|
The technically correct answer for silver and TKP is that it applies.
No. That is how you read it.
Other people, myself included, read it differently.
Which is why there is this debate and this thread.
Yes, we get that. It's just that you haven't given any reason or fact to support your claim just denials, and arguments which are demonstrably false.
So please give us a reason why you think the answer is something else?
As I repeatedly wrote before, simply because the spell clearly says what it does. And does not speak about materials at all.
I understand why you read it otherwise. But I still stand by my reading.
And yet, standing by that reading would still agree with our conclusion.
The rules say "specific traits and magical effects" are what are excluded from the attack. Special materials are neither a specific trait, nor a magical effect. So, it stands to reason that this aspect would still affect the attack, right?
The spell saying what it does would not then consequently mean it ceases to interact in any other manner with other rules aspects. Telekinetic Projectile doesn't magically turn a silver object into a non-silver object while affected by the spell, because that's also not what the spell clearly says.
Use Telekinetic Projectile to hit a Golem. Result is Golem is immune to the damage. Because the spell causes the damage. The object does not.
|
|
We already went over this; weapons, armor, and other objects made of special materials don't possess the Precious trait in their statblocks or entries.Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait.Seems pretty definitive to me. Unless you want to suggest that special materials do not possess "special properties" when they are used in armor, weapons or other objects in which case, what was the point?
This is pretty much where it sits with me too.
I've begun to see some light through the cracks where others are interpreting things differently in that there seems to have been something of a major SNAFU with regard to how they unevenly apply Traits from various things to their "child effects" that run downstream of them, ala, the Precious Trait existing on the Material itself but for some reason they never codified that Trait as being bolted onto the various examples of Weapons and Armor that are made from them... still, I don't think that anyone here could really convince me that a piece of equipment made with a Precious Special Material doesn't actually apply that Trait to the equipment itself, otherwise there is just a functional disconnect between the rules that provide benefits and the actual functions of the Weapon.
I'd like to see some designer and dev clarification on the precise nature of Special Materials and the Precious Trait in regard to how those benefits are functionally added since they seem to have almost "talked past" each other in writing the rules as the Determining Damage Type rules mention that damage from these things is explicitly NOT a type of damage but then at the same time the system seems to have used the Precious Trait in only one clear way and that is to bolt it onto the raw materials that are used to make other things while at the same time tying the grant of any special effect they could provide to the Trait itself without letting the Precious Trait "flow" down to the items that the raw materials are used on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
cold iron traits
As graystone demonstrated, not all weapons list every trait that applies. Armor, weapons, etc. gain the precious trait by nature of being crafted from a special material as I quoted upthread.
...the spell causes the damage. The object does not.
Given the description of how the spell works, that is patently inaccurate.
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..."
It is clear, by the description, the spell is merely the power of propulsion and the object is what is doing the damage, the type to be determined by the nature of the object.
Whether or not it affects a golem is a different argument for a different thread and I am not taking a position on that, but since the object is the source of the damage, its another example of it being reasonable for special materials to be conveyed to the target.
As clarity for those who may not have read all the text, I am in favor of telekinetic projectile conveying special materials against resistance/weaknesses and rule as such in my games. However, I am NOT suggesting that is the core rule. The spell specifically does not convey traits to the target and by rule, all special materials gain the precious trait. Therefore, it seems that the official ruling should be that the spell does not convey the special material to the target.
You are literally proposing that Holy Avengers and any other Cold Iron weapons don't trigger Cold Iron weakness to demons with this interpretation, thereby making Holy Avengers a worse weapon to wield against Demons than any other Holy weapon in the game.What?!? The description of the Holy Avenger specifically says it is a "+2 greater striking holy [b]cold iron[/i] longsword." It is crafted from cold iron and would therefore count as cold iron vs resistances/weaknesses. The quote I listed above does not change that, if anything it reinforces it.
The comparison between Holy and Cold Iron is irrelevant since they do not interact. Holy does what it does regardless of the weapon's material construction. Cold Iron does what it does regardless of what property runes are applied.
At the end of the day, you rule it however you want to at your table and I will rule it however I want at my table. You are correct at your table (regardless of what I think) and I am correct at my table (regardless of what you think).
But the weapon doesn't have the Precious trait, so it doesn't trigger weakness, by your initial claim. This is the argument being made for Telekinetic Projectile not triggering weakness with a Special Material Weapon or Ammunition.
They are related because the claim is both apply traits that determine their ability to affect a foe. I dispute that by stating the end product prior to Telekinetic Projectile does not apply the Precious trait, therefore the trait does not matter in determining whether the weakness applies regardless of Telekinetic Projectile being in the equation or not.
I am asking a rules question, not for a ruling suggestion. That logic works for the latter, not the former.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use Telekinetic Projectile to hit a Golem. Result is Golem is immune to the damage. Because the spell causes the damage. The object does not.The technically correct answer for silver and TKP is that it applies.
No. That is how you read it.
Other people, myself included, read it differently.
Which is why there is this debate and this thread.
Yes, we get that. It's just that you haven't given any reason or fact to support your claim just denials, and arguments which are demonstrably false.
So please give us a reason why you think the answer is something else?
As I repeatedly wrote before, simply because the spell clearly says what it does. And does not speak about materials at all.
I understand why you read it otherwise. But I still stand by my reading.
And yet, standing by that reading would still agree with our conclusion.
The rules say "specific traits and magical effects" are what are excluded from the attack. Special materials are neither a specific trait, nor a magical effect. So, it stands to reason that this aspect would still affect the attack, right?
The spell saying what it does would not then consequently mean it ceases to interact in any other manner with other rules aspects. Telekinetic Projectile doesn't magically turn a silver object into a non-silver object while affected by the spell, because that's also not what the spell clearly says.
This is such a strawman that I don't even know what this response is meant to refute, when Golem Spell Immunity trumps anything that Telekinetic Projectile has to offer that the material involved is wholly irrelevant to the equation. In which case, you are purposefully trying to dodge my engagements by throwing these red herrings at self-constructed strawmen.
|
|
But the weapon doesn't have the Precious trait...
It does by nature of the Precious trait language as I post upthread. I think the error that is being made is the assumption that since the word "precious" is not listed under the armor, weapon, other item name that it does not apply. While I would agree that if a trait is listed for an item it does have the trait, I would not agree that if a trait is missing from the list, it cannot have the trait, as has been demonstrated by graystone upthread.
I am asking a rules question, not for a ruling suggestion
We know the following directly from the text...
(1) telekinetic projectile does not convey traits(2) special materials gain the Precious trait
Therefore, by rule, an item hurled using the spell would not convey the special material's properties to the target. That seems to be clear, though I understand that some people are being confused by the lack of the word precious being listed and that we have been conditioned to look there for all trait inclusions.
I admit that my own personal preference is to ignore the restriction to the spell specifically (and only) with regards to special materials because, IMO, it does not make logical sense. I can only assume that the designers either didn't think about special materials gaining the precious trait and therefore being denied by the spell, or they intentionally wanted to deny it presumably for balancing. I just find that a spellcaster's ability to take advantage of or bypass material-based resistance/weakness is incredibly hard. Much moreso than martial characters. So, I rule in their favor with regards to the exception.
I think we can all agree that this would be easily solvable if each metal was a trait.
But the weapon doesn't have the Precious trait, so it doesn't trigger weakness, by your initial claim.
That's just not true: Precious Material Weapons shows that EVERY precious material weapon has the trait, as every one is made of Precious Materials. NOTHING says you drop the trait and as I've shown in my last post, specific items only shows traits NOT associated with the generic parts of it [runes, materials, ect]. Again, you'd have to prove that a Skyrider Sword shouldn't have the Electricity trait even though it has a Shocking rune for your stance on Precious Materials to be right... OR, much more likely, is that they do not replicate every trait for space reasons. Think about it once: if you had to put in EVERY trait, it's take up more than 1 line of text.
For instance, Sky Hammer would have Rare, Evocation, Magical, Conjuration, Fire, Electricity, Precious or a Blade of Four Energies having Acid, Conjuration, Magical, Fire, Cold, Electricity and Evocation... Let me ask you this Would you tell a player that their Sky Hammer or Blade of Four Energies in fact doesn't have the Fire or Electricity traits even though they have the runes?
I think we can all agree that this would be easily solvable if each metal was a trait.
Yep. Then it wouldn't apply to TKP with out a rules change. But the new traits would also have to be placed everywhere appropriate then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the weapon doesn't have the Precious trait, so it doesn't trigger weakness, by your initial claim.That's just not true: Precious Material Weapons shows that EVERY precious material weapon has the trait, as every one is made of Precious Materials. NOTHING says you drop the trait and as I've shown in my last post, specific items only shows traits NOT associated with the generic parts of it [runes, materials, ect]. Again, you'd have to prove that a Skyrider Sword shouldn't have the Electricity trait even though it has a Shocking rune for your stance on Precious Materials to be right... OR, much more likely, is that they do not replicate every trait for space reasons. Think about it once: if you had to put in EVERY trait, it's take up more than 1 line of text.
For instance, Sky Hammer would have Rare, Evocation, Magical, Conjuration, Fire, Electricity, Precious or a Blade of Four Energies having Acid, Conjuration, Magical, Fire, Cold, Electricity and Evocation... Let me ask you this Would you tell a player that their Sky Hammer or Blade of Four Energies in fact doesn't have the Fire or Electricity traits even though they have the runes?
That table does not show the Precious trait whatsoever on any of those items, nor does the description you provide state that weapons/items made with precious materials also have the Precious trait. Again, the precious trait refers to materials, and materials only. Not weapons made of said materials, not armor or shields made of said materials, only the materials, such as the chunks and ingots, because those are inherently materials, whereas a sword is a weapon. Unless you're suggesting I can use a Holy Avenger or a Mithril Waffle Iron as a Precious Material to craft an item, the claim once again makes no sense, because it's apples to oranges. Weapons aren't materials, materials aren't weapons. Therefore, the trait, which refers to materials exclusively, doesn't track to the weapon, because it becomes a different kind of item that the trait can't reasonably apply to according to the description of the trait.
As for the "runes applying their traits," I appear to be wrong on that, since a Holy Avenger doesn't possess the Axiomatic rune, yet still has the Lawful trait (which is baffling, since there is nothing Lawful about the weapon, other than it giving a bit more for Paladins, but that's not inherently Lawful according to the trait description, either). That being said, I don't think statblocks not listing their traits was done as a sign of brevity, and more of a means of "categorizing" traits to certain effects of the item. For example, a weapon with the Fire trait from a Flaming rune means the entire weapon doesn't work underwater, even though the Fire trait is brought on by a mere 1D6 Fire damage (with Persistent 1D10 on a Critical), and not from the actual weapon's damage being entirely of Fire damage.
Of course, if we still stuck with the Precious trait triggering weakness and actually being invisibly present on weapons, that means any weapon with the Precious trait would trigger any material-based weakness because the Precious trait isn't specific enough to track specific material weaknesses, like the game demands it to be; it relies on descriptions in the item to do that, which isn't satisfactory to meet the expectation of the trait being enough information to do that. As such, the addition or subtraction of the Precious trait does very little to warrant determining whether a material-based weakness applies, due both to its generalization, as well as the obvious intent behind the trait's presence being merely to distinct that it is or isn't made of a special material. Not to mention that Telekinetic Projectile has such groundbreaking sorcery to be able to temporarily (even if instantly) decompile the material make-up of objects it uses being well beyond the scope of a cantrip.
That table does not show the Precious trait whatsoever on any of those items, nor does the description you provide state that weapons/items made with precious materials also have the Precious trait.
If you clicked on the "Click here for the full rules on Precious Material Weapons" link on the Precious Material Weapons page, you'd see "Materials with the precious trait can be substituted for base materials." Nothing ever tells you the trait goes away in the Crafting with Precious Materials section... So we know it starts out with the trait and nothing removes it so... I mean the last line in the crafting section says "After creating an item with a precious material, you can use Craft to improve its grade, paying the Price difference and providing a sufficient amount of the precious material": This tells us they stay precious materials after being made a weapon and we know that precious materials have the Precious trait.
So it's JUST like the unlisted traits from runes.
Of course, if we still stuck with the Precious trait triggering weakness and actually being invisibly present on weapons, that means any weapon with the Precious trait would trigger any material-based weakness
This isn't true: "Often, a trait indicates how other rules interact with an ability, creature, item, or another rules element that has that trait." IE, the trait can indicate that you check the particular precious material against other rules as each item with the Precious trait indicates which material it is. In essence, it's Precious [cold iron] but the game just lists it as cold iron: it's kind of like having Conjuration as a thing and Teleportation being a subcategory: Conjuration's existence doesn't mean things can't trigger off of Teleportation.
Someone already mentioned that not every material has the Precious trait, therefore it can't be relevant in triggering weaknesses even if the trait was passed to weapons.
Otherwise a Wooden club can't trigger Wood weaknesses because it isn't Precious enough.
Every precious material has Precious: wood isn't one, so it's not affected. And Precious is just a collection of materials that have special properties: So it's be Precious [silver] that triggers silver weakness and to trigger wood, you'd just need any wood. Removing Precious materials though does cut out a majority of material weaknesses.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t understand the idea that the Precious trait is what allows a special material, like cold iron, to trigger weakness (and I mean in general, not specifically related to the spell under discussion.). I don’t see that in the text anywhere.
It is the material itself, not the trait, that triggers the weakness. In the example given upthread, as quoted from the rules, if you have weakness to water (which in general does not have the Precious trait), you take the weakness value in damage just by merely coming into contact with it.
So, to me, it isn’t the Precious trait which triggers weakness, but the material itself.
Now, maybe there is a bigger reason that I am missing here, but using this spell to hurl a chunk of cold iron at a Demon and triggering its weakness doesn’t break the game (in my opinion). I also don’t think it violates the text of the spell, either. “Cold iron” isn’t a trait. Merely coming into contact with a piece of cold iron would inflict the weakness value in damage to a creature that has cold iron weakness.
Now, there’s a lot of deep-diving throughout this thread, and I’ll readily admit that I don’t understand a lot of the arguments. It seems an overly-complicated thread for something that (to me) seems rather simple.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t see that in the text anywhere
Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait.
Abysium, Adamantine, Cold Iron, Cold Iron Blanch, Darkwood, Djezet, Dragonhide, Grisantian Pelt, Inubrix, Mithral, Noqual, Orichalcum, Siccatite, Silver, Sovereign Steel, and Warpglass are all identified.
So, to me, it isn’t the Precious trait which triggers weakness, but the material itself.
The trait means that the material has "special properties": if you take the trait away, then it's a material without "special properties";IE, made of 'normal' material. You can't have a special material without the trait and if something doesn't allow you to use the traits then it's got nothing special about it.
Now, maybe there is a bigger reason that I am missing here, but using this spell to hurl a chunk of cold iron at a Demon and triggering its weakness doesn’t break the game (in my opinion).
You can say the exact same thing about a weapon with a flaming rune vs a troll: 'using this spell to hurl a Flaming dagger at a Troll and triggering its weakness doesn’t break the game' but it's specifically disallowed by the spell. I mean logically speaking if you fire a flaming item into a creature, you would expect some fire damage but that's NOT what happens.
PS: And just to be clear, we're debating what the rules are and not how balanced they are: something can be unbalanced and/or game breaking and be perfectly correct by the rules. It's really only a consideration in a rules debate if there are multiple ways to read a rule and one triggers the 'too good [or bad] to be true' rule.
That's it. This trait creates an additional crafting subsystem.
It's for adding "special properties" to your weapons. "Weapons made of precious materials are more expensive and sometimes have special effects": special effects, like triggering a weakness. "Most items are made from readily available materials—usually leather, wood, or steel—but some weapons and armor are made from more exotic materials, giving them unique properties and other advantages. Weapons made from precious materials are better able to harm certain creatures, and armor of these materials provides enhanced protection."
PS: Another thing to think about is trait isn't a capitalized keyword: For instance when Telekinetic Projectile says "No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage" it could mean it in the general sense so it might not be referring to specific keyword traits.
PS: PS: Another thing to think about is trait isn't a capitalized keyword: For instance when Telekinetic Projectile says "No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage" it could mean it in the general sense so it might not be referring to specific keyword traits.
Misleading, its not capitalized but it sure is a keyword and it has a definition.
A trait is a keyword that conveys additional information about a rules element, such as a school of magic or rarity. Often, a trait indicates how other rules interact with an ability, creature, item, or another rules element that has that trait. All the traits used in this book are listed here.
Traits are a defined list.
Precious trait does exactly what it says and no more.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no reason for each metal to be its own trait because the precious trait already encompasses all the materials that the rules recognize as special. Anyone who says that the materials listed above are not special materials is factually wrong and intentionally ignoring explicit text. While I admit that the precious word does not appear under special weapons and armor that are specifically crafted from those materials, graystone already demonstrated examples of missing traits from the special weapons so using the listed trait as an exhaustive list is problematic at best. Despite all of that, no one as of yet can reasonably refute the very blatant and direct language for the precious trait that I have quoted upthread, but will one more time.
Valuable materials with special properties have the precious trait
In no way is that unclear or ambiguous. Things like silver, cold iron, etc. are by definition special materials with special properties. They gain the precious trait no matter what form they are in: raw, armor, weapon, tool, whatever. From the perspective of RAW, there simply cannot be any question as to its impact on the spell. Telekinetic projectile by RAW does not conveyed special materials.
More importantly, who cares?!? No rule in this game is such that we cannot adapt it to fit the needs of our own campaigns. So what if some designer says, "no, you cannot do that?" What authority do they have at your gaming table? Many here clearly think that the spell should convey special materials, so LET IT! You are not required to follow the dictates of any keyboard warrior here in forumland.
The continuation of this argument is pointless unless your intention is simply to be argumentative for argument's sake.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t see that in the text anywhereValuable materials with special properties have the precious trait.Abysium, Adamantine, Cold Iron, Cold Iron Blanch, Darkwood, Djezet, Dragonhide, Grisantian Pelt, Inubrix, Mithral, Noqual, Orichalcum, Siccatite, Silver, Sovereign Steel, and Warpglass are all identified.
Maybe what I wrote wasn’t clear- I meant that I don’t see where it says that the precious trait is what is required to trigger a target’s weakness. Those things are all materials that have the Precious trait, yes. I wasn’t arguing they don’t. And I think it’s reasonable to conclude that an item (weapon, armor, whatever) made from one of those materials just inherits the trait, even if it doesn’t say it.
But I wasn’t saying that those materials do not have the Precious trait.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really think that the whole "precious trait" discussion is a red herring.
Yes, a weapon made out of silver or cold iron should have the precious trait. The precious trait is not what causes those materials to trigger weaknesses.
The precious trait itself does nothing. If there was, for example, a monster with an ability that causes it to dissolve any material with the precious trait, then the trait would have a function but to my knowledge it currently does not really.
As for whether TKP can trigger weaknesses from materials, I can see the argument for either interpretation of the rules, but RAW combined with context clues provided by devs, I really think it should work.
The rules for weaknesses state that if a creature posseses a weakness to a material, then touching that material at all triggers it. Taking a silver coin and pushing it into a werewolf with your thumb triggers the weakness. I really don't think you can argue that TKP doesn't cause the item to come into contact with the target.
On top of that, Logan Bonner has stated in a Q&A session that if you chuck a Warhammer at someone that is silver and has the striking rune, then the striking rune does not trigger because the warhammer doesn't have the thrown trait and so you're treating it as an improvised weapon, but the silver still triggers because that's intrinsic to the object itself and it doesn't matter how you touch the target with it.
Between those two things, I really don't think you can argue that material based weaknesses don't trigger.
The more nebulous thing is whether a GM would allow a lit torch to do the 1 fire damage that it says it does when you hit someone with it.
I would say RAW, no. But I might allow it, arguing that it's a reasonable cost to maybe losing your torch.
|
|
Logan Bonner has stated in a Q&A session that if you chuck a Warhammer at someone that is silver and has the striking rune, then the striking rune does not trigger because the warhammer doesn't have the thrown trait and so you're treating it as an improvised weapon, but the silver still triggers because that's intrinsic to the object itself and it doesn't matter how you touch the target with it.
That is the closest thing there is to an official rule. Do you have a source for the comments so we can use it to support our own personal rulings?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd make the object thrown be destroyed if it's made of precious material though.
Make it equivalent to arrows.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Valuable materials with special properties have the precious traitIn no way is that unclear or ambiguous. Things like silver, cold iron, etc. are by definition special materials with special properties. They gain the precious trait no matter what form they are in: raw, armor, weapon, tool, whatever. From the perspective of RAW, there simply cannot be any question as to its impact on the spell. Telekinetic projectile by RAW does not conveyed special materials.
The Trait Precious has nothing to do with it.
Extra damage, resistance or weakness is conveyed by the individual monster description (or their group description) plus the general damage rules. Precious is not involved at all. If we deleted the keyword Precious from the game it would not change. Precious is just a grouping.The game designers have provided examples when traits inherit and have meaning outside their initial context
We know for example that Transmutation and Occult traits also mean Magical because it is explicitly stated.
We know that the traits in actions don't affect subordinate actions. It is explicit.
We know that Striking with a weapon that has runes on it deals Magical Damage from the runes, but the Strike itself is not Magical.
Why are you trying to force inheritance of traits here? It doesn't happen unless its specific. Silver weapons do not have the Precious trait. The Precious Trait has nothing to do with damage, just crafting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We aren't trying to force anything at all, we are just telling you how rules and mechanics flow through traits to equipment and attacks. You simply seem to have a MUCH different interpretation.
The Precious Trait is the very foundation of what creates and allows Special Materials to have special effects in the first place and are part of the material that makes up the Weapon. In my view, them failing to bolt the Precious Trait onto Weapons and other Equipment that are made from those materials was almost certainly just an oversight due to the fact that it should already be assumed that a Weapon made of a Precious material is, in fact Precious and able to leverage the actual rules which give that material benefits in the first place.
I think I most agree with Errenor and Vali's takes on the subject. The Precious trait seems to be for guidance in the crafting system of P2E rather than intended for any kind of combat application and, as Vali says, is a bit of a red herring for this topic. There was an early on suggestion to treat the spell as a conjuration effect which is most likely going to be the easiest solution for a table that isn't interested in getting down to the nitty-gritty on the matter; past that I would say GM gets to decide for their own table (including PFS as there are many times a GM has to make a ruling and stick with it there of course) as the RAW vs. RAI conversation can get, as evidenced here, lengthy.
I think I most agree with Errenor and Vali's takes on the subject. The Precious trait seems to be for guidance in the crafting system of P2E rather than intended for any kind of combat application and, as Vali says, is a bit of a red herring for this topic. There was an early on suggestion to treat the spell as a conjuration effect which is most likely going to be the easiest solution for a table that isn't interested in getting down to the nitty-gritty on the matter; past that I would say GM gets to decide for their own table (including PFS as there are many times a GM has to make a ruling and stick with it there of course) as the RAW vs. RAI conversation can get, as evidenced here, lengthy.
The only thing that bothers me about the conjuration aspect is of course the lack of needing anything. Now the character never has to worry about something to drop, or something laying around the spell is always ready to go.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I most agree with Errenor and Vali's takes on the subject. The Precious trait seems to be for guidance in the crafting system of P2E rather than intended for any kind of combat application and, as Vali says, is a bit of a red herring for this topic. There was an early on suggestion to treat the spell as a conjuration effect which is most likely going to be the easiest solution for a table that isn't interested in getting down to the nitty-gritty on the matter; past that I would say GM gets to decide for their own table (including PFS as there are many times a GM has to make a ruling and stick with it there of course) as the RAW vs. RAI conversation can get, as evidenced here, lengthy.The only thing that bothers me about the conjuration aspect is of course the lack of needing anything. Now the character never has to worry about something to drop, or something laying around the spell is always ready to go.
Oh, for sure, but it's also quick fix that simplifies a lot of questions about what TKP can and can't be used for so, given that TKP is a cantrip that does cantrip amounts of damage, it's not untenable. It's not ideal but it's unlikely to break the game if your GM decides they never want to think about TKP ever again after reading through this thread and would rather gloss over it.
Editing to add: since this thread seems to be a spinoff of the golem antimagic thread, I will say one definite benefit of treating this spell as a conjuration effect is that the question of whether or not it would be canceled out by antimagic is a lot more obvious.
|
So I can't be bothered to format or quote anything but the rules, but I am going to point several things out because there's some misinformation in this thread. I'll say I agree with the crowd saying it does work.
So I can't be bothered to format or quote anything but the rules, but I am going to point several things out because there's some misinformation in this thread. I'll say I agree with the crowd saying it does work.
First, there is nothing that suggests the precious trait affects weaknesses. The trait itself does very little, because pathfinder 2e is an exception-based system, meaning that traits do exactly what they say they do (even if that means they do nearly nothing), plus what specific rules say they do (like the crafting rules). The precious trait only comes into play with weaknesses if a monster is stated to be weak to weapons made from precious materials. The reason weapons do not have the precious trait is because the precious trait is irrelevant to weapons, and would simply be a waste of ink, because as far as I'm aware the only rule that overrides or adds to what the precious trait does is the rules for crafting with precious materials. The weapon or armor or whatever item has already been crafted, so that information is irrelevant. If you can send a link to an archives of nethys page or a book and page number and that proves this incorrect, I'd be glad to read it.
Second, the materials triggering weaknesses isn't from the weapon or effect made of whichever material is dealing damage to a creature; it's from the creature touching the material, as stated on page 453 of the Core Rulebook: "If you have a weakness to something that doesn't normally deal damage, such as water, you take damage equal to the weakness value when touched or affected by it." Sidenote, fire has been mentioned, but fire is something that normally deals damage, so it is irrelevant. If a Mitflit touched a cold iron bar, it would take 2 damage from its weakness. If that cold iron bar is launched at it using telekinetic projectile, it takes the bludgeoning damage from being hit with a bar of metal, and then it takes 2 damage from it's weakness from touching it since the metal was cold iron. Monks are an exception to the rule, because it's specified that your unarmed ATTACKS are considered cold iron and silver, not your fists or your body. I'd also like to point out that mechanically speaking weaknesses are negative abilities of monsters, not effects of items.
The "unattended object" part always bothered me. Since surely objects that you would bring with you for this spell on your person are attended by you unless you spill them on the floor.Yeah, and demanding that you spend an action to take and drop them is just such unfriendly GMing. Good that my GM doesn't do that.
What you do is hold a bundle of items and drop them as a free action: this is a 100% RAW way to deal with it without worrying about DM rulings.
You could also usually just reuse the same object assuming it isn't something that would be destroyed upon impact. Such as a dagger or similar metal object.
I've seen this not work, especially with piercing attacks with DM's having the item 'suck' in the target. So expect table variation on this one. It's why I carry a bag of bits and bobs to drop. If you talk to the Dm and can re-use items, then that's great! A dagger would cover all your attacks [blade is versatile [P/S] and the hilt can be [B].
The "unattended object" part always bothered me. Since surely objects that you would bring with you for this spell on your person are attended by you unless you spill them on the floor.Yeah, and demanding that you spend an action to take and drop them is just such unfriendly GMing. Good that my GM doesn't do that.
I once put a Necklace of Knives on a Redcap enemy. The Magical Trickster rogue with Sorcerer Dedication in the party claimed the necklace. His most powerful spells are his two cantrips and his one focus spell, since they automatically heighten. If he has no sticks or stones on the ground for Telekinetic Projectile, then he activates the necklace as one Interact action and uses the knife pulled from the necklace as the projectile. I don't ask about details such as whether he released the knife before the spell, because I view readying it for use as part of the Interact action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "unattended object" part always bothered me. Since surely objects that you would bring with you for this spell on your person are attended by you unless you spill them on the floor.
I think a simple edit to include a "worn or held object attended by you" would suffice with this.
It's just a cantrip which throws random stuff you find in the room, and depends what you find, the damage changes.
I think it doesn't fit with how some people see the spell, as tossing things you pick and bring with you: you have a theme, like you're a psychic spy and you want to throw knives from a bandoleer of them it lets you down as dumping a pile of knives to toss doesn't seem very skilled vs pulling them out of their holsters.
That and the spell is a WHOLE lot less appealing if you are unable to pick your damage type and instead have to rely on whatever random item types the DM uses if any.
Without the word unattended a character may have thrown enemy stuff at the enemy, eventually disarming or stealing them.
Which is why the suggestion of adding 'items in your possession' was made.
You can already do it for flavor purposes like "throwing silverware I have on my character" Without any need to bend the spell in a way it's not meant for.
You CAN but it involves carrying said silverware everywhere you go and dropping it every time it look like a fight is going to happen... To me, it's not really living up to the fantasy. It's like having a gun but you can't load it but instead are required to either dump a pile of ammo on the ground on the floor before you use it or hope the kind of ammo you want to use was already dumped on the floor before you got there... Sure it COULD work but why do it that way if it can be avoided.
You'll never find a DM opposing to flavor interpretations.
It's not just flavor though: it requires taking up a hand and using the Release action before you cast. If t was truly just flavor, I don't think you'd have as many people with bothered by it. Even IF we assume no DM minds if you pick whatever damage type and you always having items for that damage no matter where you are [say flying 2000' in the air], it's still an issue that the DM has to handwave it.
Different is if you want to do it for power creep purposes.
One persons power creep is another's common sense...
To me, you are making things harder than required.
You're just saying the DM can use hand waving. It's no different from a DM hand waving off food, water or ammunition amounts: sure you CAN but that's not what the rules say.
"DM, can I use telekinetic projectile using silverware I am carrying rather than throwing random stuff on the floor?"
This here is a change to the rules, not a purely flavor change. A flavor change would be the spell seemingly summoning pixies that pick up and use the item to attack. This is a mechanical change and could be used when you wouldn't be able to drop an item like when you're using both hands or when there isn't a solid surface to drop the items on.
"For flavor purposes? Sure. Obviously you are not required to drop the silverwares on the floor. Just play like you throw them with telekinetic power to your enemies, whether they are on your person, on the floor or in your hands"
Where you go off the rails is with the "Obviously you are not required to drop the silverwares on the floor" because that's exactly what the spell requires for you to use your own items. I never expect a Dm to handwave things that aren't flavor like the specific mechanic that this cantrip requires that you're calling flavor.
The spell is already perfect as any other cantrip.
It states:- Number of actions
- Reach
- Type of damage
- Number of dice
If it was perfect you wouldn't have to jump through hoops to make sure you have an item to throw with it. And also, it doesn't not allow the player to pick a damage type: the DM gets to pick what damage type is appropriate for the item thrown. If you're in a room full of rocks that the DM says deal B damage and you didn't bring along something else to drop, you aren't doing S or P damage.
Everything else is up to the DM and the players, if they want to dig deep in unrequired stuff.
Demanding a modify for something like using items on yourself, which doesn't affect the gameplay/rule at all ( because it doesn't change anything if you flavor that your character toss silverwares on the floor or on themselves ) is imo a waste of time, especially when in this 2e there's plenty of stuff which would really require a proper answer.
It seems like a waste to you because it seems like you're already house-ruling it differently by calling a mechanical change a flavor one. That's cool for you but don't throw shade at those of us that look at the actual mechanics and think it could/should be worded differently to actually allow worn items to be used.
Finally, I'd really like to know a DM forcing a player who wants to give flavor to their character to draw and drop the silverwares in order to use TKP. I doubt somebody like this does even exist.
I've played with more than one that required I bring my own stuff to drop if I wanted to be able to pick my damage type freely [one actually made me roll randomly to see what damage I'd get] and I've played in a few other where there wasn't a ground and/or spare items floating around to have items to use [aquatic and in the air].