Telekinesis:fling skyward?

[moritheil]

And the rest of us aren't?

Anyhow, as I said above, if you care deeply about the integrity of the PrC, make it harder to do without the PrC. I wouldn't take out the ability to do it entirely, though.

I'm here for the EnWorld community feedback, and they are part of this community.

 

[Egres]

Note also, however, that the rules also speak of targetting a specific square on occasion.

I'm not sure of what you meant with this sentence Patryn.

Are you underlining that the Telekinesis spell doesn't specify that you must hit a specific square, and thus can't be used against a point in space, or something different?

 

[Gez]

So, if I can use telekinesis to throw an enemy at the wall 100 feet behind him, it would make sense if I could still throw him into that space even if the wall wasn't there - even if that's not what the rules say.

Unless you consider that telekinesis is actually a modification of the force of gravity between two objects, "victim" and "target", where you make "target" strongly attract "victim", yet without a similar attraction force of "target" toward "victim".

So you'll need the wall, because you're giving it a mass equal to twice the whole Earth with regards to your enemy -- and to your enemy only.

In such an interpretation, the Mage of the Unseen Hand PrC from Complete Warrior just learns that air is, actually, something rather than nothing, and he learns how to do this trick using a "bubble" of air rather than a solid object.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

In such an interpretation, the Mage of the Unseen Hand PrC from Complete Warrior just learns that air is, actually, something rather than nothing, and he learns how to do this trick using a "bubble" of air rather than a solid object.

Air is of course something rather than nothing. Where do you think all those air elementals come from?

 

[Gez]

Yeah, but air is pervasive. It's all around you. Distinguishing between the area of air that's here, and the area of air that is there can be difficult.

 

[kyberus]

One thing, if it must merely be an object or a creature, could one not, for example, target the sun, or a cloud? they're objects, and I don't believe any specific distance that the target could be at was stated, it just wouldn't get all the way there?
of course, I'm probably wrong on that point, owell

 

[Gez]

I think they would be out of range.

 

[gabrion]

So I was a part of this discussion with Egres on the other thread and I must say that it is much more civil here! Anyway, I will point out a few of my observations.

1) The quote Egres used for defining "target" was specifically for the target of a spell. There is a good argument to be made that the target of this spell is the object being throw, not the thing it hits. The latter is a target however, but in a different way. It is the target of an attack roll, which is very different from the spell target to which Egres referred.

2) As has already been pointed out, MotUH is a sub-optimal PrC that should not be used as a basis for rules judgements about other spells.

3) Spells like fireball allow us to make attack roles with spell effects that target nothing. Read the thing about an arrow slit. The target is the empty space between the edges of the slit. So the spell effect is being aimed at nothing. Sound familiar?

4) Really, this discussion need not happen. I've always found flying familiars to be the most useful, so just get a raven and have him flying overhead during the fight (he shouldn't be in combat anyway). Aim the violent thrust at him and fail your attack roll on purpose. The guy will still fly 200 ft in the air and you bird will be safe.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Additionally, you could aim the subject at the ground, just in an interesting parabolic arc...

 

[Gez]

Additionally, you could aim the subject at the ground, just in an interesting parabolic arc...

Flying is the art of aiming at the ground and missing.