Hello!
Do ya'll think a a mundane rock that has been telekinetically projectiled at an opponent who sits in a Dispelling Globe would have a chance to be "dispelled" with a counteract check?
Globe: You create an immobile globe around yourself. It attempts to counteract any spell from outside the globe whose area or targets enter into it, as if the globe were a dispel magic spell 1 rank lower than its actual spell rank. If the counteract attempt succeeds, it prevents only the portion of the spell that would have entered the globe (so if the spell also has targets outside the globe, or part of its area is beyond the globe, those targets or that area are affected normally). You must form the sphere in an unbroken open space, so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost (though creatures can enter the globe after the spell is cast).
I'm thinking the rock would get right in because it's only being propelled at first by magic, and is not magic in and of itself. The word "targets" is what is tripping me up a bit, however.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking the rock would get right in because it's only being propelled at first by magic, and is not magic in and of itself.
That is a pretty convoluted reading of the rules.
The effect of the spell Telekinetic Projectile is to cause damage. If you dispel the effect of the spell, then the rock doesn't cause damage. Narrate that however you want for your particular game and characters.
I don't think it's convoluted at all, because the telekinetic projectile is a piece of normal, mundane item found in the environment already. It's no different than shooting an arrow from a bow. The rock doesn't do any magical damage whatsoever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The part where you throw an object is just fluff, since nothing about the object interacts with the rules other then to allow you to choose a damage type. The spell is just magic projectile. You could easily say you make a magic copy of an object and sling that, hence why all objects do the same amount of damage and nothing else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's convoluted at all, because the telekinetic projectile is a piece of normal, mundane item found in the environment already. It's no different than shooting an arrow from a bow. The rock doesn't do any magical damage whatsoever.
It seems like you are mixing the narrative description with the game mechanics. Telekinetic Projectile is a spell. Literal magic. It doesn't follow IRL physics. If the effect is dispelled, the spell does no damage.
There are plenty of ways of shaping the game narrative to match that. What you shouldn't do is try to use your preconceived notions about how rocks move in order to change the game mechanics.
Hello!
Do ya'll think a a mundane rock that has been telekinetically projectiled at an opponent who sits in a Dispelling Globe would have a chance to be "dispelled" with a counteract check?
Globe: You create an immobile globe around yourself. It attempts to counteract any spell from outside the globe whose area or targets enter into it, as if the globe were a dispel magic spell 1 rank lower than its actual spell rank. If the counteract attempt succeeds, it prevents only the portion of the spell that would have entered the globe (so if the spell also has targets outside the globe, or part of its area is beyond the globe, those targets or that area are affected normally). You must form the sphere in an unbroken open space, so its edges don't pass through any creatures or objects, or the spell is lost (though creatures can enter the globe after the spell is cast).
I'm thinking the rock would get right in because it's only being propelled at first by magic, and is not magic in and of itself. The word "targets" is what is tripping me up a bit, however.
Technically the entirety of the spell is magical, so the counteract attempt happens. Which is not all that bad as TKP is a cantrip and as such is automatically heightened.
If your GM has an interpretive approach to spells, he might view the spell simply as throwing an object and therefore not magical once it is thrown. Which is a reasonable approach, but it is not what the rules elements on the spell say.
This isn't D&D 3.5 where conjuration spells fire and forget with magic.
The whole spell effect is magical from beginning to end, and thus subject to the field.
From a Watsonian perspective, Telekinetic Projectile works on an object regardless of its aerodynamic properties. You can fire an unfolded piece of paper at someone, so the spell is pretty clearly doing work all the way up to impact.
I agree. I'm the GM in this case and thought the attack is considered magical due to using the spell attack roll. SO @Finoan, maybe next time time have some respect about your own "preconceived notions."
I pride myself on listening to my players and considering their opinions on rules as written in this realm of gaming rules, something I've been doing for nearly 30 years.
I would argue that the fluff text argument is incorrect. The so-called "fluff text" is the first sentence that has direct rules in it, so it isn't "fluff."
"You hurl a loose, unattended object that is within range and that has 1 Bulk or less at the target."
Per strict RAW, the Globe tries to Dispel TKP. Now, it doesn't mean that you, as a GM, don't have the right to create a specific interaction in this case. It's your right and if it makes sense to you then it should be that way. It becomes a creative solution.
I'd still be really cautious when doing so. In current case, I don't think it'd cause any issue (unless your players use and abuse Dispelling Globe). But every such interaction has to be weighted so they can't be exploited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Finoan, maybe next time time have some respect about your own "preconceived notions."
I'm not meaning to be disrespectful. It is a rules interpretation bias that I see a lot on here - that 'matching reality' is the gold standard of how to interpret rules rather than having the rules define game mechanics instead of physics. It is what this appeared to be as well since you were bringing in concepts such as momentum and velocity.
If there is a more polite way of saying that, I would be happy to hear it.
You should really consider calming down and let your players feel free to ask questions about game mechanics when the rules as written can't possibly be written like a code of law. That's how players learn the game and learn to the love the game. This works better then being talked down to about preconceived notions.
There a ton of other posters here who just spell out the rules as written and quote the rules and whatever else sustains their interpretation. This works and always suffices in my experience as a GM. Of course players will try their best to game the system, that's why this system is fun. It's a push and pull that works when we have forums to talk things out.
Being rude and condescending isn't it, chief.
The projectile would drop to the ground harmlessly once the spell is counteracted, as the spell is the one moving the object.
I like physical interpretations of magic spells because it lets my players find other uses of spells. For example, see the recent thread Doubt about a possible use for Rousing Splash. However, usually many physical interpretations exist, so I try to select one that matches the game-mechanic interpretation well. For example, enough fire in a Fireball to deal 6d6 fire damage to every creature in the area of effect would also ignite every piece of wood and paper in the area. But it doesn't, so the fire in a Fireball is not regular fire and we cannot rely on the physics and chemistry of real-life fire. Which cannot be thrown in a ball, anyways.
The simplest explanation for a counteracted Telekinetic Projectile dealing no damage is that the magic is no longer guiding the physical projectile, so it misses.
I usually go with a more dramatic interpretation. Many spells end with a reversal of the magic. If a wizard casts Pest Form, the end of the spell is the wizard reverting back to their natural form. This happens, too, if the Pest Form is dispelled. Nevertheless, a transformation from mouse to human is as magical as a transformation from human to mouse. Countering Pest Form creates a reverse magical effect instead of an absence of magic. Likewise, countering Telekinetic Projectile creates a reversal of the telekinetic shove and cancels out the momentum of the projectile rock or stick. The item falls straight down to the ground.
The sad part here is that a caster player is clearly trying to find some way to use spells in a scenario where an enemy caster (probably higher level) has pretty thoroughly thwarted them, and they have no good back up option, so this is feeding a “casters are terrible” narrative because spell casting is actually very powerful when the caster has even a 1 or 2 level advantage over their enemies.
This is why having multiple top rank dispel magics available as a party is pretty important. Dispel magic is one of the few spells that works pretty well uphill in PF2, and is often one of the best things to use hero points on that casters have in their tool box.
Dispelling Globe is a very brutal spell to use on a higher level caster enemy as a GM against your party if you have casters that are already struggling to feel effective in your games. Especially if they are in positions where they feel like their only option is to revert to casting cantrips against a higher level enemy opponent, this probably should be a “time to run away” encounter if it has already gotten to this point.
Now if there is only one caster in the party, and the solo enemy caster is spending multiple actions neutralizing 1 casters spell casting against them, while the martials pummel the life out of that enemy, it is really a win for the party caster, but it might be hard for them to see it that way without help. Also, sometimes (like against will-o’-wisps) players need back up plans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way to counteract the spell is to have your fighter shove the caster out of the area of affect. You can also buff your party members. The Archer still benefits from the bonus to hit from Heroism while shooting the bow into the globe. Haste still works. Even if the PC enters the globe, they still get the extra action that turn.
Wall of Force can block all attacks by the BBEG unless they leave the globe. Wall of Stone provides cover. As does darkness.
Also the globe only counteracts spells entering the globe. If you move inside the globe then you can cast to your hearts content.
I agree there are lots of ways to deal with the situation as a player, the problem is that this player is confronted with this situation and turns to trying to cast a cantrip as their solution, and is then going to feel doubly frustrated, and like playing a casting character is a waste of time, but I think it is better not to let the cantrip break the rules of the dispelling globe spell anyway, because it is a good higher level spell that can benefit players too in the future and shouldn’t feel easy to out gimmick. Also, encouraging more of the team work solution will be much better for the party as a whole down the road as well.
Being rude and condescending isn't it, chief.
You asked a question, I gave a fact-based and logic-based answer. If you attribute emotion to it, that is your doing - not mine. I explained that here and you ignored or disbelieved what I said doubled down on your emotion-based interpretation of ascribing malice where none was intended.
If ChatGPT wrote the initial answer that I did, would you describe it as rude and condescending? If not, then you are literally treating me worse than you treat an inanimate object.
I'm hiding this thread now. I have answered the question to the best of my ability. There is nothing more that I want to say or hear.