Telekinesis:fling skyward?

[Egres]

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.

Right.

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.

Unsupported, and thus irrelevant, opinion.

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?

Familiar, but quite different.

In fact these spells clearly specifies that your target will be a point in space, while Telekinesis doesn't.

In fact the word "target" in its context can be interpreted, as we do, in a restricitive way, limiting it to obects and creatures, the natural targets of the spell.

And here's is the main point: this is the WotC authors interpretation.

The fact that your interpretaztion clashes with their interpretation is quite meaningless.

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.

Can you show us a rule that allow us to fail an attacrk roll on purpose?

 

[Felix]

Unsupported, and thus irrelevant, opinion.

It is relevant that the PrC clearly states that you can do something with telekinesis that you could arguably do with the spell to begin with. And simply because the PrC clearly states you can do it, it doesn't necessairly mean that you couldn't already do that before.

Please do not accuse others of having irrelevant opinions; it's rude. Rather, ask them to support them.

Can you show us a rule that allow us to fail an attacrk roll on purpose?

Just empathy the bird to ready a move out of the way when the guy is coming at him. Either way, the bird can provide a targeting point, and that's what he was trying to accomplish.

 

[gabrion]

Unsupported, and thus irrelevant, opinion.

Ya, I should have just left that issue alone. The value of the PrC doesn't really matter, and I'm fully aware that I was just giving an opinion on that. The real point is that using the abilities of a PrC as evidence against those abilities being used in other ways is not all that convincing.

Can you show us a rule that allow us to fail an attacrk roll on purpose?

As felix pointed out, the point was to use the bird as a target. The guy you are throwing wont get an AoO anyway, so I guess I'mnot really worried if he hits my bird anyway. As for failing attack roll, I will look for something, but I've always thought their was something about being able to fail rolls generally...

*Begins searching through countless tomes of D+D knowledge*

 

[Egres]

It is relevant that the PrC clearly states that you can do something with telekinesis that you could arguably do with the spell to begin with. And simply because the PrC clearly states you can do it, it doesn't necessairly mean that you couldn't already do that before.

It doesn't necessarily mean what I think it means, but, at the end of the day, it seems to be the right interpretation.

Or, if you prefer, the WotC author's interpretation, and the interpretation of a massive number of players and DMs.

And, without a clear proof that this is a wrong interpretation I think you should accept that the WotC author's interpretation is the right one.

Heck, this is their game!

 

[Hypersmurf]

I personally do not believe in claiming that because some PrC (or feat, or whatever) mistakenly lists the ability to do something as a special ability of the class (or feat) that said ability becomes unusable to other characters.

Indeed. See the Exotic Weapon Master

-Hyp.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Or, if you prefer, the WotC author's interpretation, and the interpretation of a massive number of players and DMs.

I think you'll find that it's the interpretation of a single author, which is artificially lent weight because it appears in a book. At that point the idea has significant momentum, and others simply roll over and accept it rather than challenge the author.

And, without a clear proof that this is a wrong interpretation I think you should accept that the WotC author's interpretation is the right one.

Heck, this is their game!

No, it's WotC's game, not WotC's author's game.

 

[Egres]

No, it's WotC's game, not WotC's author's game.

?

By the way, Andy Collins, one of the authors of the CW is the actual Sage.

When in doubt, I prefer to go with what WotC thinks is right.

Shouldn't I?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

By the way, Andy Collins, one of the authors of the CW is the actual Sage.
...

Shouldn't I?

Absolutely not.

 

[Egres]

Absolutely not.

Why?

If something doesn't negate their interpretation I can't see any reason why I shouldn't go with it.

Heck..this is their game!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Why?

Have you read any of the the threads on this board where we discuss how completely wrong the FAQ (and the Sage) often are?

Generally speaking, they're wrong more often than not.

Like, for instance:

Is there a way to decide which squares the figments from a mirror image spell occupy? Or do the images distribute themselves randomly? If it’s the latter, how does the DM decide where they go?

Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, it’s easiest to assume that all the images occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that can reach the user’s space can affect an image.

Contrast this with:

These figments separate from you and remain in a cluster, each within 5 feet of at least one other figment or you.