|
Post by venger on Dec 14, 2011 14:23:26 GMT -5
Or should we just hope for P&F to make their confusion saving throws each round so they can use them themselves? (Am I correct that it works that way?) I think so. 2. The AC of -5 makes it really hard to hit the daemon even with a +2 weapon. Trommer needs a 12 to hit the creature with a +2 weapon. To put some perspective on that he can hit everything else in the room, except maybe the shadow guys, with a 2. That interacted in a weird way with the previous (full) wish from the luck sword Something like that. I ruled a Limited Wish cannot reverse a full Wish as I was trying to be as generous as possible. I guess technically everyone should roll a d4 and subtract that from their maxl to determine current hit points. We have killed all the enemies who started out in the room, except for the BBEG, who is an ultrodaemon; the fake "silver princess", who is a night hag; and one of the shadow assassins, who is not currently active. The first time through, the rest of the castle's inhabitants were just starting to arrive from down the hall at the point when Friedrich read the scroll. They were three trolls and (I think) five spellcasters. Both shadow assassins are still active in this instance, you slew one in the previous instance. Three trolls, the spellcaster who fled while invisible, 3 additional women who could have been spellcasters or hags. And this time we took out the witches before they were able to cast stinking cloud. I believe there is a Stinking Cloud in near the doorway, which only adversely affected a gargoyle. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I think this spell may be being used in ways that makes it more powerful than it was intended to be, both in regards to the spell itself and how it can be used by enemies such as the one we are facing. By the book, there is no savings throw so as I see it this spell is being used in a way that makes it considerably less powerful. If I can telekinese something 2" a round, vertically or horizontally, I can choose to move it 10' up and 10' over in the same round. What is Trommer's situation? Is he using Finn's longsword? That hit the daemon previously. He took the sword while Finnious recovered outside the Stinking Cloud. He's been killing gargoyles and such. Dan had a single Hold Person left in the previous timeline? He cast it and all three magic-users again made their savings throws in this instance. Can one throw a handful of salt for damage in the same way one can throw a vial of holy water? It might be more effective to use it to make someone completely immune to the daemon's powers or attacks.............. ............................... I believe he tried that. I believe the DM's reaction was, "Do you see Reynard anywhere here?" Am I recalling this correctly? As Renard the Fox was not present during the encounter it was not obvious how Trommer would call upon his favor. I would have been receptive to ideas (send him an email, invoke his name, etc) but none were forthcoming. Colby can conjure another elemental from the scroll. The casting time is 10 rounds. I don't believe that reading the scroll counts as activating a magic item for casting time purposes, but I hope I'm wrong. Someone on Dragonsfoot indicated this rule is after the illusionist spells in the PHB. Spell casting time = scroll reading time.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Dec 14, 2011 14:50:18 GMT -5
Telekinesis (see PHB p 166) requires that the object being moved be in clear sight of the spellcaster. Putting something in front of the daemon (like a giant ball of ice or a wall of flame) could temporarily obstruct this ability. Or covering his head in a bag. (Of course this is going to get me arguing about how hard it is to put a bag on something with AC -5.) Or just stand in front of him with a large tower shield blocking his view.
My other thought on telekinesis is that in order to change directions the spellcaster has to bring the object to rest first. For instance if you spend 3 rounds moving an object eastward up to a rate of 8", then in order to get it to move west (or north, south, up or down) you have to first slow down its eastward velocity. This would again take 3 rounds. Otherwise it will continue to move in the original direction.
Unfortunately I don't think the creators of D&D had a good understanding of basic physics. Telekinesis should just be a force that you can project at a distance. The rate of acceleration should be proportional to the inverse of the mass you are trying to move. The lighter the object the quicker it can accelerate. But you should also be able to hold things in the air (like levitation) as well as move them in complex paths at a constant velocity.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Dec 14, 2011 15:59:40 GMT -5
Telekinesis (see PHB p 166) requires that the object being moved be in clear sight of the spellcaster. Putting something in front of the daemon (like a giant ball of ice or a wall of flame) could temporarily obstruct this ability. Curiously my PHB only has 130 pages? And that page of the DMG pertains to intelligent swords... But I don't entirely disagree otherwise! Or covering his head in a bag. (Of course this is going to get me arguing about how hard it is to put a bag on something with AC -5.) I imagine there are extensive rules for this in 4th edition but unfortunately it's just not a viable option in our game. My other thought on telekinesis is that in order to change directions the spellcaster has to bring the object to rest first. For instance if you spend 3 rounds moving an object eastward up to a rate of 8", then in order to get it to move west (or north, south, up or down) you have to first slow down its eastward velocity. This would again take 3 rounds. Otherwise it will continue to move in the original direction. That's a bizarre interpretation that I don't agree with unless you're abruptly reversing direction maybe. And then you can simply impact the object with a wall to stop its forward motion. Unfortunately I don't think the creators of D&D had a good understanding of basic physics. Telekinesis should just be a force that you can project at a distance. The rate of acceleration should be proportional to the inverse of the mass you are trying to move. The lighter the object the quicker it can accelerate. But you should also be able to hold things in the air (like levitation) as well as move them in complex paths at a constant velocity. Magical telekinesis is a big invisible oven-mit that picks things up and moves them around. It doesn't have much, if anything, to do with real physics.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Dec 14, 2011 17:05:26 GMT -5
See page 116.
If it is a big oven-mitt then it is more powerful than the higher level Bigby spells. If telekinesis has nothing to do with physics then there is no momentum imparted to the object being moved. In which case there is no damage taken/caused by the object striking something/someone.
I think if you are going to allow change of directions then you need to use one of the aerial combat maneuverability classes to determine its turning radius. Given that it takes 10 rounds to reach maximum speed it moves rather ponderously. So at best it would be Class E.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Dec 14, 2011 17:14:22 GMT -5
You really think something moving that slowly requires that kind of turning radius???
It's 20'/minute.
C'mon.
The creature is a supra-genius lifting 600lbs with the powers of his mind. Surely your fertile imaginations can conceive of something like this. It's using the most basic function of telekinesis to lift something into the air and move it a short distance. It's not trying to accelerate you to super high velocities and smash you into things, drop you from great heights, impale you with fast moving spears or crush you with heavy objects, all of which the spell seems surely capable of by its description. AND I'm giving you a savings throw.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Dec 14, 2011 19:47:02 GMT -5
As the spell is written I would not allow that. It says nothing about being able to change directions. It doesn't say you can do partial moves. It doesn't say you can hold someone in place in the middle of the air. If they wanted something so imaginative they should have included that in the spell description.
As written I would interpret it to mean that any object under the weight limit starts moving in the direction specified by the spell caster. It continues to move in the same direction until the duration ends or they hit something (to which it is held fast).
With your interpretation you could repeatedly bounce someone off the ceiling and floor in a 10' passageway. The first round they would take 2d6, the second 4d6, the third 8d6, etc. Two type II demons would mean certain death for the two guys in the front row.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Dec 14, 2011 21:19:44 GMT -5
As the spell is written I would not allow that. It says nothing about being able to change directions. It doesn't say you can do partial moves. It doesn't say you can hold someone in place in the middle of the air. If they wanted something so imaginative they should have included that in the spell description. Read the Fly spell. It uses the same language of horizontal or vertical movement. It doesn't explicitly say you can change direction or do partial moves but I think we're all on the same page there... The daemon can telekinese an object and the first round have 2" of movement, horizontal or vertical. The second round 4" of movement, etc. As written I would interpret it to mean that any object under the weight limit starts moving in the direction specified by the spell caster. It continues to move in the same direction until the duration ends or they hit something (to which it is held fast). Jean Grey is rolling around in her grave. "By means of this spell the magic-user is able to move objects by will force, by concentrating on moving them mentally." Doesn't put any restrictions on the movement aside from horizontal or vertical. With your interpretation you could repeatedly bounce someone off the ceiling and floor in a 10' passageway. The first round they would take 2d6, the second 4d6, the third 8d6, etc. Two type II demons would mean certain death for the two guys in the front row. I could repeatedly move something up and down like a yoyo with my interpretation but, as was discussed last session, impacts at a movement rate of 2", 4", 8", 16"/round etc. aren't going to cause damage. 20'/round is 0.2mph. 1024" is roughly 115mph though and that will cause damage. I could telekinese something 20' up and let it fall, taking 2d6 damage. How exactly is a magic-user supposed to get a telekinetic object moving to 1024" if they must retain sight of the object and it can only travel in a single direction? By the 7th round the object is already 2540' away and only moving at 128"/round. You'd have to be able to move the thing in a circle in order to attain the velocity in the spell description. **Not even mentioning that a telekinetic rocket as you interpret would leave the spell's range long before it reached any useful speed.
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Dec 14, 2011 21:29:20 GMT -5
Unfortunately I don't think the creators of D&D had a good understanding of basic physics. I was also thinking this way -- funny that, how two physicists both think of things in terms of physics -- but Dana convinced me that it's wrong to think of D&D magic as being constructed from forces and Newton's laws. D&D magic is magic. The spell doesn't create a force. It just moves things, magically. The spell accelerates 6000gp at the same rate as 1gp, yet it can't accelerate 6001gp at all, not even a little bit. That's not at all how a force works, but it doesn't have to be, because it's magic. That said ... The description of this spell (PHB, p. 82) is badly written, so we're trying to decipher what the author meant, even though he didn't express it well. IMHO, the starting point for this has to be to assume that the author actually did mean something. So: Why would the author have written this sentence in the first place, if the motion could be in any direction at all? The previous sentence has already said that the spell allows the caster to move objects by the force of his mental will. Why bother adding a sentence about "vertically or horizontally" unless you mean to restrict the types of motion? So IMHO the point of this sentence has to be that the motion is either vertical, or horizontal, but not up and then over, and not left and then right and then left again. If it's possible to lift a person a foot off the ground before starting to move them horizontally, then ambulation (which just means "walking") is clearly of no practical use at all. In which case, why would the author have written "ambulation or some other" rather than just "any"? So IMHO, a horizontal motion can be countered by simple walking, if the target is able to walk, and the otherwise obvious counter-counter of lifting the target up off the floor before starting a horizontal motion must be impossible. The description doesn't say anything about changing direction, or an option to move the object at a speed less than the specified speed, or maneuverability, or a turning radius. So I agree with Josh that this means the target object moves in a straight line, either horizontally or vertically, at 2" the first round, 4" the second round, etc., until something stops it or the spell ends. And when something does stop it (such as a wall) IMHO it just stops. It doesn't bounce back in the other direction like a superball. Hitting a wall is the ultimate "motive power" that counters the spell. Of course, the other approach is for the DM to say: "This isn't the telekinesis spell you are looking for. This is a different telekinesis spell that works the way I say it does. You can go about your business now. Move along." To which there isn't really a counterargument.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Dec 14, 2011 21:39:18 GMT -5
Again I would refer you to the Fly spell which uses similar language.
And about which you could say precisely the same things and be just as incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Dec 14, 2011 21:56:20 GMT -5
Also that DM thing.
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Dec 14, 2011 22:09:56 GMT -5
In Fly, the words "vertically and/or horizontally" are part of the sentence that explains the allowed speed. I interpret this to be the author's way of indicating that in Fly, vertical and horizontal motion have the same speed limit. Whereas in Telekinesis, the sentence about "vertically or horizontally" has no purpose unless is it a restriction on the type of motion. Also, Fly says "and/or" where Telekinesis says just "or", i.e. Fly explicitly allows combining horizontal and vertical motions, whereas Telekinesis doesn't. It's an unclear way of expressing that, but that's how I read it.
What does "aside from horizontal or vertical" mean in this sentence? We only have three dimensions. Up-down is vertical. North-South and East-West are horizontal. If "horizontal or vertical" includes "any combination of horizontal and vertical", then "no restriction aside from horizontal or vertical" means "no restriction at all". Unless you think that otherwise the Telekinesis spell would allow you to create a vibrational motion, or rotation in place, or a motion to another plane, or ...
Outside, with an unobstructed view? The target object will reach 1024"/round when it has moved a total of 1022", i.e. a little less than 6 miles outside. A person with good eyesight can see a 600-pound object at a distance of 6 miles, if there's nothing in the way. The 1024" limit doesn't have to be easy to achieve. It could be like the speed of light: a maximum speed that you, personally, are never going to get anywhere close to.
I think I would actually be okay with a regular circular motion, so long as it was a horizontal circle. In physics, circular motion requires a centripetal force in a constantly changing direction, but as I wrote above, this isn't physics, it's magic.
I believe we've just been told to move along and go about our business. :-) OK, no more from me on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Dec 14, 2011 22:34:29 GMT -5
The description of Fly "doesn't say anything about changing direction, or an option to move the object at a speed less than the specified speed, or maneuverability, or a turning radius." Does that mean that one cannot do so? While I understand your desire to limit the effectiveness of Telekinesis in this situation, I have never heard such a restrictive interpretation of such a canonical spell/ability. Telekinesis is a standard trope of science fiction and fantasy. You pick something up with your mind, like in all those cartoons I remember growing up. www.youtube.com/watch?v=jih0egjg(24 seconds in they're using Telekinesis.) Frankly I feel if the party was attempting to move something with telekinesis in a specific way I don't think I'd be hearing this noise. But if the group is 100% convinced this is the way Telekinesis should work and this is the spirit in which its intended, and we aren't just rules lawyering here (and the people on Dragonsfoot don't laugh me off the board) then I'll try to adjust my way of thinking about it. Though with this new BTB interpretation you won't be getting a save vs. spell any more as that's not in the description. Which means the next time you encounter a demon outside the first thing it'll do is launch you into the lower atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Dec 14, 2011 22:54:13 GMT -5
And when I say "spirit in which it is intended" I mean that's how you honestly feel a spell/ability like Telekinesis should work, not just how you could possibly read the spell description on page 82 to the benefit of the party.
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich on Dec 14, 2011 23:06:29 GMT -5
I believe we've just been told to move along and go about our business. :-) OK, no more from me on this topic. A little spirited discussion is good for the campaign. The fact that the players are arguing over the interpretation of a spell shows we care. I can only speak for myself but if wasn't having fun I certainly wouldn't care enough to argue about it. :) Of course it's the DM's call but I think we can all agree that the text is not entirely clear so I don't see anything wrong with trying to come together and figure out exactly what the correct interpretation should be. Especially given what's at stake here. It's all in good fun.
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Dec 14, 2011 23:53:58 GMT -5
I'm not 100% sure of anything. I'm just offering my interpretation of a badly worded rule. If you think my interpretation is wrong, then clearly you should go with the interpretation you think is correct, and the rest of us should get back to figuring out a way to not die.
As to "the spirit in which it is intended" and how I honestly feel about telekinesis: What I was trying to do, before I stopped posting about this (whoops), was to parse the Telekinesis spell description in the PHB, i.e. what I think the author of the description intended when he wrote those words. I would be totally okay with another telekinesis spell that worked the way you describe. Maybe I would call it something like "Advanced Telekinesis". My only assertion is that this isn't that spell. If I'm wrong about that, then I am. It's a game, you're the DM, and I'm not. No problemo.
You may recall our conversation last session about the interpretation of Limited Wish. In that case, my interpretation would have been distinctly unfavorable to the party. I don't want to be a rules lawyer. If my posts on this have appeared that way, then I apologize.
FWIW, I think this idea
would be way worse (as a rule interpretation, not just for the party) than whatever interpretation you decide on for Telekinesis or any other individual spell. On the other hand, this idea
sounds like a very reasonable strategy for a demon, though Bolo will not enjoy being part of the beta test.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Dec 15, 2011 0:36:27 GMT -5
If we're in the session we don't want to waste time arguing rules but otherwise I'm not heavy-handed as a referee and am usually open to a discussion, the end result hopefully being a compromise that everyone can live with as this is a game that we all enjoy.
But I've honestly never heard the spell interpreted this way.
How am I supposed to use telekinesis to pick up an object and hurl it at you if I can't lift it vertically and move it horizontally?
For example, I want to hit you with a telekinetic 6000GP weight boulder. The boulder is on the ground. Do I have to push it across the ground at you horizontally? What if there's an impediment like a step? By your interpretation there's no way to lift the object and telekinese it like the spell clearly describes doing??
I can either send it straight up or slide it across the ground...
If that's what you're saying, I completely disagree and I'm not sure how you are going to convince me otherwise.
That seems ridiculously limiting on this 5th level spell.
I feel like you're letting the letter of the spell description destroy the meaning of the spell. Why would it state that "(Heavy objects travelling at high speed can be deadly weapons!)" if there was absolutely no practical way to use them as such unless you're hurling them at something a mile away? And how would you ever get them off the ground!?
Address these points and explain how the spell is properly used (to hurl objects at something) and maybe I'll start to understand your perspective. But as you're interpreting the spell it's basically unusable for anything but putting satellites into orbit.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Dec 15, 2011 9:40:21 GMT -5
I think we are all in agreement that past the first sentence the spell description is terrible. If I wanted to write a telekinesis spell that had the abilities that are standard in fantasy and SF then I would not have written it the way the authors did. I would say something like:
The spell provides the ability to counter the force of gravity and to move an object in any direction at a rate of 2"/round. By continuing to move the object in a straight-line the spell caster is able to accelerate (or decelerate) it at 2"/round/round (acceleration is in units of distance over time squared). The faster the object moves the hard it is to change its direction. The object can be held motionless in the air (so long as it has no ability to propel itself).
With this sort of movement it would be pretty hard to reach speeds fast enough to hurt something. Of course if I wanted a true SF telekinesis I would have allowed more acceleration for lighter objects. I would allow creatures to hold onto fixed things (like a tree or a column) to prevent themselves from being pushed around. They would have to match their strength (and mass) against the strength of the magic user's spell.
Your interpretation makes it more powerful than the 6th level Bigby's Forceful Hand which can only push someone away. It can't pick them up or throw boulders.
I don't think you can effectively throw a boulder with the spell as written. It takes too long for it too reach a high enough velocity. Giants typically can throw a boulder 20" in a single round. Using the spell description it takes 4+ rounds to reach the same velocity. So in the first 4 rounds the boulder can be easily dodged or isn't moving fast enough to do considerable damage. Now if you wanted to use it as a siege weapon and launch it at a castle a mile away then you are in business.
|
|
|
Post by agesilaus on Dec 15, 2011 12:16:38 GMT -5
All, at the end of the day, while I applaud the open discussion I think that playing D&D at all requires a certain suspension of belief, and that includes basic physics. Frankly, we're the ones at fault for charging in like a bunch of drunken Marines. Hindsight being 20-20, we should have thought this through a bit more...and maybe pulled back, got leveled/healed up, ID'd loot etc. then figured a way to get at the BBEG without walking in through the front door. That being said, I think what I'm reading is that re: Fin: -- he no longer has the lightning wand -- not that it's any good against the BBEG anyway -- he no longer has the elven longsword -- he can't backstab either trolls or night hag without a magic weapon and he had only the one. So aside from a few 1st and 2d level spells, he's essentially useless. He can, he supposes, draw the BBEG's attention for a round before being squashed like a bug. If that's correct, his only options at this point are to commit hara-kiri and go out with the honor befitting a samurai or attempt to grapple the BBEG. Think he'd try for the latter...suicide by your own hand can be so messy. As far as other ideas, fresh out of 'em other than try to pull out. Anything else he has will need to be identified before it can be used. No time to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Trommer on Dec 15, 2011 13:01:32 GMT -5
As long as Trommer can make three or four saving throws against telekinesis and hits the daemon four times we'll be fine:) Then we can worry about the hag...
Whomever has the demon mask could try it on... Trommer could play the crystal harp... Paavo could call for the demon lady that was following us for help... Divine intervention... Put a sack over the daemon's head... Bolo could charge and grapple the daemon then take it to vanishing room...
|
|
|
Post by venger on Dec 15, 2011 13:12:45 GMT -5
Consider that the range on the spell is 1" per level. Either we disregard this or the spell has no useful purpose as you describe it. A magic-user would never get an object to sufficient speed to accomplish anything with that range limitation. It would slowly float off until it was out of range and then fall to the ground.
"By means of this spell the magic-user is able to move objects by will force, by concentrating on moving them mentally. The telekinesis spell causes the desired object to move vertically or horizontally."
"Move" and "movement" as AD&D terminology imply to me some measure of control. Otherwise I would think to see a term like "launched" or "propelled."
If I told you that a creature could "move" horizontally or vertically with an exponentially increasing movement rate of 2", 4", 8", etc. each round, that would be entirely different than if I told you that creature was propelled 2", 4", 8" each round.
You're putting arbitrary limits on the spell because the text isn't explicit. Neither Fly nor Levitate describe partial movement or changing direction during movement. Fly doesn't indicate whether or not the recipient can hover in place or arrest their movement. Most of your objections seem semantic and could apply to these spells as well.
Rather than reading the letter of the spell description try to consider the intent of the spell.
A beholder, by your interpretation of telekinesis, could not manipulate objects in any useful fashion.
A magic-user could not replicate utilitarian functions of Unseen Servant.
You couldn't lift an apple off a table and float it to someone.
This goes against my fundamental understanding of what Telekinesis is meant to be in the context of fantasy, scif-fi and D&D.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Dec 15, 2011 13:19:09 GMT -5
Frankly, we're the ones at fault for charging in like a bunch of drunken Marines. Two of my observations: In the second instance of the battle Paavo has again forfeited his PfE immunity to the daemon by charging in. One round spent applying Protection from Evil salts make you effectively immune to the daemon, albeit stationary. Not to over use the Star Wars metaphor, but I will additionally remind you that the mission was in fact to rescue princess Leia and not to confront Darth Vader and Grand Moff Tarkin in the control room of the Death Star.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Dec 15, 2011 14:44:07 GMT -5
Consider that the range on the spell is 1" per level. Either we disregard this or the spell has no useful purpose as you describe it. A magic-user would never get an object to sufficient speed to accomplish anything with that range limitation. It would slowly float off until it was out of range and then fall to the ground. You're putting arbitrary limits on the spell because the text isn't explicit. Neither Fly nor Levitate describe partial movement or changing direction during movement. Fly doesn't indicate whether or not the recipient can hover in place or arrest their movement. Most of your objections seem semantic and could apply to these spells as well. Rather than reading the letter of the spell description try to consider the intent of the spell. A beholder, by your interpretation of telekinesis, could not manipulate objects in any useful fashion. A magic-user could not replicate utilitarian functions of Unseen Servant. You couldn't lift an apple off a table and float it to someone. This goes against my fundamental understanding of what Telekinesis is meant to be in the context of fantasy, scif-fi and D&D. The range only deals with the location of the initial object picked up. Not the extent that the object can move. So long as the spell caster can see it they can control it. We put arbitrary limits on D&D all the time. We decide when you become visible, what an unseen servant is allowed to do, how hot certain fires are, etc. Of course not everything is explicitly (or well) stated in the rulebooks. My issue with this spell is that it is so poorly written that it leads to confusion and possible abuse in the interpretation. If they had wanted to describe standard telekinesis they should have left out most of the text. If you had wanted to describe the telekinesis used by a jedi (for example) you would have talked about how heavier things are harder to move. How much more concentration you need to lift heavier things. You never see a jedi lift a person up off the ground. They knock things over and deflect things all the time. Sure Yoda can pick an X-wing out of the swamp but that doesn't mean he can launch it back into space. As I keep saying they could have created a simple straightforward interpretation of telekinesis using a force but they really messed it up.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Trommer on Dec 15, 2011 14:53:33 GMT -5
This is not the Silver Princess we were looking for? It's a trap? Er, sorry about the mess. We'll just be going now...what do you mean no? What? There's no escape for us this time? We haven't been here before...well we might have been here a bit later, but that didn't count...wait a minute, she's not being contolled by you...Paavo! No!
|
|
|
Post by venger on Dec 15, 2011 15:09:37 GMT -5
My issue with this spell is that it is so poorly written that it leads to confusion and possible abuse in the interpretation. If they had wanted to describe standard telekinesis they should have left out most of the text. I honestly don't believe that I'm abusing the ambiguously written spell in this situation, applying it like every instance of Telekinesis I've ever encountered in fiction. Do you? These are the concessions I'll make: I'm fine with interpreting the range to be line of sight, even though this isn't actually in the spell description and comes from the optional PSIONICS rules. I'm fine with requiring a telekinesed object to move in a straight line to achieve any sort of increased velocity because I do like the idea of these ballistic siege weapons. I'm fine with requiring a telekinesed object to arrest its forward motion in order to change direction (to avoid dealing with math like this: an object has reached a speed of 16", it will be accelerated enough so that its speed on the next round would be 32" if it kept moving north. Neglecting air resistance, that means that its feeling an acceleration of 16"/minute/minute during that round. So if this were at right angles to the previous speed it would lead to a speed of about 23" to the northwest and a 45 degree turn is possible. ) Beyond that: Telekinesis can move an object either horizontally or vertically. There is no restriction as to this movement beyond the GP weight limit and the movement rate described. It is completely under the control of the caster. If you had wanted to describe the telekinesis used by a jedi (for example) you would have talked about how heavier things are harder to move. How much more concentration you need to lift heavier things. You never see a jedi lift a person up off the ground. They knock things over and deflect things all the time. Sure Yoda can pick an X-wing out of the swamp but that doesn't mean he can launch it back into space. "Size matters not. Judge me by my size do you?" The Star Wars geek in me must point out that Yoda specifically states that the size of the object has no bearing on lifting it with the force. Darth Vader can definitely lift someone off the ground as he Force chokes the life out of them. They constantly man-handle droids in the prequels.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Dec 15, 2011 17:00:08 GMT -5
I think the ultrodaemon is using the spell according to the spirit of it, so I have no complaints. Maybe it's just that I'm very eager to have Colby start tossing bad guys through the air like rag dolls in 2 more levels.
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Dec 15, 2011 17:23:29 GMT -5
FWIW, I think this idea would be way worse (as a rule interpretation ... When I wrote this, I was under a fundamental misapprehension about how saving throws work. (Sorry. Newbie.) I think I understand better now, and I withdraw the above remark. The rules clearly say that there is no save against the Telekinesis spell, so your BTB interpretation would be 100% correct.
|
|
|
Post by venger on Dec 15, 2011 17:30:58 GMT -5
That makes more sense now.
The reason I allow a savings throw for Telekinesis is because I view it as Levitate with an added horizontal component.
That probably also helps explain why I interpret the spell the way I do.
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Dec 15, 2011 17:44:47 GMT -5
I think what I'm reading is that ... Yes, Bolo has the lightning wand at the moment, but as you say, it has no chance of hitting the daemon. Yes, Trommer has the elven longsword. You could try to take a useful weapon from Paavo or Friedrich, I suppose. The daemon is AC -5, though, so even with a +2 weapon your chance to hit would be pretty bad. I suppose that grappling, if successful, would at least break the daemon's concentration. I don't really understand how the grappling rules work. What are the chances of a successful grapple against this creature? I don't think Fin is completely useless, but I think he is probably close to useless against the daemon. Maybe there's something he can do against the night hag. Probably there's something he can do against the backup team that will be joining us shortly if we live that long.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Trommer on Dec 15, 2011 18:14:34 GMT -5
I believe that silver arrows are effective against the daemon. Or is it the night hag?
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Dec 15, 2011 20:31:23 GMT -5
I believe that silver arrows are effective against the daemon. Or is it the night hag? Just the night hag, I believe.
|
|