Would you allow this in your games?

[BSF]

Well, 3.5 rules shoot this down pretty effectively. But, let's pretend this is 3.0 rules.

As a DM I would not allow it because it is generally silly to allow fine manipulation of so many objects. I would allow you to hurl them as a mass. with that many, I might make it an area affect with a REF save.

As a multiple attack, I would also allow you to decide how many you wanted to *try* to hurl and then make a Concentration check. If you fail, the attack is ineffective. If you succeed, then you get to start making individual attack rolls.

Alternatively, I might just rule that you can convert it to a full-attack action and get as many items as you have attacks, based on your BAB. No concentration check involved.

I could probably come up with a few other options, but I would generally be forcing the use of the telekenisis to emulate an equivelant spell or attack. That might sound a bit harsh, but that is the way I would rule it.

 

[jmucchiello]

Personally, if a player of mine asked if I'd allow it, I'd say sure with a smile. After the party used it once, the next time the party got ambushed, an enemy sorcerer would decimate the party in similar fashion. Following the TPK, I'd suggest it might be a bit unbalanced and ban it. If the player protested, well, there's always another ambush on the roads.

 

[Tsyr]

Personally, if a player of mine asked if I'd allow it, I'd say sure with a smile. After the party used it once, the next time the party got ambushed, an enemy sorcerer would decimate the party in similar fashion. Following the TPK, I'd suggest it might be a bit unbalanced and ban it. If the player protested, well, there's always another ambush on the roads.

Ya know, I'd be awful cheesed if I was the victim of a TPK designed to teach a munchkin a lesson. As in leave the table and not look back cheesed.

 

[Xavim]

As an alternate use for the spell, any idea on how much damage dousing someone with 25gallons of burning oil would do? (barrel not included)

 

[reapersaurus]

I believe that by the rules, there's no difference between 1 gallon and 25 gallons when you set them on fire.
I think it would be 1d6 per round, but don't quote me on that.

 

[Xavim]

Interesting note, they fixed the problem with the spell, but didn't apply the change to the Psionic power. So a Wizard is restricted to 1 object/caster level, but the Psionic character is not.

 

[Aristotle]

I'd expect that any changed to psionics will come in the book that is supposed to update psionics to 3.5 as well. It is slated on the front page for an April 2004 release.

 

[green slime]

Interesting note, they fixed the problem with the spell, but didn't apply the change to the Psionic power. So a Wizard is restricted to 1 object/caster level, but the Psionic character is not.

Any player who made a comment like that at my gaming table would be asking to get beaned on the head with a cast iron frying pan.

Isn't it painfully obvious to you that the only reason this hasn't been changed is because they haven't gotten around to it yet, due to there being perhaps other pressing tasks at hand in the WotC factory than fix this? As opposed to desperately trying to cover all the loopholes available for munchkins to weedle themselves through? Don't you suppose that in actual fact one would hope that at least the DM of the game has at least two brain cells that co-operate?

 

[TiQuinn]

I guess you can do anything you want as long as the DM allows you to do it.

But don't you think it would be awfully silly to say that the Wizard can't do this with Telekinesis and the Psion can? There's playing a game by the rules and then there's using the rules as a replacement for common sense.

 

[Amos_Sten]

Ya know, I'd be awful cheesed if I was the victim of a TPK designed to teach a munchkin a lesson. As in leave the table and not look back cheesed.

But then again I would leave a group where the DM allowed this without teaching them a lesson.