do this, fine, but TKP couldn't be much more clear on this, no specific traits that interface with the Weapon do or should ever apply regardless of the can of worms situation that continually unfolds due to the hodge-podge use of the Trait mechanic and when/where those Traits that define how rules elements interact with one another are included on equipment in particular. Fact is, the Trait list lists Precious as a Trait and without that Trait being interpreted as being part of what makes a given Weapon made of these kinds of material then those Weapons made of Precious materials would have no benefit whatsoever.
Allowing Telekinetic Projectile to inflict damage with other traits/properties beyond what it explicitly grants (B, S, P) is damn cool. It is also Too good to be true IMO.
Fling ice cubes to do cold damage, embers for fire damage ... why would one even need the other damage cantrips ?
I would have to say the TGTBT clause is really the only thing that would outright deny it from happening.
As for those objects, I imagine they possess the associated traits (cold, fire, etc.), which can't apply to the attack.
Can doesn't mean will, or that it's capable. A GM could reasonably argue that using certain parts of an entire object to strike with goes beyond the capacity of the spell; it is a cantrip, after all. And even if you want to say that it should be reasonable due to traits like Versatile, the spell by RAW disallows outside traits, such as Versatile, to apply to the attack. And this is an instance where the trait actually has an impact on the way a weapon can deal damage (by adding a type of damage the weapon can reasonably do).Daggers are great for Telekinetic Projectile. Point first for piercing, hilt first for bludgeoning, and spinning for slashing.
One of the benefits of the spell is that it can do any of those three damage types. Why take that away just because the character is using an existing item? Especially one that is capable of doing that type of damage.
I disagree that this is a reasonable GM ruling. The spell says that it can deal any of the three types of damage based solely on the whim of the GM and the description of the object being used.
If you hit, you deal bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage—as appropriate for the object you hurledIf a player has a particular item (especially one that they bring for the purpose of this spell) and can give a valid and reasonable justification for why it would do a particular type of damage, what reason does the GM have for denying it?
A nail would probably do piercing damage.
A shard of glass would do piercing or slashing.
A soup cup would probably do bludgeoning unless the cup was broken.
A stick: piercing or bludgeoning.
A rock: probably bludgeoning unless it is a particularly pointy or sharp shaped rock.A dagger: why wouldn't it be able to do any of the three?
It is, though. How is the dagger dealing slashing damage without the trait permitting it? If a character can't reasonably use a dagger to do Bludgeoning damage with a Strike, should a cantrip give you that permission by comparison? Is the spell precise and accurate enough for you to use only certain surfaces of an object to alter its damage type? That's all in GM FIAT territory, and several GMs will look to existing weapon precedents for examples, especially when said object is an actual existing weapon. For the dagger, if a martial character can't reasonably do Bludgeoning damage with it, why give that flexibility to the caster, who is far less skilled at wielding weapons by comparison? While a Dagger can do Slashing damage, the only reason it can is because of a trait. A trait, which, by the way, the cantrip expressly states cannot alter or add to the attack. Meaning the Versatile Slashing trait the Dagger has cannot be used as a means of making said Dagger deal slashing damage, by RAW.
We can say that it shouldn't be RAI, because it's totally reasonable for a dagger to slash a foe, but if we argue that Versatile Slashing traits should apply to permit the damage type, then why not all the other traits and effects too? Because of balance reasons. It just so happens that Versatile Slashing is an unwanted trait casualty for the sake of balancing the cantrip out from being way overpowered compared to what it usually is. The reason why special materials can get away with it is because it's not a trait or magical effect that alters the attack, it's simply a mundane material the select object is made out of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm not interested in a back and forth with pointed words and argumentation but I will say this.
The Precious Trait is THE part of the rules that defines what Special Materials are and what they do and is part of the Weapon, the RAW is crystal clear and the RAI is similarly almost 100% transparent as well.
If you're arguing that Weapons made of Special Materials and attacks generated by them do not possess the Precious Trait then you are saying that the Weapons themselves have and can gain no benefit from those Special Materials, I linked the Trait and rule in question which is precisely what grant those special properties, without applying the very function of the Precious Trait there ARE no special properties whatsoever and it is beyond a stretch to say that a Cold Iron Weapon does not interact with, use, and rely on the Previous Trait rules.
Weapons with Precious materials are not Schrodinger's cats, they do not exist in a quantum state where they both DO and do NOT have the Trait that governs and provides the benefit and it is inappropriate to assume that one can simply have it both ways whenever it might benefit the reader.
If you want to homebrew that you can do this, fine, but TKP couldn't be much more clear on this, no specific traits that interface with the Weapon do or should ever apply regardless of the can of worms situation that continually unfolds due to the hodge-podge use of the Trait mechanic and when/where those Traits that define how rules elements interact with one another are included on equipment in particular. Fact is, the Trait list lists Precious as a Trait and without that Trait being interpreted as being part of what makes a given Weapon made of these kinds of material then those Weapons made of Precious materials would have no benefit whatsoever.
I can understand how you came to that conclusion, but I disagree with it for a couple reasons. First, let's look at the fine print for the trait:
Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait. They can be substituted for base materials when you Craft items.
So, the Precious trait states that it's applied to "Valuable materials with special properties". It sounds simple enough, but the problem is that it only works for the materials themselves, not the end product those materials are used for, and we're trying to extrapolate "valuable materials" to likewise mean "valuable material weapons," when that is not the terminology being used; they are purposefully different in this case. In short, once you use materials with the Precious trait to craft an item, the end product essentially loses that trait, because it ceases to be a valuable material (as it's now a valuable material weapon, something completely different).
In addition, all of the statblocks for Unique Weapons made out of Special Materials lack the Precious trait, whereas if the item possesses runes that have specific traits, (like Good, Fire, etc.,) those are present in their statblocks. Because of that, we can't even say that it's a typo, both because we have had two rounds of errata for the Core Rulebook, but also because there are so many Unique Weapon examples that disprove this by lacking the Precious trait.
As an added bonus, even example weapon blocks in the Materials section for Special Materials don't possess the Precious trait, as shown here for Mithril Weapons. If the idea that the trait is supposed to apply there, wouldn't it make the most sense to use it here? Interestingly enough, it's shown in the base material, but I don't think either are shown for objects or for the chunks themselves, or that the traits for the base material do apply to the objects and chunks. In which case, it just seems weird that a Telekinetic Projectile weapon which lacks the trait can apply it, but not a generic object, like a silver fork, knife, or spoon.
In essence, all of your examples are trying to apply a trait that simply isn't there, which means that when a character is checking for applying material weakness via a weapon to the attack, they aren't looking for the Precious trait, because if they were, no special material weapon would ever trigger weakness ever since it doesn't actually possess said trait. As such, the idea that the Precious trait is what triggers the weakness, and not the fact that the item is made out of the same name of material that the weaknesses lists, just doesn't add up to how you say it's supposed to work. The format simply doesn't match.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm not interested in a back and forth with pointed words and argumentation
All my comments have contained responses out of the rules and directly address the questions asked. Apart from the basic words needed to express my opposition it has not been pointed. Opposition to an idea is not hostility.
Fact is, the Trait list lists Precious as a Trait and without that Trait being interpreted as being part of what makes a given Weapon made of these kinds of material then those Weapons made of Precious materials would have no benefit whatsoever.
The Trait isn't relevant - its not triggering the weakness. Its just another property/Trait that exists on a material. Further there are materials that do not have this trait that do trigger a weakness, eg wood. A rock can be small round, warm, silver, dense, pink, brittle these are all physical properties. But only two if these count: round because a GM will interpret that to mean Bludgeoning, and Silver because it might be thrown at a werewolf. The properties warm, dense, brittle pink are just not relevant neither is precious.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I'm not looking for a debate, the rules here are extremely clear in both writing and intention but you are welcome to appeal for your position all you like, I just wanted to be sure to get a reply that actually references and relates to the rules as this is the forum section for that.
You're also extremely close to the only reasonable conclusion here Gortle... just follow the breadcrumbs you even included in describing what is going on...
...The Trait isn't relevant - its not triggering the weakness. Its just another property/Trait that exists on a material.
So you're saying that the Trait is part of the material and the material is what the Weapon is made from... and you're right but for some reason, you think you can throw out the fact that those benefits are decidedly added to the Weapon because of the Precious trait and literally nothing else... it doesn't track, you can either keep the benefits from the materials by retaining the dotted line all the way to the Trait that grants them or there is a total disconnect and then that would make Special Materials on Weapons and Armor completely broken and nonfunctional because you cannot have it both ways.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I'm not looking for a debate, the rules here are extremely clear in both writing and intention but you are welcome to appeal for your position all you like, I just wanted to be sure to get a reply that actually references and relates to the rules as this is the forum section for that.
I disagree that the rules are extremely clear in your favor, since the trait does not mention objects outside of materials possessing the trait, plus the trait is not shown in any Unique Weapons, or even in the relevant special material Weapon entries. That means a Holy Avenger doesn't trigger Cold Iron Weakness when striking a Demon because it lacks the Precious trait.
It simply doesn't track to suggest that the Precious trait is what triggers the weakness when neither the trait is present on weapon statblocks (and those items are obviously intended to trigger weakness), nor does its presence matter when determining whether a weakness does or doesn't apply, especially if we take the logical conclusion that Cold Iron weapons, like Holy Avengers, are indeed meant to trigger Cold Iron weakness when used as a part of melee strikes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm not sure I agree the Precious trait is relevant here.
But Telekinetic Projectile tells you what kind of damage it does right on the label. If a GM wants to add extra damage or effects to it based on circumstances that's totally within their purview, but acting like it's an unequivocal default assumption of the spell when nothing in the spell says anything like that is odd.
Yeah I'm not sure I agree the Precious trait is relevant here.
But Telekinetic Projectile tells you what kind of damage it does right on the label. If a GM wants to add extra damage or effects to it based on circumstances that's totally within their purview,
Fair
but acting like it's an unequivocal default assumption of the spell when nothing in the spell says anything like that is odd.
Its because the spell itself explicitly brings in the physical properties of the object for damage type (slashing, piercing...). If it didn't do this - then I would agree with you.
|
|
If I say okay when a player uses Telekinetic Projectile to propel silver coins and triggers a werewolf's weakness, even though nothing in the spell description's validates this, what can I say when they fling ice cubes at a fire mephit to trigger their weakness to cold ? Or when they fling embers at an ice mephit for the same purpose ?
How can I say no then when I previously said yes ?
Simple. That's just the way it works. The spell does not convey elemental traits. It only conveys material compounds (silver, cold iron, adamantine, darkwood, etc.). It doesn't really have to be any more complicated than that.
|
|
Does it seem logical that, when you throw an acid flask at a Troll, it deals acid damage, but, when you hurl it using Telekinetic Projectile, it does not ?
I would simply rule that it is not a suitable material component for the spell. I don't have to worry about it in my games because my players generally do not try to exploit allowances I have provided to give they some minor benefits in order to break the game, but if this bothers you so much, then simply don't allow telekinetic projectile to convey special materials.
|
|
Yeah, I'm not interested...
I think your explanation is perfectly reasonable and as the GM if you said as much, I wouldn't argue the point. All I am saying is that IMO there is a significant disadvantage to being a spellcaster vs a weapon-wielder when it comes to material weaknesses and as such it is perfectly reasonable to allow telekinetic projectile to convey special materials.
IMO, there is no such thing as RAW in so far as the only rules that matter are the ones your gaming group uses. Its not like suddenly you aren't playing Pathfinder 2E if you allow the spell some material allowances. Call it a house rule or whatever, at the end of the day, what difference does it make as long as everyone involved knows the rule and its applied consistently? Its not like we can tell Darksol they can/not use special materials with the spell. Only the GM can do that. Maybe a strict reading of the spell does say no as themetricsystem indicates, but that doesn't really matter in the scope of how a rules (or lack thereof) is applied in your campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is, though. How is the dagger dealing slashing damage without the trait permitting it?
A dagger: why wouldn't it be able to do any of the three?
The same way that it does piercing damage. A dagger doesn't have the Piercing trait either. And even if it did, the spell would ignore it.
A martial character can't normally deal piercing damage with a nail either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also this question reminds me of the Using actual weapons as Improvised Weapons ruling by one of the devs. Similar idea, though the damage amount is determined by the spell rather than the GM. The damage type is determined by the GM and all other properties and traits and such of the item are ignored. According to the dev ruling the material properties are still accounted for.