Is physical damage caused by spells (such as telekinetic projectile) considered magical, particularly for resistances, vulnerabilities, and the like (such as for incorporeal undead)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. The presence of a magical school trait or a magical tradition on the spell makes it and the damage magical.
Physical damage caused by summoned creatures is not magical unless there is something else that says so.
Yes. Even a +1 rune add magical trait to normal physical attack weapons. Would be a non-sense if spell wasn't.
Pathfinder and D&D always distinguished magical/non-magical traits from damage/energy type.
In PF2 this especially noticed in alchemic bombs where many of the does a myriad of damage types that aren't magical.
Thanks! Can any of you direct me to a rule source I can present to my fellow roleplayers?
It's a chain of recursive traits and rules: :
...
Resistances all damage 5 (except force, ghost touch, or positive; double resistance vs. non-magical)
...
Traits: Attack, Cantrip, Evocation
A spell you can cast at will that is automatically heightened to half your level rounded up.
Spells are magical effects created by performing mystical incantations and gestures known only to those with special training or inborn abilities. Casting a spell is an activity that usually uses two actions. Each spell specifies what it targets, the actions needed to cast it, its effects, and how it can be resisted. If a class grants spells, the basics of that ability are provided in the class description in Chapter 3, while the spells themselves are detailed in Chapter 7.
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.
Other way once the magical trait is too much linked to magical itens is follow the tradition way due it's explanation os more linked to spells (but both magical and tradition traits cross each other no matter if is a spell or item):
Traditions arcane, occult
This magic comes from the occult tradition, calling upon bizarre and ephemeral mysteries. Anything with this trait is magical.
I think I recall reading somewhere that anything with a tradition trait was also treated as having the magic trait.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Telekinetic Projectile is probably one of the most.. contested Cantrips out there.
It's one of the highest damage Cantrips, so almost every caster has it. And several resources open up access to it.
But plenty of people read it as useful against magic-immune creatures, because they see the object being flung as non-magical.
And then there's the people who want that object to be a special material so they can doubly benefit from weakness.
So since the player who wants it to work against a ghost will always be at odds with the player who wants it to work against a golem, we'll probably see these discussions resurface regularly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is with it's "flavor" (I know is more than flavor once the physical damage type depends from what you are throwing). But mechanically it's just a spell that does physical damage and nothing more, because the itens characteristics don't affect damage dice and don't share any other characteristics like explained in last description phrase "No specific traits or magic properties of the hurled item affect the attack or the damage." Many players cannot like this but it's pretty clear in spell description.
For me the more complicated aspect is about the line of effect for cover rules. Due to "You hurl a loose, unattended object that is within range and that has 1 Bulk or less at the target." so in my understanding for cover considerations your position doesn't matter only the line between the object and the target. But other can understand that cover may only consider your own point of view and not the object location due the examples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Telekinetic Projectile is probably one of the most.. contested Cantrips out there.
It's one of the highest damage Cantrips, so almost every caster has it. And several resources open up access to it.
But plenty of people read it as useful against magic-immune creatures, because they see the object being flung as non-magical.
And then there's the people who want that object to be a special material so they can doubly benefit from weakness.
So since the player who wants it to work against a ghost will always be at odds with the player who wants it to work against a golem, we'll probably see these discussions resurface regularly.
Yep it will keep coming back. Technically it is a magical effect. But a common way of visualising the spell is that you are just chucking an object. Which leads you to the opposite conclusion.
I find it helpful to draw upon some of the description from the PF1 Kineticist, where the object is sheathed in "telekinetic energy" (however one imagines that to be). This gives the attack the shape of the object to determine the damage type, yet keeps the object safe & out of contact with the target (since no harm comes to the object despite the force being applied). Since you can chuck a piece of paper (and at an enemy w/ a fiery aura at that) w/ no difference from any other object of the same shape, it makes sense it's not about the object. It's obviously not being chucked. Even dust bunnies do the same damage as a lead ball.
So yeah, imagining the object merely acts as a focal point for the spell's magical kinetic energy to be delivered via the spell (and not related to the velocity, density, etc. of the object) solves most if not all of the issues IMO. I think Paizo was trying to avoid shenanigans as best they could with the spell's description, and I concur that's one goal with how one interprets the spell. It'd likely have been better if they hadn't required an object (it's evocation anyway), but then we'd lose some funny visualization.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it helpful to draw upon some of the description from the PF1 Kineticist, where the object is sheathed in "telekinetic energy" (however one imagines that to be).
The issue I have with that is that sound suspiciously like it should be Force damage instead of B/S/P. For instance, Force Fang make a "spike of pure force" but that does Force not Piercing. Spiritual Weapon, "A weapon made of pure magical force", too deals Force damage instead of the weapons normal damage. So it leads me to wonder how the Telekinetic Projectile doesn't do Force if it's the field that hits and deals damage and it makes me wonder why it's magical and can't use special materials/poison/ect from the item if it's just telekinesis wielding the item.
So for me, neither way is a satisfying description of what's happening.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me this is just a bad maybe even lazy flavor.
Instead of just don't allow the use of anything as projectile they could limit to some specific bounded item like Yaka Arrow from Guardian of the Galaxy. This basically would fix almost all strange idiosyncrasy of the spell automatically and just need to prohibit the use of strange substances like poisons saying they will prevent the item to work as component for the cantrip (and yes change manipulate trait to material).
The other strange thing about the Telekinetic Projectile that I remember now is what could be used as projectile due description "unattended object that is within range and that has 1 Bulk or less at the target" once there's no limit of how small or lighter is what you can use. Can be a 1 bulk weapon, a piece of armor, a belt, a glove, a knife, a coin, a blade of grass or even a grain of sand!
This basically allows a player to use the spell freely. Just ask to your GM "there's something 30 feet around of me?" and throw this thing on your opponents!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of just don't allow the use of anything as projectile they could limit to some specific bounded item like Yaka Arrow from Guardian of the Galaxy.
Myself, I'd have just made the spell create an temporary mundane object [no special materials, poisons, ect], described as a mental construct given form for the attack. Then the player can describe it however they want, it makes sense that it's magic and you don't have to worry about the construction/traits/ect. That way I can toss knives, plates, playing cards or anything else without the whole unattended object thing.
Well they used terms that have actual defined meaning like Traits and Magical properties so we know what they were talking about specifically. Which of course allows physical properties like shape and material to matter for things like bludgeoning and piercing and silver.
I find it crystal clear. You can play the rules are they are written and it makes sense. Or you can go with strained stories about why it fits some concept you prefer.
I do find it strange that people don't like this reading.
Well they used terms that have actual defined meaning like Traits and Magical properties so we know what they were talking about specifically.
Do we? I don't. Can you say with 100% confidence there is proof that an item that was poisoned does or doesn't cause a save vs that poison when used with the cantrip? Does special materials work? Neither is a trait...
Which of course allows physical properties like shape and material to matter for things like bludgeoning and piercing and silver.
None of those are traits. Precious is a trait but there isn't a direct link to the materials special properties. Bludgeoning and piercing are just types of damage.
I find it crystal clear.
Can't say that myself.
You can play the rules are they are written and it makes sense.
I can make it work but no matter how I play it, it doesn't make much sense. A force field around it would be Force and a normal item thrown would allow for traits and properties of the item: I find no satisfying way to adjudicate a flaming torch, poisoned or Good item.
Or you can go with strained stories about why it fits some concept you prefer.
I don't find it strained when I can take a common piece of equipment that can be found in most parties and adventures, the humble torch, and I can't say for sure how it works if it's used in the cantrip.
I do find it strange that people don't like this reading.
I don't think like is the right word: it's more that it fails the logic test and is satisfying in that way. I have no preference in which way it works.
Why overthink it? It does what the spell description says it does. Nothing more
"But howww?"
Because it's magic
If this came up in a game, I'd rule it was magical damage. I just wish it actually stated it in the rules. There are pros and cons to it being one or the other and it's not clear enough that you couldn't reasonably come either conclusion.
That said, if a player wanted it to work the other way I wouldn't mind.
Well they used terms that have actual defined meaning like Traits and Magical properties so we know what they were talking about specifically. Which of course allows physical properties like shape and material to matter for things like bludgeoning and piercing and silver.
That's true, some precious material made weapons could modify a little the spell effects. But I have some doubts if Precious trait in such material doesn't count for spell restriction. Especially because the some rare materials like Djezet, Inubrix and Sovereign Steel can also increase the spell damage/effectiveness. As GM I probably don't accept even Silver or Cold Iron due this appear to be some exploit.
I find it crystal clear.Can't say that myself.
You can play the rules are they are written and it makes sense.I can make it work but no matter how I play it, it doesn't make much sense. A force field around it would be Force and a normal item thrown would allow for traits and properties of the item: I find no satisfying way to adjudicate a flaming torch, poisoned or Good item.
Or you can go with strained stories about why it fits some concept you prefer.I don't find it strained when I can take a common piece of equipment that can be found in most parties and adventures, the humble torch, and I can't say for sure how it works if it's used in the cantrip.
Poison and Fire are both Traits, so no seems like the obvious answer. Of course the common torch doesn't have the Fire trait, perhaps because its not always lit. I don't see any drama here.
Its over to you there are lots of things you can come up with that aren't in the rules. These aren't an example. I don't really see a problem with changing a damage type or even giving a little bonus damage, if a GM wanted to do something different.
|
I find it helpful to draw upon some of the description from the PF1 Kineticist, where the object is sheathed in "telekinetic energy" (however one imagines that to be).The issue I have with that is that sound suspiciously like it should be Force damage instead of B/S/P. For instance, Force Fang make a "spike of pure force" but that does Force not Piercing. Spiritual Weapon, "A weapon made of pure magical force", too deals Force damage instead of the weapons normal damage. So it leads me to wonder how the Telekinetic Projectile doesn't do Force if it's the field that hits and deals damage and it makes me wonder why it's magical and can't use special materials/poison/ect from the item if it's just telekinesis wielding the item.
So for me, neither way is a satisfying description of what's happening.
Alas, Spiritual Weapon states : "You can deal damage of the type normally dealt by the weapon instead of force damage (or any of the available damage types for a versatile weapon)".
Poison and Fire are both Traits, so no seems like the obvious answer.
I disagree on both. Fire damage doesn't mean the fire trait: a torch, fire poi or a normal fire/flame [Core Rulebook pg. 519] deals fire damage and doesn't have the Fire trait. For poison, it's the poison with the trait, not the weapon: if the weapon has the Trait, then immunity to poison would make you immune to all damage from the weapon ["If you have immunity to effects with a certain trait (such as death effects, poison, or disease), you are unaffected by effects with that trait."]
Of course the common torch doesn't have the Fire trait, perhaps because its not always lit. I don't see any drama here.
No drama, it just doesn't make any sense: the fact that we can fix it doesn't change that fact. Also fire poi and fire/flames can be safely assumed to be on fire and lack the trait. You can also look at some hazards like Lava Flume Tubes [core] and Steam Vents [guns&gears] that deal fire damage and lack the Trait.
Its over to you there are lots of things you can come up with that aren't in the rules.
But these AREN'T niche corner cases: I can't prove that a silver piece triggers silver weakness, or if a torch deactivates a trolls regeneration or if tossing a diseased rat corpse does any damage to an undead that's immune to disease.
I don't really see a problem with changing a damage type or even giving a little bonus damage, if a GM wanted to do something different.
I don't have a problem with people house-ruling things: I have an issue when you don't know what the base rule is and are forced to make a house-rule.
Well they used terms that have actual defined meaning like Traits and Magical properties so we know what they were talking about specifically. Which of course allows physical properties like shape and material to matter for things like bludgeoning and piercing and silver.That's true, some precious material made weapons could modify a little the spell effects. But I have some doubts if Precious trait in such material doesn't count for spell restriction. Especially because the some rare materials like Djezet, Inubrix and Sovereign Steel can also increase the spell damage/effectiveness. As GM I probably don't accept even Silver or Cold Iron due this appear to be some exploit.
Oh. New Rare materials. Hadn't looked at them before. Note that these apply at really high level where most spell casters have much better things to do with their actions than cast a cantrip.
First off Djezet, Inubrix and Sovereign Steel abilities only apply to crafted items not the raw material. So they are different to mundane physical properties which apply to a lump of ore.
Djezet and Inubrix only apply their offensive ability on successful weapon Strikes. Strike is clearly not applicable to TKP.
However Sovereign Steel is a little bit loose it only refers to critical hits with weapons, causing spellcasters to be Stupified 1. Thats pretty narrow. Given its not being wielded with a weapon a GM could reasonably say no. But I do accept this is a wedge.
Alas, Spiritual Weapon states : "You can deal damage of the type normally dealt by the weapon instead of force damage (or any of the available damage types for a versatile weapon)".
Ah I forgot that proviso. Weapon of Judgment does that too. Hmmm.... They still have the option for force though so I think my point remains: if it's "sheathed in "telekinetic energy"", which reads to me as a Force effect, it'd be the only one that deal damage and doesn't deal Force damage or give the option to deal it. That and it'd be a Force spell without the Force trait [Effects with this trait deal force damage or create objects made of pure magical force].
EDIT: I think I figured out my confusion: I was thinking of Deity's Strike and that one just does Force damage. ;)
Poison and Fire are both Traits, so no seems like the obvious answer.I disagree on both. Fire damage doesn't mean the fire trait: a torch, fire poi or a normal fire/flame [Core Rulebook pg. 519] deals fire damage and doesn't have the Fire trait.
CRBp519 is a long winded general discussion about various environmental effects of course there are no traits there. It just the wrong part of the book for them to appear.
The Fire Trait means Fire Damage and Fire effectsA Fire Poi describes a process of being lit with oil and its the lit Fire Poi that does the Fire damage. Its exactly the same as oil or a torch.