RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?

[prototype00]

Question as per the title: Specifically with the “Object” interaction?


Object: You can try to move an object that weighs up to 1,000 pounds. If the object isn't being worn or carried, you automatically move it up to 30 feet in any direction, but not beyond the range of this spell.

If the object is worn or carried by a creature, you must make an ability check with your Spellcasting Ability contested by that creature's Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the object away from that creature and can move it up to 30 feet in any direction but not beyond the range of this spell.


Armour is worn, and I don’t see any mitigating language in there.

If you are wondering about the strength of Telekinesis to do such a feat, I will point out that it is capable of moving a mass of half a ton up to 30ft in a time-frame of 3-6 seconds. Just ball parking it, such strength would be able to rip someone bodily from their plate, I would expect?

Anyway, a neat trick vs humanoid enemies in a tin can if so.

[Neorealist]

Given it explicitly works against worn items, platemail doesn't have any intrinsic exception to the spell near as I can tell.

Also in a more general sense; spells explicitly break physics and 'realism', they don't have to follow it.

[Dork_Forge]

No, because besides most likely not being intended, armor is very well secured to a body, hence why it takes so long to put on and take off properly. Chances are if you tried to rip it off with Telekinesis you'd probably pull them towards you before the straps broke.

[JellyPooga]

No.

I don't care about RAW. I don't need to think about it. No.

Now that my "GM hat" is off, it's worth bearing in mind that doffing armour explicitly takes more than a single action (I'm AFB, so someone else can provide a reference, if you need it) and nothing in the Telekinesis spell description counteracts that rule. In order to forcibly remove armour in a single action, thus bypassing the usual "doffing armour" rules, would require the armour to be broken, which the Telekinesis spell cannot do with its "Object manipulation" function; it can only move things.

[Unoriginal]

Question as per the title: Specifically with the “Object” interaction?



Armour is worn, and I donÂ’t see any mitigating language in there.

If you are wondering about the strength of Telekinesis to do such a feat, I will point out that it is capable of moving a mass of half a ton up to 30ft in a time-frame of 3-6 seconds. Just ball parking it, such strength would be able to rip someone bodily from their plate, I would expect?

Anyway, a neat trick vs humanoid enemies in a tin can if so.

Here is the info that answers it:


The time it takes to don or doff armor depends on the armor's category.

Don. This is the time it takes to put on armor. You benefit from the armor's AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor.
Doff. This is the time it takes to take off armor. If you have help, reduce this time by half.

Donning and Doffing Armor
Category Don Doff

Heavy Armor 10 minutes 5 minutes

Specifics beat generals, and unlike worn clothes, worn plate armor takes 5 mins to take off.

Furthermore, the Telekinesis spell says:



You can exert fine control on objects with your telekinetic grip, such as manipulating a simple tool, opening a door or a container, stowing or retrieving an item from an open container, or pouring the contents from a vial.

Nothing that indicates "you can do 5 mins of fine control in one Action".

You could use Telekinesis for things like unbuckling a saddle from under a charging rider, for example.

[Amnestic]

Specifics beat generals, and unlike worn clothes, worn plate armor takes 5 mins to take off.


So specifically the Telekinesis spell overrules the general heavy armour don/doff rule.

Right?

[Valmark]

Well, it's an item and it's worn, so yeah I'd allow a 5th level spell to take armor off and away. Or rip it outright, not like the person is going to use it any time soon. There really isn't anything stopping the armor from being an eligible object.

Though I'd do something different for magic armor, just because if I'm giving magic armor I don't want it to be bypassed easily. Is it fair? No, but whatever.
Or I would let them do it but say beforehand that the armor would break and become unusable then. In which case I wouldn't use the same tactic on the party though.

[Kyutaru]

Telekinesis is described as pulling and I'm afraid that no amount of pulling is going to disarmor someone instantly unless you pulled their straps off first. You can certainly do it all mentally using the fine control if you had time to undress them and seeing as the Telekinesis spell has a duration of 10 minutes through concentration you CAN over time take someone's armor off. But they'd basically have to sit there letting you do it for 5 straight minutes instead of, I don't know, not.

The rounds and actions are merely an abstraction. The true spell lasts for up to 10 minutes and you can do pretty much whatever you want during those 10 minutes. If you want to spend 10 minutes exerting fine control to manipulate body armor then go ahead, I'm sure Merlin does it for King Arthur all the time.

[RSP]

Question as per the title: Specifically with the “Object” interaction?



Armour is worn, and I don’t see any mitigating language in there.

If you are wondering about the strength of Telekinesis to do such a feat, I will point out that it is capable of moving a mass of half a ton up to 30ft in a time-frame of 3-6 seconds. Just ball parking it, such strength would be able to rip someone bodily from their plate, I would expect?

Anyway, a neat trick vs humanoid enemies in a tin can if so.

RAW I think it works.

As a ruling, I’d allow sections removed as an action, rather than the entire suit, as that would require pulling in multiple directions at once, and a finer ability of control than what I think is indicated by the spell.

For instance, ripping off the chest plate or back plates would be doable as an action (assuming the checks pass).

[Zhorn]

I'd say that looks like a 'yes'.
And with my DM hat on, I'd also rule 'yes' for the sheer sake of it's a 5th level spell slot being used on a contested roll, on a more interesting action in a turn than "I hit them with a 5th level first full of dice".
It's just a more interesting ruling to say 'yes' rather than 'no'

edit: being said, I would stress the singular object targeting while using the spell. No full set of plate in one turn, but you could knock off a piece of it each turn.

[Kyutaru]

I'd say that looks like a 'yes'.
And with my DM hat on, I'd also rule 'yes' for the sheer sake of it's a 5th level spell slot being used on a contested roll, on a more interesting action in a turn than "I hit them with a 5th level first full of dice".
It's just a more interesting ruling to say 'yes' rather than 'no'

One must also remember that effectively you can be allowing said spell to grant a -8 AC penalty. Whether or not you consider that balanced is the point of consideration in allowing it or not.

Oh additionally, with Telekinesis having a duration, one must also consider whether you will allow this debuff to be repeated on subsequent turns until all enemies have the same penalty.

[Yakk]

RAW, yes.

Not-RAW, probably let it strip 2 AC off per action. That is similar to removing a shield.

[Martin Greywolf]

You can't get a RAW answer because this isn't a RAW issue. RAW state that whatever is worn can be moved, but there's wearing a hat and wearing the underwear. Unless you want to argue that telekinesis can magically remove your underwear without affecting any other part of clothing. For even more extreme example, are handcuffs worn? Can you therefore remove them via telekinesis even if you don't have a key? Is jewellry worn? Can you remove piercings this way?

Once we depart from sheer stupidity land, that "worn" thing pretty clearly means some article of clothing you can remove by yanking hard enough, like a hat or a coat. If this is the case, does it apply to armor? Well, by RAW no, removing armor specifically is doffing, and takes several actions - there's nothing stating if you can or cannot do that via telekinesis.

If we decide to determine the answer based off of how armor works, the answer is sometimes. Something like a gambeson, chain mail or lamellar armor probably could be removed that way - it won't be comfortable, exactly, it takes quite a bit of force and wriggling to get out of a sweaty gambeson.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/15/93/7d/15937dde0d69338fc2af477cd66c87f1.jpg
Shoulder bits were historically somewhat rare, which isn't stopping everyone and their mother from using them these days


Field plate, on the other hand, is a different beast entirely, it's strapped to your body in many places, and some elements of it are hinged and secured with pins on some models - the only way that armet is leaving your head is if it breaks or if your head gets ripped off.

https://armstreet.com/catalogue/full/armet-helmet-medieval-sca-etched-armor-18.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/39/db/e4/39dbe40c76f04a7a69c5820b14f926f0.jpg

Tournament plate? No dice at all, you often can't remove that thing by yourself.

[RSP]

You can't get a RAW answer because this isn't a RAW issue. RAW state that whatever is worn can be moved, but there's wearing a hat and wearing the underwear. Unless you want to argue that telekinesis can magically remove your underwear without affecting any other part of clothing. For even more extreme example, are handcuffs worn? Can you therefore remove them via telekinesis even if you don't have a key? Is jewellry worn? Can you remove piercings this way?

It absolutely has a RAW element to it, as covered by many posters. Also, take into account the spell states “you can exert your will on one creature or object that you can see within range”. So yes, you can remove someone’s underwear if you can see their underwear: in play I’d imagine this like a wedgy that rips the underwear off.

Not sure why you think this isn’t a viable RAW question.

[prototype00]

Hmm, some people yay and some people nay. I split the difference and tweeted the question at Crawford. Lets see what he says.

[Valmark]

You can't get a RAW answer because this isn't a RAW issue. RAW state that whatever is worn can be moved, but there's wearing a hat and wearing the underwear. Unless you want to argue that telekinesis can magically remove your underwear without affecting any other part of clothing. For even more extreme example, are handcuffs worn? Can you therefore remove them via telekinesis even if you don't have a key? Is jewellry worn? Can you remove piercings this way?


Of course you can do that. The underwear is also pretty easy.

As far as handcuffs and piercings... Yes, but you better hope you can outrun or beat the person whose hands you just broke or whose ear you just torn apart.

Not sure about the question on jewelry, obviously it's worn or carried.

And by RAW nothing excludes the armor from Telekinesis, as a worn object. Wether it's ripped off, unstrapped or it's tearing apart the poor character inside, that's up to the DM.

[GorogIrongut]

I believe that those arguing you can't use Telekinesis to do this, are arguing this way because:

a. They believe that there is a difference between something being worn and something being donned.

b. Telekinesis operates as follows

'If the object is worn or carried by a creature, you must make an ability check with your Spellcasting Ability contested by that creature's Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the object away from that creature and can move it up to 30 feet in any direction but not beyond the range of this spell.'

A strength check implies that Telekinesis is wrestling with the creature to wrest control of the object away from it.

Any DM worth their salt would add levels of bonuses to the creature's contested Str Check depending on how 'attached' the object was to the creature.

-Underpants would be fiddly to use telekinesis on because it's hiding under clothing, etc. So perhaps the DM would add a +2 on the side of the creature's check.
-An item strapped to the creatures body with rope might give a +4.
-Heavy armour fully donned would probably give a +10 on the contested check.
-An iron maiden that fully encloses a person would probably be a +20 or an outright fail.




Of those two arguments, I personally hold more to the latter. It gives the ability of success without destroying verisimilitude.

[Valmark]

-Underpants would be fiddly to use telekinesis on because it's hiding under clothing, etc. So perhaps the DM would add a +2 on the side of the creature's check.
-An iron maiden that fully encloses a person would probably be a +20 or an outright fail.


I agree with what you said, but just to be precise...
-if it's hiding under clothing it isn't targetable
-being closed inside an iron maiden hardly counts as being worn carried. And if you want to take it away from a character, you really only need to open it- that character is probably also going to be thanking you for removing pointy things from their everything. If they are still alive.

[Kyutaru]

And by RAW nothing excludes the armor from Telekinesis, as a worn object. Wether it's ripped off, unstrapped or it's tearing apart the poor character inside, that's up to the DM.
I'd actually rule that the RAW expressly permits 1000 lbs of force and would then require a demonstration that this is sufficient to pulverize armor. There are strong men who can deadlift 1000 lbs that I don't think would be able to rip the armor off of someone barehanded. Considering that a hammer striking a nail is about 100 pounds of force you're really only taking a boxer's level of punching strength to your armor's straps. It'd be like saying I can remove your armor with a sledgehammer swing. I can certainly dent it and probably kill you too if I'm lucky but I don't think it's coming off.

[Pex]

You can't see the underwear, so you couldn't target it in the first place.

Now if you'll excuse me, my Sorcerer who married the party's Fighter has a new trick to show him.

[JellyPooga]

-Underpants would be fiddly to use telekinesis on because it's hiding under clothing, etc. So perhaps the DM would add a +2 on the side of the creature's check.
-An item strapped to the creatures body with rope might give a +4.
-Heavy armour fully donned would probably give a +10 on the contested check.
-An iron maiden that fully encloses a person would probably be a +20 or an outright fail.

This approach is entirely inconsistent with 5e design. It would be Advantage to the defender, Disadvantage to the offender, both or nothing. Assuming you allow Telekinesis to break objects as part of the movement it allows at all, which would be inconsistent with the spell description...

...Which is the real clincher for me. Telekinesis, regardless of the force it can potentially exert, cannot break things. In order to remove a worn object that would require something to break, you would have to use a spell other than Telekinesis.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Hmm, some people yay and some people nay. I split the difference and tweeted the question at Crawford. Lets see what he says.

Let's hope his answer isn't more brutal violence to common-sense readings of the rules!

[Tanarii]

You can't see the underwear, so you couldn't target it in the first place.

Now if you'll excuse me, my Sorcerer who married the party's Fighter has a new trick to show him.It's easier if you pants him first.

Less impressive tho.

[Unoriginal]

Question for the people who would rule that you can remove plate armor in one Action with Telekinesis:


If someone is chained and shackled, with one or several locks, would you consider Telekinesis can get the restrains out of them in one Action, too?

[stoutstien]

You can't see the underwear, so you couldn't target it in the first place.

Now if you'll excuse me, my Sorcerer who married the party's Fighter has a new trick to show him.

Reminds me of the walk off from Zoolander.

[NaughtyTiger]

So specifically the Telekinesis spell overrules the general heavy armour don/doff rule.

Right?

Ha, this is the paradox of specific beats general.

that said, isn't this the only way for a single class wizard to use tensor's transformation with heavy armor?

[Chronos]

Quoth Kyutaru:

There are strong men who can deadlift 1000 lbs...
Not in 5th edition D&D, there aren't. Even a strength of 30 only gets you 900 lbs.

[Unoriginal]

So specifically the Telekinesis spell overrules the general heavy armour don/doff rule.

Right?

No, the specifics of heavy armor don/doff rules overrules the general "removing a worn item" rules

[da newt]

Yes. RAW it explicitly states you can (if you succeed at the contested roll) - but there is no logical explanation for this to happen realistically.

"If the object is worn or carried by a creature, you must make an ability check with your Spellcasting Ability contested by that creature's Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the object away from that creature and can move it up to 30 feet in any direction but not beyond the range of this spell."

If I was DM I would rule that you can move the armor, but the person in it comes along for the ride. There is no way for them to let go of the armor even if they wanted to.

[Valmark]

No, the specifics of heavy armor don/doff rules overrules the general "removing a worn item" rules
Telekinesis isn't really following the standard rule though. Being it's own specific magic.

Ha, this is the paradox of specific beats general.

that said, isn't this the only way for a single class wizard to use tensor's transformation with heavy armor?
...? They are both concentration spells, so either you are donning before Transformation (which doesn't need Telekinesis) or you're wearing it after (can't use Telekinesis).

Question for the people who would rule that you can remove plate armor in one Action with Telekinesis:


If someone is chained and shackled, with one or several locks, would you consider Telekinesis can get the restrains out of them in one Action, too?
Is it a single shackle? If so, a single roll, then you're good.

Is it multiple shackles? They need multiple actions since those are multiple objects.

Is it multiple shackles with a single lock keeping them together? Open it, done.

Is it multiple shackles with multiple locks? Win that check and you're taking whatever you aimed at.

I'd actually rule that the RAW expressly permits 1000 lbs of force and would then require a demonstration that this is sufficient to pulverize armor. There are strong men who can deadlift 1000 lbs that I don't think would be able to rip the armor off of someone barehanded. Considering that a hammer striking a nail is about 100 pounds of force you're really only taking a boxer's level of punching strength to your armor's straps. It'd be like saying I can remove your armor with a sledgehammer swing. I can certainly dent it and probably kill you too if I'm lucky but I don't think it's coming off.

Magic is much different then somebody with enough strenght. And it honestly has no need to pulverize armor, that's something we're assuming- RAW it removes the armor, period.

[Unoriginal]

Telekinesis isn't really following the standard rule though. Being it's own specific magic

I don't see anything written anywhere in Telekinesis saying that it doesn't obey the item interaction rules, aside from being done at a distance.



Is it a single shackle? If so, a single roll, then you're good.

Is it multiple shackles? They need multiple actions since those are multiple objects.

Is it multiple shackles with a single lock keeping them together? Open it, done.

Is it multiple shackles with multiple locks? Win that check and you're taking whatever you aimed at.

So Telekinesis also replace the Knock spell?



Magic is much different then somebody with enough strenght.

It isn't, though. Not for Telekinesis at least.

[Valmark]

I don't see anything written anywhere in Telekinesis saying that it doesn't obey the item interaction rules, aside from being done at a distance.

So Telekinesis also replace the Knock spell?

It isn't, though. Not for Telekinesis at least.

It clearly dictates its own behavior with items.

Why not? It's not like you need a key if you can turn the mechanism magically. And well, using a 5th level spell to do better then a 2nd level spell... isn't weird.

Why not? It doesn't have a strenght score and as someone stated it does more then a monster could do. It's only limit is weight, besides that it can do pretty much anything you need it to do.

[Martin Greywolf]

For having to see the object - clothing can have holes. Even better, let us consider partial plate.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/72/24/dd/7224dd532debf7115a00d3f4da9a778e.jpg

Can you use Telekinesis to remove that chain mail shirt, while keeping the plate cuirass and faulds in place? Without damage to person or equipment? You do have line of sight to that chain shirt after all. Or better yet, can you remove a layer from a formal dress (e.g. kimono) that uses entirely too many?

[Valmark]

For having to see the object - clothing can have holes. Even better, let us consider partial plate.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/72/24/dd/7224dd532debf7115a00d3f4da9a778e.jpg

Can you use Telekinesis to remove that chain mail shirt, while keeping the plate cuirass and faulds in place? Without damage to person or equipment? You do have line of sight to that chain shirt after all. Or better yet, can you remove a layer from a formal dress (e.g. kimono) that uses entirely too many?

RAW, yes. Does it make sense? Not for me. Still RAW.

[Townopolis]

RAW, yes.

Please keep in mind that D&D 5e is written in plain language without the borderline legalese that governed older editions, and this design choice is predicated on the idea that the DM has the power and responsibility to adjudicate the rules for fairness and fun.

As a consequence, the RAW answer to any question is effectively useless. The DM decides. The players either play or quit or argue with the DM. We can all have our opinions on how genius or stupid phasing someone's armor off them is, but the only usable answer is "whatever the DM says," not RAW.

[JellyPooga]

There appears to be a discrepancy between "move" a worn object and the ability to "remove" one. Telekinesis does not allow you to "remove" an object, nor break one; only "move" it. The spell would not allow you to move an object through a solid wall any more than it would allow you to break iron manacles or full plate harness to forcibly remove them faster than would normally be allowed.

Yes, Telekinesis allows you to move objects but no more. Nor does it allow you do things faster or more extraordinary than it specifically describes; including doffing armour quicker than normally described (whether your own or anothers).

[Unoriginal]

RAW, yes.

Please keep in mind that D&D 5e is written in plain language without the borderline legalese that governed older editions, and this design choice is predicated on the idea that the DM has the power and responsibility to adjudicate the rules for fairness and fun.

As a consequence, the RAW answer to any question is effectively useless. The DM decides. The players either play or quit or argue with the DM. We can all have our opinions on how genius or stupid phasing someone's armor off them is, but the only usable answer is "whatever the DM says," not RAW.

This is true. All we can do is provide our own perspective on the question.

[Amnestic]

There appears to be a discrepancy between "move" a worn object and the ability to "remove" one. Telekinesis does not allow you to "remove" an object, nor break one; only "move" it. The spell would not allow you to move an object through a solid wall any more than it would allow you to break iron manacles or full plate harness to forcibly remove them faster than would normally be allowed.

Yes, Telekinesis allows you to move objects but no more. Nor does it allow you do things faster or more extraordinary than it specifically describes; including doffing armour quicker than normally described (whether your own or anothers).




If the object is worn or carried by a creature, you must make an ability check with your spellcasting ability contested by that creature’s Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the object away from that creature and can move it up to 30 feet in any direction but not beyond the range of this spell.

How exactly does one 'pull the [worn] object away from the creature' without removing it?

[Valmark]

RAW, yes.

Please keep in mind that D&D 5e is written in plain language without the borderline legalese that governed older editions, and this design choice is predicated on the idea that the DM has the power and responsibility to adjudicate the rules for fairness and fun.

As a consequence, the RAW answer to any question is effectively useless. The DM decides. The players either play or quit or argue with the DM. We can all have our opinions on how genius or stupid phasing someone's armor off them is, but the only usable answer is "whatever the DM says," not RAW.
Yup, and I'd never follow RAW on this. But the question is about RAW.

There appears to be a discrepancy between "move" a worn object and the ability to "remove" one. Telekinesis does not allow you to "remove" an object, nor break one; only "move" it. The spell would not allow you to move an object through a solid wall any more than it would allow you to break iron manacles or full plate harness to forcibly remove them faster than would normally be allowed.

Yes, Telekinesis allows you to move objects but no more. Nor does it allow you do things faster or more extraordinary than it specifically describes; including doffing armour quicker than normally described (whether your own or anothers).

The spell explicitely says that it removes the item from the person wearing/carrying it. There is no discrepancy, it's what the spell says.

[JellyPooga]

The spell explicitely says that it removes the item from the person wearing/carrying it. There is no discrepancy, it's what the spell says.

No. It doesn't. Read again.

[Valmark]

No. It doesn't. Read again.

"If the object is worn or carried by a creature, you must make an ability check with your Spellcasting Ability contested by that creature's Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the object away from that creature and can move it up to 30 feet in any direction but not beyond the range of this spell."

Yes it does. Funny enough, Amnestic pointed out the same thing and you conviniently ignored that.

[JellyPooga]

"If the object is worn or carried by a creature, you must make an ability check with your Spellcasting Ability contested by that creature's Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the object away from that creature and can move it up to 30 feet in any direction but not beyond the range of this spell."

Yes it does. Funny enough, Amnestic pointed out the same thing and you conviniently ignored that.

That quote does not explicitly say that it removes an object. Pulling an object away does not explicity allow you to break an object, nor allow an object to pass through another; either of which would be required to remove worn armour without going through the "doff armour" process.

[Amnestic]

That quote does not explicitly say that it removes an object.

Are you saying that I can pull someone's amulet 30' away from them without removing it from their person?

Does Telekinesis give them a stretchy neck?

Would doing so give me Advantage on any decapitation attacks?

[Valmark]

That quote does not explicitly say that it removes an object. Pulling an object away does not explicity allow you to break an object, nor allow an object to pass through another; either of which would be required to remove worn armour without going through the "doff armour" process.

How are you pulling an object away, no questions asked (because it gives no exception, you pass the test you pull it away), without removing it? Because that's what it does.

And nothing of that is strictly required, the armor could unstrap automatically istantly. I wouldn't rule it like that, but it would be consistent with RAW.

[da newt]

How are you pulling an object away without removing it?

This is left up to the DM to rule upon. You could decide that all the strapping breaks and the front facing half of the plate mail is torn from the wearer. You could rule that all of the plate mail is torn from/through the person wearing it causing extensive damage. You could rule that the spell allows you to manifest a dozen little hands that unfasten every belt and buckle (a task that normally takes 5 minutes or more) before the massive force of the spell rips the armor away (all within the time of 1 action). Etc ...

[Zhorn]

I think this is a perfect case of:

When you see something that doesn't make sense... A wizard did it.

It works by RAW, not real world logic, because magic.

[JellyPooga]

How are you pulling an object away, no questions asked (because it gives no exception, you pass the test you pull it away), without removing it? Because that's what it does.

It also gives no exemption. Removing a piece of armour in the context of doffing armour (which is the specific "removal" being discussed) is not the same as "moving" the same armour when it is only being held or unattended. Removing a hat or other piece of worn clothing, jewelery or other object that can be achieved with a single action can be contested and removed, yes, but that isn't the context here.


And nothing of that is strictly required, the armor could unstrap automatically istantly. I wouldn't rule it like that, but it would be consistent with RAW.

That would be inconsistent. The spell specifically addresses fine manipulation amd mentions nothing about being faster than otherwise ruled. Doffing armour has a specific timeframe and nothing in the spell description exempts that rule.

[Valmark]

It also gives no exemption. Removing a piece of armour in the context of doffing armour (which is the specific "removal" being discussed) is not the same as "moving" the same armour when it is only being held or unattended. Removing a hat or other piece of worn clothing, jewelery or other object that can be achieved with a single action can be contested and removed, yes, but that isn't the context here.

That would be inconsistent. The spell specifically addresses fine manipulation amd mentions nothing about being faster than otherwise ruled. Doffing armour has a specific timeframe and nothing in the spell description exempts that rule.

Yeah, it's not the same as unattended and that's why there is a different rule. Carried or worn is explicitely treated the same way, no exception. You don't need an exemption because you have no exception. You aren't exempt from don/doff rules because those don't matter with the wording of the spell.

And how is it inconsistent? I'm not using fine manipulation, I'm using the pulling away option. How is it done is up to the DM.

[JellyPooga]

Yeah, it's not the same as unattended and that's why there is a different rule. Carried or worn is explicitely treated the same way, no exception. You don't need an exemption because you have no exception. You aren't exempt from don/doff rules because those don't matter with the wording of the spell.

RE: Emphasis. Why not? The spell does not say it allows you to disregard the specific rules regarding donning amd doffing armour. The exemption is required.


And how is it inconsistent? I'm not using fine manipulation, I'm using the pulling away option. How is it done is up to the DM.

You specifically mentioned fine manipulation (quote "unstrap", implying the buckles that hold the armour on to the wearer) as a possible explanation, but that is addressed by the spell and while the spell says such is possible, it does not say it can do such things instantly or automatically; i.e. they would be subject to all other rules relating to them; in this case, the don/doff rules for armour. Thus, your non-RAW explanation for your interpretation of the spell is inconsistent with the Rules. As. Written.

The spell, like any Rule as Written, does no more or less than what it describes. The Telekinesis spell does not, explicitly, allow you to ignore the usual time to doff armour. It allows you to move held or worn objects away from someone, but only if it complies with all other rules regarding wearing that item . Another example would be a cursed item that the wearer cannot remove without suppressing or removing the curse; Telekinesis would no more be able to remove such an item than to doff someones armour instantly because the spell does not provide exemption from the rules to do so.

[MrCharlie]

This has been throughly answered, but if you want a comparable effect-"Undress" is a perfectly valid use of the first level Command spell. Just wanted to put that in.

[JellyPooga]

This has been throughly answered, but if you want a comparable effect-"Undress" is a perfectly valid use of the first level Command spell. Just wanted to put that in.

Valid? Yes. Effective? Not so much. There's only so much undressing one can achieve in a single round!

[Misery Esquire]

Valid? Yes. Effective? Not so much. There's only so much undressing one can achieve in a single round!

It could be the weirdest Striptease-via-Simon Says mix ever seen in combat, though.

[Valmark]

RE: Emphasis. Why not? The spell does not say it allows you to disregard the specific rules regarding donning amd doffing armour. The exemption is required.

You specifically mentioned fine manipulation (quote "unstrap", implying the buckles that hold the armour on to the wearer) as a possible explanation, but that is addressed by the spell and while the spell says such is possible, it does not say it can do such things instantly or automatically; i.e. they would be subject to all other rules relating to them; in this case, the don/doff rules for armour. Thus, your non-RAW explanation for your interpretation of the spell is inconsistent with the Rules. As. Written.

The spell, like any Rule as Written, does no more or less than what it describes. The Telekinesis spell does not, explicitly, allow you to ignore the usual time to doff armour. It allows you to move held or worn objects away from someone, but only if it complies with all other rules regarding wearing that item . Another example would be a cursed item that the wearer cannot remove without suppressing or removing the curse; Telekinesis would no more be able to remove such an item than to doff someones armour instantly because the spell does not provide exemption from the rules to do so.

The spell also doesn't say the armor isn't an eligible object. It simply says "An item worn or carried this and that". And if we want to talk about specific, a single 5th level spell is much more specific then the rule to don/doff armor.

I gave one way for it to work RAW- another player gave three more ways for it to work. It was just a way to describe it.
The Telekinesis spell doesn't say explicitely that it ignores doffing rules. Again, that's because it has a single way for a worn item to work. I'm not gonna repeat it again seeing how that's normal understanding and I'm tired of writing that.

A cursed item that says that it cannot be taken off unless X happens is way more specific then the armor thing. It also has special ways to work. If we want to talk about specific, that is very specific.
And it wouldn't even be weird to make it work, having a 5th level spell emulate something done by a 3rd level spell, though I wouldn't let it.


This has been throughly answered, but if you want a comparable effect-"Undress" is a perfectly valid use of the first level Command spell. Just wanted to put that in.

That's true.

Also hope you have a lot of those to make someone take their armor off.

And is hilarious if you do xD

[JellyPooga]

The spell also doesn't say the armor isn't an eligible object. It simply says "An item worn or carried this and that". And if we want to talk about specific, a single 5th level spell is much more specific then the rule to don/doff armor.
Why would it exempt armour specifically, when there are multiple "worn" items that the spell will not apply to? Those things that have a rule exempting them from Telekinesis are already exempt; no need to reiterate. Spells that deal fire damage don't include "except against creatures with immunity to fire" in their description for the same reason. As for a single spell being more specific than the don/doff rule; that is simply not the case. The don/doff rule is specific to armour. Telekinesis is only specific to worn items in general. One of these is a smaller category; thus more specific.


I gave one way for it to work RAW- another player gave three more ways for it to work. It was just a way to describe it.
The Telekinesis spell doesn't say explicitely that it ignores doffing rules. Again, that's because it has a single way for a worn item to work. I'm not gonna repeat it again seeing how that's normal understanding and I'm tired of writing that.

See below.


A cursed item that says that it cannot be taken off unless X happens is way more specific then the armor thing. It also has special ways to work. If we want to talk about specific, that is very specific.
And it wouldn't even be weird to make it work, having a 5th level spell emulate something done by a 3rd level spell, though I wouldn't let it.

Why do you believe the doff armour rules to be less specific? They are a very specific rule. Unless otherwise mentioned, the fastest anyone can remove any armour barring a shield, without breaking it, is 30 seconds (2 1/2 minutes for heavy armour). If they have assistance. That's the RAW. Telekinesis does not exempt this rule. Curse rules are no more or less specific to the objects they apply to, except in the case of cursed armour where the rule "cannot be removed" is mkre specific than "takes X time to remove", because time "X" cannot elapse if removal cannot occur at all.


How are you pulling an object away without removing it?

This is left up to the DM to rule upon. You could decide that all the strapping breaks and the front facing half of the plate mail is torn from the wearer. You could rule that all of the plate mail is torn from/through the person wearing it causing extensive damage. You could rule that the spell allows you to manifest a dozen little hands that unfasten every belt and buckle (a task that normally takes 5 minutes or more) before the massive force of the spell rips the armor away (all within the time of 1 action). Etc ...

Incidentally, I forgot to respond to this post. None of the above is within the remit of the Telekinesis spell.

It cannot break an object.
It cannot cause damage directly.
It cannot cause a solid object to move through another.
It cannot do things quicker than otherwise ruled.

It does not, strictly speaking, exert force. You could not, for example, use Telekinesis to shatter a glass bottle. You can cause a glass bottle to break using the spell (e.g. by moving it to a great height and allowing it to fall), but you could not shatter the glass directly. Telekinesis does not have an effective Str score, per se. It can move and restrain a character and move objects, yes, but just because it can move an object that weighs up to 1,000lbs does not mean it can exert 1,000lbs of force. You could not even draw blood with a needle using Telekinesis; such is not within the remit of the spell, RAW.

[NaughtyTiger]

Unless otherwise mentioned, the fastest anyone can remove any armour barring a shield,

curious, would you allow the spell to remove a shield?

[patchyman]

I think this is a perfect case of:

When you see something that doesn't make sense... A wizard did it.

It works by RAW, not real world logic, because magic.

Funny, because to me it is a perfect case of:
If a caster does it, no need to apply common sense.

If a non-caster tries to do it, he fails because it doesn't make sense.

[JellyPooga]

curious, would you allow the spell to remove a shield?

Yes. It takes 1 action to doff a shield. I would allow Telekinesis to doff armour too...only it would require the appropriate time frame (1 minute, or 10 rounds, for Light/Medium armour, 5 minutes, or 50 rounds, for Heavy) and I would likely require the opposed check on each round, but the latter is my call as GM and not, strictly, RAW.

What I'm objecting to is the instant removal of armour (i.e. as a single action). RAW, that would contradict the doff armour rules and be inconsistent with the written effect of the spell.

[Valmark]

Why would it exempt armour specifically, when there are multiple "worn" items that the spell will not apply to? Those things that have a rule exempting them from Telekinesis are already exempt; no need to reiterate. Spells that deal fire damage don't include "except against creatures with immunity to fire" in their description for the same reason. As for a single spell being more specific than the don/doff rule; that is simply not the case. The don/doff rule is specific to armour. Telekinesis is only specific to worn items in general. One of these is a smaller category; thus more specific.

Why do you believe the doff armour rules to be less specific? They are a very specific rule. Unless otherwise mentioned, the fastest anyone can remove any armour barring a shield, without breaking it, is 30 seconds (2 1/2 minutes for heavy armour). If they have assistance. That's the RAW. Telekinesis does not exempt this rule. Curse rules are no more or less specific to the objects they apply to, except in the case of cursed armour where the rule "cannot be removed" is mkre specific than "takes X time to remove", because time "X" cannot elapse if removal cannot occur at all.

Incidentally, I forgot to respond to this post. None of the above is within the remit of the Telekinesis spell.

It cannot break an object.
It cannot cause damage directly.
It cannot cause a solid object to move through another.
It cannot do things quicker than otherwise ruled.

It does not, strictly speaking, exert force. You could not, for example, use Telekinesis to shatter a glass bottle. You can cause a glass bottle to break using the spell (e.g. by moving it to a great height and allowing it to fall), but you could not shatter the glass directly. Telekinesis does not have an effective Str score, per se. It can move and restrain a character and move objects, yes, but just because it can move an object that weighs up to 1,000lbs does not mean it can exert 1,000lbs of force. You could not even draw blood with a needle using Telekinesis; such is not within the remit of the spell, RAW.

Are you going to mention these worn items? Can't think of any without forming in the realm of magic.
And yeah, fire damage doesn't mention that because it applies to everything then comes the creature that is resistant to that (or immune, or vulnerable).
And uhm, I have to admit that this is arguable- I see it as the rule for how armors work in generale, then comes that one specific spell.

Curses homewever are way more specific, since they are related to that one item. That's not really arguable.

It can't exert force, and yet it can yank items out of people by force. Well, to be fair, it's by magic compared to the other's strenght.

And to recover someone's question which you ignored:
How are you pulling the pendant from the person without fine manipulation being already there? If I'm pulling it towards me and I'm not higher then you are, how is it coming to me without breaking if you're wearing it? It needs to come off by passing around your head and away regardless of the direction.
An armor getting pulled needs to come off somehow, RAW.

And if the answers keep on being the same, I'm going to have to agree to disagree (since it's obvious neither is convincing the other when the answers are equal)

[JellyPooga]

Are you going to mention these worn items? Already mentioned armour and cursed items...that's multiple. I don't require more.


And yeah, fire damage doesn't mention that because it applies to everything then comes the creature that is resistant to that (or immune, or vulnerable).Which would be like a general rule that applies to all (armour) and a specific (spell) effect that explicitly contradicts it? Yeah. That's how the rules work. Specific trumps general. Telekinesis does not fit this pattern. It describes a general effect (move object) that does not explicitly exempt a specific rule (doffing armour). Specific trumps general.


And to recover someone's question which you ignored:
How are you pulling the pendant from the person without fine manipulation being already there? If I'm pulling it towards me and I'm not higher then you are, how is it coming to me without breaking if you're wearing it? It needs to come off by passing around your head and away regardless of the direction.
An armor getting pulled needs to come off somehow, RAW.

In the case of the pendant, yes, that needs to come over the head without breaking. Telekinesis is explicitly capable of this kind of manipulation. Doffing armour is how armour comes off and it does have RAW; we've been talking about them this whole time and are rather the crux of the argument. You've thus far been unable to contradict their validity in countering the OPs proposed use of instantly removing armour.


And if the answers keep on being the same, I'm going to have to agree to disagree (since it's obvious neither is convincing the other when the answers are equal)
My answers are repetitive because they're the rules I'm reading. I'm not saying my argument is the right way to play it, or the only way to interpret them, but the OP didn't ask for an opinion or a GM call (though I've also given that); they wanted the RAW.

RAW, Telekinesis does not explicitly exempt the doff armour rule, which is a specific rule governing the removal of worn armour, nor can it break an item in order to circumvent said rule. Therefore, RAW, Telekinesis is not capable of performing the OPs proposed use of the spell.

[Valmark]

Wait, I got a question.

Let's say I wear a jacket with buttons that go through holes.
And it's buttoned.
How are you pulling it off without breaking it? Let's remember that the one using Telekinesis either moves the object or manipulates it.

Pants closed with a belt. How are you pulling the pants down and away while the person is wearing them if they are tightened with the belt and tecnically if somebody doesn't raise their feet the pants are at most on the ground if they can't prone the creature (which Telekinesis doesn't allow you to do together with an object).

Let's say boots. Are you pulling them away without taking them off? Pretty hard to do the latter by just pulling them.

RAW, all those things don't matter- you simply pull them away. With your interpretation (can't break them et all) this can't happen. For the jacket, you'd first need to unbotton every single button.

And if you can do all those things RAW while pulling, then you can pull an armor away with an action. Somehow those straps came undone like the buttons did.

My interpretation holds true for any example given (wanna pull an item away? It's magic, it works) while yours doesn't (It takes time to get it all undone? A jacket would need to be undone too, that's a given?)

[Hytheter]

Valid? Yes. Effective? Not so much. There's only so much undressing one can achieve in a single round!

You're sorely underestimating how many spell slots I am willing to spend on having my enemies strip.:smallwink:

[JellyPooga]

Wait, I got a question.

Let's say I wear a jacket with buttons that go through holes.
And it's buttoned.
How are you pulling it off without breaking it? Let's remember that the one using Telekinesis either moves the object or manipulates it.

Pants closed with a belt. How are you pulling the pants down and away while the person is wearing them if they are tightened with the belt and tecnically if somebody doesn't raise their feet the pants are at most on the ground if they can't prone the creature (which Telekinesis doesn't allow you to do together with an object).

Let's say boots. Are you pulling them away without taking them off? Pretty hard to do the latter by just pulling them.

RAW, all those things don't matter- you simply pull them away. With your interpretation (can't break them et all) this can't happen. For the jacket, you'd first need to unbotton every single button.

And if you can do all those things RAW while pulling, then you can pull an armor away with an action. Somehow those straps came undone like the buttons did.

My interpretation holds true for any example given (wanna pull an item away? It's magic, it works) while yours doesn't (It takes time to get it all undone? A jacket would need to be undone too, that's a given?)

I'm not aware of a rule describing how long it takes to remove clothing like you describe, which would put it in the hands of the GM to make a ruling on a case-by-case basis. That is also within the RAW, but we are now into territory beyond the OPs proposition. Bear in mind that consistency between any ruling for clothes and the rules for armour is not a given in this case, because the doff armour rules are specific to armour, regardless of any ruling a GM makes with regard to clothing articles.

That said, in these particular cases, as the GM, I would also not permit Telekinesis to divest a character of shoes, trousers or jacket in a single round if it would require the clothes to break, or to inflict any kind of status effect on the wearer (e.g. prone), which is an interpretation consistent with the spell description. Telekinesis can undo buttons, belts etc. for sure; the spell describes being able to do so, but the spell does not say it can do it quicker than can be achieved without it; if the GM rules that it takes two rounds to remove your jacket or shoes, then it takes the same time for Telekinesis to remove it.

As for a wearer being unwilling to raise their feet to remove shoes or trousers or what have you; that's what the opposed check is for.

At the end of the day, the plain language used by the spell is open to interpretation, but it is important to realise that by using plain language, all other statutes and rules apply and should be considered when interpreting that language; i.e. the spell does only as described and no more. The spell explicitly allows you to move the targeted object 30ft in any direction. By the very strictest interpretation, exempt of any other rule, this would allow you to use the spell to move a rock through a solid oak door, phasing it through solid matter (because the spell cannot cause damage to objects any more than it can damage creatures). That ignores, however, the normal state of matter and solids. The spell does not explicitly override that normal state of affairs (i.e. that solids cannot pass through one another), so the RAW interpretation is that Telekinesis cannot do this. The same with anything else; the spell cannot break an object directly; it's not something the spell is capable of. It can move a worn item away from it's wearer, yes, but only if it complies with that first and any other stipulation of the normal state of affairs and rules.

By way of analogy; I can swim in water, but I cannot breathe underwater. Therefore, I cannot swim underwater unless I cease breathing. My specific ability to swim does not allow me to ignore the "rules" for breathing. Telekinesis allows you move an object, but it does not allow you to break an object. Therefore, Telekinesis cannot move an object if doing so would require an object to break.

[Kyutaru]

See this is when RAW arguments start to break down. The reason DMs exist is because spells are not strictly limited to what their text says they do. Saying you can't prone a target if appropriately inconvenienced by a spell because the spell does not permit you to is akin to denying causality for the sake of a devotion to the game aspect of the rules. If I used telekinesis to remove someone's hang glider, please don't tell me that they don't fall to their gruesome death because telekinesis lacks the ability to affect such change. The spell itself allows the long range manipulate or removal of objects. You can do with it most things you could do if you were physically standing in front of the person touching their stuff. If that involves pulling their pants down for whatever inconvenience the DM decides that inflicts then so be it. If you decide to remove the pin of the grenade around the belt, Telekinesis just became a damaging spell. Heck I can grab the stone you're standing on if we're out in the woods and it isn't paved to the ground and surely that's going to require a balance check to not fall prone.

RAW the spell doesn't need to list these effects because the spell already lists the effect it imposes by RAW. A long distance manipulation or pulling of objects. That doesn't need specifics or status effects listed as they are the result of interacting with those objects, the same way removing someone's gear lowers their offensive or defensive potential without the spell specifically debuffing them.

[JellyPooga]

See this is when RAW arguments start to break down. The reason DMs exist is because spells are not strictly limited to what their text says they do. Saying you can't prone a target if appropriately inconvenienced by a spell because the spell does not permit you to is akin to denying causality for the sake of a devotion to the game aspect of the rules. If I used telekinesis to remove someone's hang glider, please don't tell me that they don't fall to their gruesome death because telekinesis lacks the ability to affect such change. The spell itself allows the long range manipulate or removal of objects. You can do with it most things you could do if you were physically standing in front of the person touching their stuff. If that involves pulling their pants down for whatever inconvenience the DM decides that inflicts then so be it. If you decide to remove the pin of the grenade around the belt, Telekinesis just became a damaging spell. Heck I can grab the stone you're standing on if we're out in the woods and it isn't paved to the ground and surely that's going to require a balance check to not fall prone.

RAW the spell doesn't need to list these effects because the spell already lists the effect it imposes by RAW. A long distance manipulation or pulling of objects. That doesn't need specifics or status effects listed as they are the result of interacting with those objects, the same way removing someone's gear lowers their offensive or defensive potential without the spell specifically debuffing them.

The difference is between what effects can result from what the spell does and what the spell can do directly.

- Telekinesis cannot inflict the Prone condition. It's not in the spell description.
- Telekinesis can undo someones belt, causing their trousers to drop and as a result, make a test against falling Prone.

It's the same as the glass bottle; TK can't shatter glass, because causing damage to objects is not what the spell does directly. TK can, however, lift the bottle and drop it onto a hard surface, causing the glass to break; the result of the spell is not the same as the effect of the spell. So RAW, TK can't break glass, but using TK you can, in fact, break glass. The difference appears inconsequential, but is important.

In the case of armour, any explanation of how TK removes armour (in essence, the result of the spell) must comply with the effect of the spell; the spell description, if you will, as well as other rules of play (including assumptions that are not explicit, like "solids can't pass through other solids without damaging them") that aren't explicitly exempted by the spell itself.

[Valmark]

So, your reply is that Telekinesis can't do something it can totally do even in a situation where there is no special rule (like don/doff) anymore.

Thank you, that is everything I needed to hear.

[JellyPooga]

So, your reply is that Telekinesis can't do something it can totally do even in a situation where there is no special rule (like don/doff) anymore.

Thank you, that is everything I needed to hear.

No.
My response is that all rules must be followed, except where specifically exempted.
Your interpretation ignores, without written exemption, certain rules in favour of others.

When talking about RAW, all RAW must be accounted for (including those that allow for GM ruling), not just the ones you want to abide by. Your interpretation considers only the RAW of the Telekinesis spell and that is insufficient to be accurate.

[Unoriginal]

So, your reply is that Telekinesis can't do something it can totally do even in a situation where there is no special rule (like don/doff) anymore.

Thank you, that is everything I needed to hear.

Can you use Telekinesis to push someone to the ground?

Answer: no, you can't. You can pull a rug from under them, you can lift them up then drop them, and you can lift a large object and drop it on top of them. All of those options might result in the creature falling prone.

But you can't just use Telekinesis to force someone prone directly.

[Valmark]

Can you use Telekinesis to push someone to the ground?

Answer: no, you can't. You can pull a rug from under them, you can lift them up then drop them, and you can lift a large object and drop it on top of them. All of those options might result in the creature falling prone.

But you can't just use Telekinesis to force someone prone directly.

The fact that my examples don't let you pull the stuff away according to Jelly's interpretation of Telekinesis is the point. Rugs etc. Are unattended objects (at least in these examples) so there was neve any doubt about that.

And arguably, pulling a Restrained creature (Telekinesis holding a creature makes them Restrained) that lost their Strenght check down to the ground should allow you to make them Prone. But yeah, it's not explicitely allowed- Telekinesis leaves a lot of leeway. I can lift them, turn them so they face the ground, then pull them down. Tell me they aren't Prone then. Do they suddenly stand up after failing their check and being in your power?

[Kyutaru]

But you can't just use Telekinesis to force someone prone directly.
Telekinesis can move objects and creatures in any direction.

I'm moving that creature over there down. He gets an opposed Strength check to fight me on it but he's going to the ground if my magic has anything to say about it.

[JackPhoenix]

So, your reply is that Telekinesis can't do something it can totally do even in a situation where there is no special rule (like don/doff) anymore.

Telekinesis allows you to pull an object. It won't help with an object that can't be moved simply by pulling it. Hat? Sure. Properly worn armor? Nope. Chair? Sure. Chair chained to the ground? Nope. A brick? Sure. A brick inside heavy cage with openings too small to fit the brick through? Nope.


Telekinesis can move objects and creatures in any direction.

I'm moving that creature over there down. He gets an opposed Strength check to fight me on it but he's going to the ground if my magic has anything to say about it.

The creature is already on the ground, you can't move it any lower. You can pull a flying creature to the ground, but it still won't end up prone.

[Unoriginal]

I can lift them, turn them so they face the ground, then pull them down. Tell me they aren't Prone then. Do they suddenly stand up after failing their check and being in your power?

You can't "turn them so they face the ground" by RAW. You can move the creature in a direction, you can't change the direction the creature is facing.


Telekinesis can move objects and creatures in any direction.

I'm moving that creature over there down. He gets an opposed Strength check to fight me on it but he's going to the ground if my magic has anything to say about it.

And I suppose if you're moving that creature up high enough to hit the ceiling, they're prone on the ceiling, and if you use Telekinesis you can turn an enemy facing you around and squeeze them against the wall so they can't attack with their ranged weapon, too?

This is just the Guy At The Gym fallacy's brother, the Spells Can Do Anything Because It's Magic fallacy.


All what Telekinesis does to a creature is:

-Move them 30 ft max
-Apply the Restrained condition

The Restrained condition doesn't even forbid the creature from attacking

[Valmark]

Telekinesis allows you to pull an object. It won't help with an object that can't be moved simply by pulling it. Hat? Sure. Properly worn armor? Nope. Chair? Sure. Chair chained to the ground? Nope. A brick? Sure. A brick inside heavy cage with openings too small to fit the brick through? Nope.

The creature is already on the ground, you can't move it any lower. You can pull a flying creature to the ground, but it still won't end up prone.
The chained chair only needs a check against the chain- let's say it was a string of toilet paper. Are you telling me that I can take that chair away from a person's grip but not when it's tied with... Toilet paper?

Yeah on the brick, nobody contested that it can go through stuff.

You can't "turn them so they face the ground" by RAW. You can move the creature in a direction, you can't change the direction the creature is facing.

And I suppose if you're moving that creature up high enough to hit the ceiling, they're prone on the ceiling, and if you use Telekinesis you can turn an enemy facing you around and squeeze them against the wall so they can't attack with their ranged weapon, too?

Then what if I pull them against the wall they are facing? This is RAW (I only pulled them) and they sure as hell are prone against something on the wall (which isn't weird at all).

Which ultimately doesn't matter because my examples from before weren't solved in a way consistemt with RAW.

Oh, and yeah I'd make them prone against the ceiling. Can't see why they wouldn't be able to shoot though.

[Kyutaru]

The creature is already on the ground, you can't move it any lower. You can pull a flying creature to the ground, but it still won't end up prone.

And I suppose if you're moving that creature up high enough to hit the ceiling, they're prone on the ceiling, and if you use Telekinesis you can turn an enemy facing you around and squeeze them against the wall so they can't attack with their ranged weapon, too?

This is just the Guy At The Gym fallacy's brother, the Spells Can Do Anything Because It's Magic fallacy.
You're both wrong here and not grasping the details without them being explicitly stated. I already went into how as a roleplaying game and not a tactical simulation many rules are not explicit but implied by the world and causality. The purpose of having a DM is to rule on these interactions because RAW is incomplete and does not provide the full picture. Telekinesis is capable of moving a creature or object. I can just as well move a single part of said creature or object. I can manipulate a sword to stand on its point or pull on something's arm in any direction. I can even lift and turn a creature upside down because again any direction includes centripetal motion. It will resist and there will be opposition and Restrained even showcases how the creature is unable to move freely because of the forces the spell is imposing on it. I can choose then to pull parts of a creature to be lower than other parts of a creature. I can rotate the creature to be standing on its hand for that matter. Status conditions like prone are an abstraction of the current circumstantial penalties being imposed on the target due to forces enacting on it. They are applied as much in the narrative as they are in mechanics. Missing a jump may well cause the DM to rule that you fall prone, and as I stipulated the DM decides what happens to a creature inconvenienced by Telekinesis. If he rules that pulling his pants down makes him fall prone then that's what happened. If I use it to pull a creature against a wall or flip him in circles or hold him to the floor then that is also what I can muster.

Past editions had a much more descriptive list of benefits available to Telekinesis more grounded in rulework but the simplification of the text does not eliminate some of them, the narrative portions of spells matter as much or more than the mechanical parts and have done so since D&D first began. Old spells even had no mechanical value at all, pure narrative descriptions with effects determined by the game runner. What I'm finding is that you're constricted by a limited perspective of what is possible, especially in a game where DM fiat presides, due to a very restrictive and unimaginative reading of the rule. It's akin to not realizing that you can light candles with fire spells unless they specifically say you can or believing illusion spells cannot be used to deceive or bluff enemies into fleeing because no fear effect is mentioned. Creative uses for magic have existed since the game's beginnings and to say they aren't possible is to deny D&D's legacy. Your DM may not allow them, and that's his choice, but they are certainly possible.

[KorvinStarmast]

There appears to be a discrepancy between "move" a worn object and the ability to "remove" one. Telekinesis does not allow you to "remove" an object, nor break one; only "move" it. There's the RAW distinction, well played.

For the OP: you need to think through this. Do you want every caster you run into to take your Fighter's Plate mail off during round 1? That's what you enable if you go with the "yes" ruling.

See also the DMG and the 'disarming' optional rule, which isn't something strapped to the creature being subject to the attempt.

[Valmark]

Sorry, a single correction: you can't light up candles with fire spells unless specified because there are several spells that call our being able to ignite stuff compared to spells that don't (If I'm not wrong Create Bonfire for example cannot, while Druidcraft can).

Everything else I agree though.


There's the RAW distinction, well played.

For the OP: you need to think through this. Do you want every caster you run into to take your Fighter's Plate mail off during round 1? That's what you enable if you go with the "yes" ruling.

See also the DMG and the 'disarming' optional rule, which isn't something strapped to the creature being subject to the attempt.
Should point out that it isn't a RAW distinction at all, unless you say that moving by pulling away by somebody is different from removing it from them.

Which begs the same question again: how do you pull something away from someone without removing it?

(Also disarming doesn't apply here, for the same reasons explained)

[Kyutaru]

For the OP: you need to think through this. Do you want every caster you run into to take your Fighter's Plate mail off during round 1? That's what you enable if you go with the "yes" ruling.
This is the crux of the decision. Not by popular vote but by what it implies. Do you want this in your game? If you are okay with it, it works. If you are not, come up with whatever logic you want that explains why it doesn't so players know what not to attempt. Whatever your reasoning try to keep it consistent because players will expect that going forward. This is far from the first spell that players will find creative uses for and it needs to be handled according to what you want to see in the future. I've had players make ingenious use of Dancing Lights, a spell that by a strict reading of RAW does nothing of note beyond provide visibility. But controlling four movable light orbs can have all kinds of use, such as signaling with a shortened form of braille or creating fake torches to deceive guards before snuffing the room's lights for the ambush or even combining them into the humanoid form mentioned in the description to pretend to be a god to some low intelligence monsters.

[Unoriginal]

You're both wrong here and not grasping the details without them being explicitly stated. I already went into how as a roleplaying game and not a tactical simulation many rules are not explicit but implied by the world and causality. The purpose of having a DM is to rule on these interactions because RAW is incomplete and does not provide the full picture. Telekinesis is capable of moving a creature or object. I can just as well move a single part of said creature or object. I can manipulate a sword to stand on its point or pull on something's arm in any direction. I can even lift and turn a creature upside down because again any direction includes centripetal motion. It will resist and there will be opposition and Restrained even showcases how the creature is unable to move freely because of the forces the spell is imposing on it. I can choose then to pull parts of a creature to be lower than other parts of a creature. I can rotate the creature to be standing on its hand for that matter. Status conditions like prone are an abstraction of the current circumstantial penalties being imposed on the target due to forces enacting on it. They are applied as much in the narrative as they are in mechanics. Missing a jump may well cause the DM to rule that you fall prone, and as I stipulated the DM decides what happens to a creature inconvenienced by Telekinesis. If he rules that pulling his pants down makes him fall prone then that's what happened. If I use it to pull a creature against a wall or flip him in circles or hold him to the floor then that is also what I can muster.

Past editions had a much more descriptive list of benefits available to Telekinesis more grounded in rulework but the simplification of the text does not eliminate some of them, the narrative portions of spells matter as much or more than the mechanical parts and have done so since D&D first began. Old spells even had no mechanical value at all, pure narrative descriptions with effects determined by the game runner. What I'm finding is that you're constricted by a limited perspective of what is possible, especially in a game where DM fiat presides, due to a very restrictive and unimaginative reading of the rule. It's akin to not realizing that you can light candles with fire spells unless they specifically say you can or believing illusion spells cannot be used to deceive or bluff enemies into fleeing because no fear effect is mentioned. Creative uses for magic have existed since the game's beginnings and to say they aren't possible is to deny D&D's legacy. Your DM may not allow them, and that's his choice, but they are certainly possible.

It's not because we disagree with you that our reading is unimaginative, thank you very much.

There is nothing creative in saying that a spell does something it cannot do. Creativity is using what a spell CAN do and building on that.

Illusions can make people believe they're real, such they will be treated as real by those fooled by them. A goblin who will flee when faced by a bear will flee when faced by the illusion of a bear. This is making good use of a spell's capacity.

However arguing that the illusion of a dragon created by Major Image can inflict the Frightened condition on people because dragons are terrifying is well beyond the capacity of the spell, which is confirmed by Illusory Dragon being capable of inflicting said condition thanks to mimicking the dragon's fear effect too.


I've had players make ingenious use of Dancing Lights, a spell that by a strict reading of RAW does nothing of note beyond provide visibility. But controlling four movable light orbs can have all kinds of use, such as signaling with a shortened form of braille or creating fake torches to deceive guards before snuffing the room's lights for the ambush or even combining them into the humanoid form mentioned in the description to pretend to be a god to some low intelligence monsters.


See those are perfect examples of being creative with a spell with all its limitations.

[Amnestic]

For the OP: you need to think through this. Do you want every caster you run into to take your Fighter's Plate mail off during round 1? That's what you enable if you go with the "yes" ruling.


Do you want your spellcaster to blow a 5th level spell slot on something with an opposing strength check (on a creature that will naturally have a high strength score) to lower their AC but do no damage or inhibit them in any other way?

Is it more devastating than a Dominate Person?

In fact, thought exercise: Say there was a spell - call it 'Purge Armour', which explicitly did what this thread is about. What spell level would people peg that as, power wise? Telekinesis can do more for sure, but in this example we're just considering the relative strength of removing someone's armour with a check without doing any permanent damage to it.

[Unoriginal]

Do you want your spellcaster to blow a 5th level spell slot on something with an opposing strength check (on a creature that will naturally have a high strength score) to lower their AC but do no damage or inhibit them in any other way?

Is it more devastating than a Dominate Person?

In fact, thought exercise: Say there was a spell - call it 'Purge Armour', which explicitly did what this thread is about. What spell level would people peg that as, power wise? Telekinesis can do more for sure, but in this example we're just considering the relative strength of removing someone's armour with a check without doing any permanent damage to it.

If it can remove any armor, including magic ones, and also works on shields, I would rule it's at least 5th level on its own.

[Kyutaru]

There is nothing creative in saying that a spell does something it cannot do. Creativity is using what a spell CAN do and building on that.
Then we're simply at an impasse because I detailed specifically how to utilize the RAW permissions of the spell to potentially impose a status condition that was not explicitly stated. What you actually mean with your reply is that narrative uses should only carry narrative benefits while mechanical benefits are reserved to mechanical descriptions. This I wholly cannot agree with and it insults the narrative end as though it's something apart from the combat, a lesser existence who we regard as necessary but unwanted. They are one and the same, Combat = Narration and spells used creatively can directly impact the world in a mechanical way. Whether they do or don't is still up to the DM but I will maintain that their usage is RAW and very much within the realm of possibility.

[Amnestic]

If it can remove any armor, including magic ones, and also works on shields, I would rule it's at least 5th level on its own.

With its niche application (almost universally humanoids only, and even then only those wearing heavy armour - because why blow it on a light armour user?) I can't see it being worth more than 3rd level (fighting against Bestow Curse and Slow as the equal debuffs) at best personally.

[Kyutaru]

In fact, thought exercise: Say there was a spell - call it 'Purge Armour', which explicitly did what this thread is about. What spell level would people peg that as, power wise? Telekinesis can do more for sure, but in this example we're just considering the relative strength of removing someone's armour with a check without doing any permanent damage to it.
Sadly this sort of spell would only have existed in older editions. Shatter used to replicate this effect in the past, destroying an object outright which was effective against armor, but the 5e version of Shatter explicitly prohibits worn or carried items from being affected. Unattended items can still be shattered but it has become primarily an anti-creature attack spell now instead.

If even normal armor is so well protected from magic, magical armor is even less hopeful. This would be a fairly significant power creep since the rules kind of assume certain AC values will always be present as evident by the removal of touch AC and mages trying to beat full plate just to shocking grasp someone (albeit with advantage because metal). The same could be said about Telekinesis stripping armor and should be carefully considered before allowing. My original take in this topic was that it would take 5 minutes to do so to compromise allowing it without breaking the game.

[Unoriginal]

Then we're simply at an impasse because I detailed specifically how to utilize the RAW permissions of the spell to potentially impose a status condition that was not explicitly stated. What you actually mean with your reply is that narrative uses should only carry narrative benefits while mechanical benefits are reserved to mechanical descriptions.

No, I have never said nor meant that. And I've made that quite clear.



This I wholly cannot agree with and it insults the narrative end as though it's something apart from the combat, a lesser existence who we regard as necessary but unwanted. They are one and the same, Combat = Narration and spells used creatively can directly impact the world in a mechanical way.

You're the one trying to separate narration and mechanics. A spell can only do what its description says it does because it is the narration of the spell, which also results in mechanical effects.

You cannot use Telekinesis to force someone prone by pushing them on the ground anymore than you can't break a staff with Telekinesis by pushing it on the ground, as narratively neither are the spell's effect. You can try to force someone prone or break a staff on the ground with Telekinesis by lifting them in the air and then letting them drop, or by lifting a statue and throwing it on them, because narratively it's what the spell does: keep it targets locked in their position and moving them around the room.

[Valmark]

keep it targets locked in their position and moving them around the room.

The spell is capable of manipulating objects beyond simply moving them around, so it clearly doesn't lock targets in their position. Not necessarily at least.

[Kyutaru]

You're the one trying to separate narration and mechanics. A spell can only do what its description says it does because it is the narration of the spell, which also results in mechanical effects.
You're confusing description and narration. The mechanical effects are part of the description of the spell's effect but the narration I'm referring to is extrapolating from said description what else it can do given how it is described. It's the same as taking a description of a room given by the DM and then coming up with ways to interact with it. The description may be that there are paintings on the wall but the narration is that I'm taking one of them down. Telekinesis describes what it can do and I've used that description in every one of my points made without going beyond it. I accept the limitations the spell imposes as written without assuming the limitations you're implying it possesses. We are in disagreement over what that description permits narratively and therefore mechanically. Just as casting the "spell" Shove can throw a target off a cliff with consequences that follow so too does forcing a target to the ground have consequences. You agree that I can turn a target to be standing on its head yet somehow can't see how I can make one lay on the ground instead. Simultaneously, if I tried to use Telekinesis on an ally that willingly permitted me to do what I wanted to him, am I not allowed to lay them flat and render them prone simply because the spell doesn't explicitly say I can?

We're locked in this explicit vs implicit debate and that's a subjective matter with no resolution. All I'm saying is that it's possible and one shouldn't try to deny others to play it as such. This is a far cry from claiming that it can turn the sky purple which we can all agree it can't.

[MrCharlie]

Valid? Yes. Effective? Not so much. There's only so much undressing one can achieve in a single round!
Yes, but arguably once you've started removing it you lose the full benefits, and there are no rules for aborting doffing so you need to take the full donning time to benefit from it again, per the text of donning armor.

Yes, that's a bit absurd, but even if we house-rule an interpretation for partial doffing following by reversal of the process it likely takes multiple actions per action used to undress-and, again, you gain no benefit from the armor unless you take the full time to don it, so your AC is base 10+dex until you complete the process.

Oh, I also want to throw my two cents into the original debate; the armor is clearly removed because the spell says that you move the worn object away from the original wearer. Unless they can wear it while it's 30 feet away from them, that's all she wrote.

This argument that the RAW doesn't say you "remove" the object is the height of ridiculousness; moving something 30 feet away from something is the definition of removing it.

This argument about how telekinesis doesn't break the normal object interaction rules is also ridiculous-telekinesis, as a spell, is more specific than the donning armor rules. If the spell says it removes the armor, it removes the armor.

Now, you could argue that plate armor is actually comprised of multiple objects-it has a description that describes the multiple overlapping plates, so there is rules text technically supporting this-but it's immaterial. RAW, remove one gauntlet and you aren't fulling donning the armor and it proves no AC benefit. Also, hence, even if telekinesis did follow the normal doffing armor rules, one actions worth of doffing still completely ruins the 18 AC of plate.

If this seems too strong-don't fail your opposed checks. Spells are powerful, but you get to resist them for a reason. And if you're wearing plate, this a position which you should be strong in, likely on even ground or better.

[NaughtyTiger]

Yes, but arguably once you've started removing it you lose the full benefits, and there are no rules for aborting doffing so you need to take the full donning time to benefit from it again, per the text of donning armor.

Yes, that's a bit absurd, but even if we house-rule an interpretation for partial doffing following by reversal of the process it likely takes multiple actions per action used to undress-and, again, you gain no benefit from the armor unless you take the full time to don it, so your AC is base 10+dex until you complete the process.

This is an interesting point..
I could see it being all or nothing, or +/-1 AC per step...

[JellyPooga]

Yes, but arguably once you've started removing it you lose the full benefits, and there are no rules for aborting doffing so you need to take the full donning time to benefit from it again, per the text of donning armor.

Yes, that's a bit absurd, but even if we house-rule an interpretation for partial doffing following by reversal of the process it likely takes multiple actions per action used to undress-and, again, you gain no benefit from the armor unless you take the full time to don it, so your AC is base 10+dex until you complete the process.

Your first paragraph is entirely speculative. The rest, therefore doesn't follow. Nothing says you lose armour benefits as soon as you begin removing it. It could also be argued that you lose no benefit from armour until the full doffing time period has elapsed and further, this would be a ruling consistent with the one for donning armour; as such, it has more veracity compared to yours.

[NaughtyTiger]

Your first paragraph is entirely speculative. The rest, therefore doesn't follow. Nothing says you lose armour benefits as soon as you begin removing it. It could also be argued that you lose no benefit from armour until the full doffing time period has elapsed and further, this would be a ruling consistent with the one for donning armour; as such, it has more veracity compared to yours.

That might be why the 3rd word was arguably, as in "it could be argued"

Removing his own armor would prolly put on gloves last/remove them first. This wouldn't affect AC much, but it would free his hands to do the harder stuff.
An enemy would prolly remove the helm, then the chest plate. These would greatly affect AC.

[Valmark]

Your first paragraph is entirely speculative. The rest, therefore doesn't follow. Nothing says you lose armour benefits as soon as you begin removing it. It could also be argued that you lose no benefit from armour until the full doffing time period has elapsed and further, this would be a ruling consistent with the one for donning armour; as such, it has more veracity compared to yours.

It says that you need the full donning time to get benefit for armor. Arguably if you start taking it off you lose it.

Another way to read it, if you need all the armor to be on correctly to have the AC, even starting to take it off should remove it.

Which makes sense, while by your interpretation if I remove everything but a shoulder pad I still have my full AC.

[JellyPooga]

That might be why the 3rd word was arguably, as in "it could be argued"

Drawing a conclusion from speculation has no bearing or relevance in an argument about RAW.


It says that you need the full donning time to get benefit for armor. Arguably if you start taking it off you lose it.

Again, speculation.


Another way to read it, if you need all the armor to be on correctly to have the AC, even starting to take it off should remove it.

That doesn't follow. If I flick a switch to the on position and only begin to flick it back to the off position, that does not mean I have turned the switch off at all.


Which makes sense, while by your interpretation if I remove everything but a shoulder pad I still have my full AC.

Indeed. My counterpoint was also speculative and as such holds little more veracity. Either way, as I've mentioned, the RAW are not explicit in this case and as such have no bearing here.

[Kyutaru]

Which makes sense, while by your interpretation if I remove everything but a shoulder pad I still have my full AC.

Hilariously, this is how wizards cast spells in the old days. Cast it 99% of the way in the morning to prepare it and then say the last sentence in combat to unleash it. "Technically I didn't finish casting the spell until 6 hours later. Take that magic!" Only legitimately the RAW rules. Gotta love Vancian casting.

[NaughtyTiger]

Drawing a conclusion from speculation has no bearing or relevance in an argument about RAW.
I agree. I was replying to your quote where you speculated that AC stays full until you have completed the doffing process.

The RAW says

If the object is worn or carried by a creature, you must make an ability check with your Spellcasting Ability contested by that creature's Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the object away from that creature and can move it up to 30 feet in any direction but not beyond the range of this spell.

Armor is worn.

You may speculate that you can't do that in because DOFF times conflict.
You may speculate that you can't do that because removing individual pieces doesn't affect AC.
You may speculate that your AC is intact until you have removed the padded undershirt.

The gaps and conflicts in the RAW have been identified. No new arguments presented.

Where there is conflict or gap, you need a ruling.


If I flick a switch to the on position and only begin to flick it back to the off position, that does not mean I have turned the switch off at all.
and this. if you are gonna bring real world into this, then do it right...

[Kyutaru]

Where there is conflict or gap, you need a ruling.
And where there's a ruling needed, there's a DM to give it. :smallsmile:

Cases be drawn up regarding whether extrapolation of other inherent rules prevents the spell from functioning but ultimately the answer can only rest with them. We've provided a number of arguments to state the case but there is nothing definitive or conclusive to be found.

[Valmark]

Drawing a conclusion from speculation has no bearing or relevance in an argument about RAW.

That doesn't follow. If I flick a switch to the on position and only begin to flick it back to the off position, that does not mean I have turned the switch off at all.

Indeed. My counterpoint was also speculative and as such holds little more veracity. Either way, as I've mentioned, the RAW are not explicit in this case and as such have no bearing here.
Isn't it speculation to say that armors can't be taken off with Telekinesis because of the don/doff rule when Telekinesis doesn't make any distinction?

The switch only has one change though- the circuit opens, lights go down, circuit closes, lights go up.

An armor has several changes- you unstrap everything holding a piece together, then to the next, etc. Until you can slip it off. A better example would be a gun which, coincidentally, takes a while to mount and when you start dismounting it you can't use it anymore.

The RAW are not explicit only if you don't consider Telekinesis as working as written. Because it makes a definitive case, with no objection given.
While working as written with your interpretation it has several incosistencies. Though it's true that it's not explicit on the doff matter.

And... Ultimately, if you consider truer to the book that I can go around with a single gauntlet and retain full AC instead of losing AC for not having the armor on properly because it doesn't say that while removing the armor you lose its bonus... I don't really know what to tell you.

Hilariously, this is how wizards cast spells in the old days. Cast it 99% of the way in the morning to prepare it and then say the last sentence in combat to unleash it. "Technically I didn't finish casting the spell until 6 hours later. Take that magic!" Only legitimately the RAW rules. Gotta love Vancian casting.
I did see wizards threatening each other with cast-but-not-cast spells as if they were holding each other at gunpoint.
There was no real difference from casting something on the spot, but visually it was awesome.

[StoicLeaf]

My $0.02:

doffing heavy armor requires 5 minutes on your own, 2.5 minutes with help. Given that no one wants to be undressed by an enemy mage, I'd allow a player to strip an opponent in full plate over the course of 10 minutes, perhaps lowering it for each round in which the mage restrains the target. This way players can humiliate or intimidate opponents without instantly undressing them and nerfing their ac.

[MrCharlie]

Your first paragraph is entirely speculative. The rest, therefore doesn't follow. Nothing says you lose armour benefits as soon as you begin removing it. It could also be argued that you lose no benefit from armour until the full doffing time period has elapsed and further, this would be a ruling consistent with the one for donning armour; as such, it has more veracity compared to yours.
There is nothing speculative about the rules, actually; you lose the full benefits immediately, RAW.

Don and doff are antonyms; Donning something and doffing some are opposites. Something which is worn has been completely donned, something which is remove is completely doffed. If you doff something, reversing this is donning it.

If you have doffed something, by definition, you have not spent "The full time donning it". It's not entirely on.

The rules don't remove the benefits when you finish doffing it, they remove the benefits as soon as it's not completely donned.

Q.E.D. the second you start removing armor, you get no AC benefit. Simple RAW and English, no more interpretive than reading anything is.

The only ambiguity is if you can abort doffing to being donning again, and how long that would take-but RAW, you're stuck with base AC until you have doffed it completely and donned it completely, because the rules don't have any text on partially doffing or donning. Technically, the rules don't even make it clear if you can stop.

[JellyPooga]

The rules don't remove the benefits when you finish doffing it, they remove the benefits as soon as it's not completely donned.

The rules say nothing of the sort. The rules, specifically, state that you do not gain the benefits of armour until the full donning time has elapsed, true. They mention nothing regarding the effects of armour while doffing it, except the period required to do so. I'll say that again; the period required to doff armour. Until the armour is doffed, you implicitly retain the benefits and drawbacks (if any). If the armour is not doffed until the required period of doffing has elapsed, the implication is that the full effects of wearing the armour apply until such time as the doffing is complete.

This is not supposition. It is logic and basic english language comprehension.

It is a supposition that the effects of wearing armour are lost as soon as the doffing period begins. It is not supported anywhere in the RAW. Please provide the direct quote to prove me wrong.

[NaughtyTiger]

Until the armour is doffed, you implicitly retain the benefits and drawbacks (if any). If the armour is not doffed until the required period of doffing has elapsed, the implication is that the full effects of wearing the armour apply until such time as the doffing is complete.

Seriously, this is your hill?
"Implication" is not "As Written"


It is a supposition and speculation, that the all of the AC of wearing armor remain until the doffing period ends. It is not supported anywhere in the RAW. Please provide the direct quote to prove me wrong.

[JellyPooga]

Seriously, this is your hill?
"Implication" is not "As Written"


It is a supposition and speculation, that the all of the AC of wearing armor remain until the doffing period ends. It is not supported anywhere in the RAW. Please provide the direct quote to prove me wrong.
Very well.

Armor protects its wearer from attacks. The armor (and shield) you wear determines your base Armor Class.

Doff: This is the time it takes to take off armor. If you have help, reduce this time by half.

Emphasis mine. Would you care to explain how you can not be wearing armour before completing the process of taking it off?

Your turn. I did ask first :smallamused:

[NaughtyTiger]

Would you care to explain how you can not be wearing armour before completing the process of taking it off?

The same way you can not be wearing armor before completing the process of putting it on.

A breastplate, left straps attached, able to swing freely and expose your chest while you move is not worn.


http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/fiordeluna/NipponArmor1.JPG
pretty much any stage of doff/don that looks like says you aren't getting the benefits of full AC.

That said,
I didn't read in the stuff you quoted that you still get the AC until you have completely removed the armor.



Your turn. I did ask first :smallamused:
I can't find where you asked that... but okay.

[NaughtyTiger]

We went from
Can TK remove enemy Armor,

which was in interesting discussion, to a full page of

Do you get 18AC if you are just wearing a plate mail cod piece?
(Well, it depends on whether you are putting it on or taking it off)

I assume the original thread is dead now.

[JellyPooga]

I assume the original thread is dead now.

No quote? No vote.

Feel free to concede the point, but I take exception to your declaring the argument over when you are unable to back your claim.

- The image you linked is irrelevant. It's at best vaguely related, but by no measure would it be considered RAW.
- If you didn't read my post, such that you're unaware of my request for a direct quote, I question your ability to respond to it with any strength; "I'm not listening" is never a good argument. La. La. La.:smallannoyed:
- Either one is wearing armour or one is not. There is no middle ground according to RAW. If one is not considered to be "not wearing" armour until the doffing period is expired/completed, one must logically be wearing it until that time (assuming a donning period has previously been completed). While not explicitly stated in the rules for doffing, it is at least consistent with the rules for donning; i.e. the state "wearing armour" is binary (i.e. either you're wearing it or not) and said state only changes if and when a full period of changing said state (i.e. donning or doffing) is complete.
- Where this is relevant to the OP and original argument is in Telekinesis' lack of exemption from this rule. Given the spells inability to break an object (which would render armour ineffective and thus not subject to the normal rules governing such) or specific ability to hasten tasks beyond any normal ruling, TK cannot, logically, remove armour faster than normally allowed.

I'll ask again for a contradictory Rule As Written. I'd gladly accept any quote that directly, explicitly and specifically allows Telekinesis to do anything faster than normally allowed, or break objects directly, or otherwise exempt the doffing armour rules. I'm happy to concede the point if you can prove it with a direct quote.

Before anyone spouts the "pulls away" sentence in the TK spell description again, I'll point out that it is very much possible to "pull away" and fail, given the restrictions of the spell in question (which have been repeatedly stated already). For example "I pulled the armour away from its wearer, but if was well fitted and funtional, so I was unable to do so". That is linguistic common use in action. Let's try again; "I pulled the chain away from the wall, but it was fixed firmly and I was unable to move it a full 30ft away". I would also accept, in place of a RAW quote, any such statement that allows for the OPs proposed function that complies fully with the Telekinesis spell description.

[JackPhoenix]

Well, obviously, donning or doffing armor involves the character wriggling their hands for the required time while vague metallic noises sound as the progress bar fills, then the armor suddenly appears/disappears on the character. What, you thought you get to actually see the whole process?

[Kyutaru]

Before anyone spouts the "pulls away" sentence in the TK spell description again, I'll point out that it is very much possible to "pull away" and fail, given the restrictions of the spell in question (which have been repeatedly stated already). For example "I pulled the armour away from its wearer, but if was well fitted and funtional, so I was unable to do so". That is linguistic common use in action. Let's try again; "I pulled the chain away from the wall, but it was fixed firmly and I was unable to move it a full 30ft away". I would also accept, in place of a RAW quote, any such statement that allows for the OPs proposed function that complies fully with the Telekinesis spell description.

I decided to use Telekinesis to pull that section of wall that weighs less than 1000 lbs. It's currently 30 feet over that way. Also there's a room accessible now. :smallbiggrin:

[JackPhoenix]

I decided to use Telekinesis to pull that section of wall that weighs less than 1000 lbs. It's currently 30 feet over that way. Also there's a room accessible now. :smallbiggrin:

Unfortunately, that's not a valid target, as it's not an object as the game defines them. Neither are body parts of creatures, for that matter, as long as they are still attached, so you don't get to puppet them around as you want. That's the actual RAW, unlike your claims (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24655211&postcount=73).

[Kyutaru]

Unfortunately, that's not a valid target, as it's not an object as the game defines them. Neither are body parts of creatures, for that matter, as long as they are still attached, so you don't get to puppet them around as you want. That's the actual RAW, unlike your claims (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24655211&postcount=73).
You've missed the wording on manipulation then, as well as numerous other things mentioned in said post.

"Telekinesis

You gain the ability to move or manipulate creatures or Objects by thought."

The spell explicitly states that you may move creatures in any direction, which includes centripetal motion. Motion in an orthogonal direction to the body is merely following a curved path.

The wall was an example of reductio ad absurdum which should be apparent given the quote. It's in support of what Jelly was saying regarding the strict RAW argument. While you may not find a wall to be sufficiently discrete enough, despite the 5e rules including castle walls as a mentioned "big object", a door or window is literally one of the examples in the opening paragraph. Huge objects can also include colossal statues, columns of stone, or massive boulder per the same rules. If you have your own definition of Object then it'd be good to have context.

[JackPhoenix]

You've missed the wording on manipulation then, as well as numerous other things mentioned in said post.

"Telekinesis

You gain the ability to move or manipulate creatures or Objects by thought."

Yes, and the spell then specifies how you can move or manipulate them. You can move a creature (or an object) 30' in any direction. Assuming that movement isn't prevented by some way, of course. Turning a creature around is *not* moving it <30' in a direction. It's also completely pointless, because there's no facing, and every creature faces every direction at the same time. There's the option of some fine manipulation, but that one is exclusive to objects, not creatures.

But nice attempt to pick a part of the text out of context while ignoring the rest.


The spell explicitly states that you may move creatures in any direction, which includes centripetal motion.

[citation needed, but not really, because the spell says nothing like that]


The wall was an example of reductio ad absurdum which should be apparent given the quote. It's in support of what Jelly was saying regarding the strict RAW argument. While you may not find a wall to be sufficiently discrete enough, despite the 5e rules including castle walls as a mentioned "big object", a door or window is literally one of the examples in the opening paragraph. Huge objects can also include colossal statues, columns of stone, or massive boulder per the same rules. If you have your own definition of Object then it'd be good to have context.

Door, window, statue or a boulder is not the same thing as section of a wall. And, of course, as Telekinesis doesn't allow you to break or damge anything, you can no more pull a part of a wall then you can to tear off someone's head with it.

[Kyutaru]

Yes, and the spell then specifies how you can move or manipulate them. You can move a creature (or an object) 30' in any direction. Assuming that movement isn't prevented by some way, of course. Turning a creature around is *not* moving it <30' in a direction. It's also completely pointless, because there's no facing, and every creature faces every direction at the same time. There's the option of some fine manipulation, but that one is exclusive to objects, not creatures.Citation needed on that assumption. Turning a creature around is simply using a curved vector which is a valid direction by definition.


But nice attempt to pick a part of the text out of context while ignoring the rest.You should know by now the rules of RAW are to include the entire text, not what supports your argument. You choosing to exclude the text permitting the manipulation of creatures is your own fault. I have already included the subsequent text as well because that is where the any direction statement exists.


[citation needed, but not really, because the spell says nothing like that]You yourself said it.


YYou can move a creature (or an object) 30' in any direction.

Apparently you're not aware of directions or are what constitutes an orthogonal direction.


Door, window, statue or a boulder is not the same thing as section of a wall.It is for the purpose of the example I presented, which is why I provided you an alternative if you were dissatisfied. I was accommodating your preferences. But instead of understanding that you're taking on the role of the wall itself.

And, of course, as Telekinesis doesn't allow you to break or damge anything, you can no more pull a part of a wall then you can to tear off someone's head with it.Which is my point. Thanks for finally understanding this. The RAW interpretation used earlier pertaining to armor being pulled off a creature is absurd.

[JackPhoenix]

Citation needed on that assumption.

What assumption? That Telekinesis doesn't allow you to move anything through solid obstacles? That should be rather obvious.


Turning a creature around is simply using a curved vector which is a valid direction by definition.

Curved vector is not a thing, so good luck 'simply using' something that doesn't exist. In any case, you can move something along any vector without changing that thing's facing.


You should know by now the rules of RAW are to include the entire text, not what supports your argument.

Indeed, that's why I called you out on it, after all. Thanks for understanding


You choosing to exclude the text permitting the manipulation of creatures is your own fault.

I haven't "chosen" to "exclude" anything. You, however, seem to assume that that section of the description allows you to 'manipulate' the creature in whatever ways you like, despite the same description being specific in what form that manipulation can take in later paragraph. Moving a creature up to 30' in a certain direction is manipulation of that creature. Ripping its head of is also manipulation of that creature. Read the description again, and tell me which one does the spell allow (and which is also the only kind of manipulation that spell allows)


Apparently you're not aware of directions or are what constitutes an orthogonal direction.

Apparently, you could use a refreshment on that yourself, as moving something in orthogonal direction (orthogonal compared to what? The grid?) is not the same thing as rotating that something (or someone, in this case).


It is for the purpose of the example I presented, which is why I provided you an alternative if you were dissatisfied. I was accommodating your preferences. But instead of understanding that you're taking on the role of the wall itself.

Which is my point. Thanks for finally understanding this. The RAW interpretation used earlier pertaining to armor being pulled off a creature is absurd.

You had a point? You just said something contrary to RAW as a response to JellyPooga's statement that he accepts any RAW that disprove his claim. You failed at that.... honestly, I'm not sure what were you trying to accomplish.

[NaughtyTiger]

- The image you linked is irrelevant. It's at best vaguely related, but by no measure would it be considered RAW.


Would you care to explain how you can not be wearing armour before completing the process of taking it off?
I was replying to a specific question that you asked, unrelated to the raw



- Either one is wearing armour or one is not. There is no middle ground according to RAW.
Partial Agreement. If I am only wearing cod piece, greaves, gloves, helmet, I am wearing armor, but I am not wearing a suit of plate mail.
However, the donning rules do not discuss wearing armor. They explicitly state that you must take the full time to put on the armor to gain AC.


If one is not considered to be "not wearing" armour until the doffing period is expired/completed, one must logically be wearing it until that time (assuming a donning period has previously been completed).
Disagree. Several folks assume the opposite. Assumptions are not covered by RAW.


While not explicitly stated in the rules for doffing, it is at least consistent with the rules for donning; i.e. the state "wearing armour" is binary (i.e. either you're wearing it or not) and said state only changes if and when a full period of changing said state (i.e. donning or doffing) is complete.
Disagree. If somethings is not explicitly written in the rules, it cannot be Rules As Written.


- Where this is relevant to the OP and original argument is in Telekinesis' lack of exemption from this rule. Given the spells inability to break an object (which would render armour ineffective and thus not subject to the normal rules governing such)
Okay, I agree. This discussion is relevant.


I'll ask again for a contradictory Rule As Written.
This is not covered in the Rules As Written. That is why you cannot provide a quote either.

You have not shown it is covered by RAW.
You have stated that it is not explicitly written; ergo it is not RAW.
You have stated that your position relies on assumption and interpretation; ergo it is not RAW.


I take exception to your declaring the argument over when you are unable to back your claim.
My claim is: The AC state when removing armor is not explicitly covered.
Whereas, it is impossible to prove a negative, you have stated that none of the evidence provided shows the RAW covers the AC state when removing armor.

[Kyutaru]

This is not covered in the Rules As Written. That is why you cannot provide a quote either.

You have not shown it is covered by RAW.
You have stated that it is not explicitly written; ergo it is not RAW.
You have stated that your position relies on assumption and interpretation; ergo it is not RAW.
With no consensus on RAW, proof through contradiction can be obtained. This sidetrack began with Valmark's comments claiming the spell allowed one to simply snatch the armor with no logical explanation or reasoning because "that's just what the spell says", the so-called RAW argument. What followed were the many implicit RAW rules that the spell does NOT state which include doffing armor and an inability to break items as well as colliding with physical objects in the game world that prevent passage. All of these can be considered assumptions and interpretations as well because they're not explicitly written and yet from my example it does quite seem to be absurd to assume that is how the spell works. The assumptions and interpretations are required to not have munchkin cheese nonsense that stems from a liberal application of the rules and world logic. To go a step further and make another assumption regarding whether the AC is valid or not is not farfetched in this instance, and by assuming the opposite position from his stance we can see the result is absurd as it allows (effectively) the same thing that we already interpreted to be not how the spell functions (it can't remove armor/AC instantly). Since all of these interpretations are not found in the spell's description we can argue till the cow's return but it will ultimately come down to the DM and what assumptions he agrees with. Clearly in Valmark's world such simple trivialities as physics would not stop the spell from functioning literally as it reads. Whatever eldritch forces allow the armor to remove itself from the creature matter not because it's now hovering 30 feet away from them. But I think the rest of us have stated our cases previously in this thread and disagree with that analysis.

[JackPhoenix]

That turning a creature is not moving it in a direction, it's literally the subject we've been discussing for several posts now.

That's also not what the assumption in my post was. That turning a creature around is not moving it in a direction is not an assumption, it's a fact.


Tell that to physics, curvature plays a big part in it, but your opinion has been noted.

I did. Physics replied you should talk to math (https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcII/Vectors_Basics.aspx).

{Scrubbed}

[NaughtyTiger]

With no consensus on RAW, proof through contradiction can be obtained. This sidetrack began with Valmark's comments claiming the spell allowed one to simply snatch the armor with no logical explanation or reasoning because "that's just what the spell says", the so-called RAW argument. What followed were the many implicit RAW rules that the spell does NOT state which include doffing armor and an inability to break items as well as colliding with physical objects in the game world that prevent passage. All of these can be considered assumptions and interpretations as well because they're not explicitly written and yet from my example it does quite seem to be absurd to assume that is how the spell works. The assumptions and interpretations are required to not have munchkin cheese nonsense that stems from a liberal application of the rules and world logic. To go a step further and make another assumption regarding whether the AC is valid or not is not farfetched in this instance, and by assuming the opposite position from his stance we can see the result is absurd as it allows (effectively) the same thing that we already interpreted to be not how the spell functions (it can't remove armor/AC instantly). Since all of these interpretations are not found in the spell's description we can argue till the cow's return but it will ultimately come down to the DM and what assumptions he agrees with. Clearly in Valmark's world such simple trivialities as physics would not stop the spell from functioning literally as it reads. Whatever eldritch forces allow the armor to remove itself from the creature matter not because it's now hovering 30 feet away from them. But I think the rest of us have stated our cases previously in this thread and disagree with that analysis.

Wall of Text is a 5th level spell.

Pooga's current argument is explicitly that the only valid interpretation of Doffing armor is that you have full AC until you have spent the entire time to remove it.
He has stated multiple times that it is RAW even though it is not actually written.

I may have gotten wrapped around the axle, but I don't think you said that Pooga's interpretation of how long it takes to remove your AC is RAW, nor that is it the only valid interpretation.
I have not discussed the spell. I jumped in specifically when Pooga made the claim that by RAW your AC is full until you spend the full time to remove the armor.
I have explicitly said multiple times, the RAW is silent on your AC as you are doffing armor.

Thus, I am confused why you are talking about RAW and the spell while replying to me..

Additionally, this is a link to the forum rules: https://forums.giantitp.com/announcement.php?a=1

[Satori01]

That quote does not explicitly say that it removes an object. Pulling an object away does not explicity allow you to break an object, nor allow an object to pass through another; either of which would be required to remove worn armour without going through the "doff armour" process.

The word Pull in the context of the spell description, is downright X-rated explicit about being able to remove something.

If I pull something from your hands, have I not removed something from you?

The word Pull in the context of Telekinesis is not meant to be interpreted like Pulling on an Oar, or Pulling on a rope, or a Pull from a tankard of ale.

If the object is worn or carried by a creature, you must make an ability check with your spellcasting ability contested by that creature's Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the object away from that creature and can move it up to 30 feet in any direction but not beyond the range of this spell.

The above quoted section from the spell, is clearly, explicitly, incontrovertibly a battle of STR vs Magic Stat for the item.

You are a Magneto that can move more then metal.

[prototype00]

The word Pull in the context of the spell description, is downright X-rated explicit about being able to remove something.

If I pull something from your hands, have I not removed something from you?

The word Pull in the context of Telekinesis is not meant to be interpreted like Pulling on an Oar, or Pulling on a rope, or a Pull from a tankard of ale.

If the object is worn or carried by a creature, you must make an ability check with your spellcasting ability contested by that creature's Strength check. If you succeed, you pull the object away from that creature and can move it up to 30 feet in any direction but not beyond the range of this spell.

The above quoted section from the spell, is clearly, explicitly, incontrovertibly a battle of STR vs Magic Stat for the item.

You are a Magneto that can move more then metal.

“Words Mean Things” is indeed the very core spirit of RAW, yes.

[Unoriginal]

You are a Magneto that can move more then metal.

Telekinesis doesn't make you "a Magneto that can move more than metal".

It makes you someone who can move a person in a direction for 30ft without changing the way they are facing and preventing them from using their movement speed without directly harming them, and someone who can move objects in a direction for 30ft and manipulate them in ways such as "opening a door" or "retrieving an item form an open container", and without directly damaging said object.


It's not Magneto's magnetism, which would allow him to crush anyone wearing plate armor into a metal ball at will. It isn't even the Force telekinesis like in Star Wars, which can be used to push people against walls to hurt them, to tear metal structures appart, and to strangle people.


Can Telekinesis be used to open a belt's buckle and remove the belt from the wearer? Certainly. Can Telekinesis be used to open three belts' buckles and remove the three belts from the wearer (assuming they're borrowing the FF protagonist's aesthetic) in one turn? Nope, it's one per turn.

Can Telekinesis be used to remove someone's armor? Certainly. Can Telekinesis be used to remove someone's heavy armor in one turn, knowing that Telekinesis cannot just rip out and damage the armor and it takes several minutes to open all the buckles and other straps that allows one to remove it? Nope.

[Amnestic]

Can Telekinesis be used to remove someone's armor? Certainly. Can Telekinesis be used to remove someone's heavy armor in one turn, knowing that Telekinesis cannot just rip out and damage the armor and it takes several minutes to open all the buckles and other straps that allows one to remove it? Nope.

It can open all the buckles and straps in one round, because heavy armour is one object, and we know already that doff speed is not static since you can halve it by getting assistance.

In short:
-Doff speed as standard is X, but is explicitly not always X.
-Telekinesis says it can remove worn one object (with a contested check) in a single round.
-Heavy Armour is a single object, regardless of how many straps and buckles you use to bolt yourself into it (RAW).
-Therefore, specifically, telekinesis can remove (heavy) armour in one round, overriding the general heavy armour doff speed.

[Unoriginal]

It can open all the buckles and straps in one round, because heavy armour is one object

Plate armor isn't:


Plate consists of shaped, interlocking metal plates to cover the entire body. A suit of plate includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and thick layers of padding underneath the armor. Buckles and straps distribute the weight over the body.


The same way Telekinesis can't remove a pair of boots off someone in one turn because both boots are objects on their own.

[Amnestic]

Plate armor isn't:



That's fluff, not crunch. For the purpose of object interactions, plate armour is one object. You don't piecemeal plate armour to get your 18 AC. It's a single object. You don't attune to multiple different pieces of it that are magical, it's a single suit. You can't purchase individual pieces of plate mail and wear those because it's a single suit.

Unless you're going to tell me that you can't remove a chain shirt because it's not one object, it's hundreds of interlocking individual metal ring objects that you'd have to remove one at a time.

Indeed pretty much every piece of armour has multiple aspects to it in the fluff, but they're still single Objects for the purpose of interactions in the rules.

[Zhorn]

It can open all the buckles and straps in one round, because heavy armour is one object.

On this one I'd not exactly sure the rule would be so cut and dry on the matter.
Armors of the form of chestplates and such, I'd say it would be a clear 'yes' under RAW. I see the reasoning some of the naysayers regarding don/doff timing, and for the most part I don't think that should apply to deny Telekinesis. By the definition of objects given in the DMG, several armors would would qualify as valid targets, and the condition of being worn is addressed in the spell's text as still being a valid target.

It's the definition of objects which I think is what would disqualify some of the more 'complex' armors


Objects
For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects.
If an armor is considered to be of multiple discrete pieces (breatplate, greaves, pauldrons, vambrace, helm, etc) then Telekinesis wouldn't be able to target the whole lot for removal in a single actions. One object at a time. A lot of DM fiat will come into play on where the line is between which armors count as a single object, and which are multiple objects.

When considering armors consisting of multiple pieces, that in turn moves the discussion onto "how much of armor needs to be removed to disqualify the wearer of any AC benefits?"

[Unoriginal]

That's fluff, not crunch. For the purpose of object interactions, plate armour is one object. You don't piecemeal plate armour to get your 18 AC. It's a single object. You don't attune to multiple different pieces of it that are magical, it's a single suit. You can't purchase individual pieces of plate mail and wear those because it's a single suit..

So, if I understand your reasoning, if you are wearing a plate armor +1, you cannot wear Winged Boots and a Helm of Comprehend Language because the plate armor includes boots and a helmet and plate armor is a single object which can't be separated into pieces. Is that what you're arguing?



Unless you're going to tell me that you can't remove a chain shirt because it's not one object, it's hundreds of interlocking individual metal ring objects that you'd have to remove one at a time.

That's obvious sophistry. There is a difference between one item composed of several parts and a suit composed of several items.

[Kyutaru]

Thus, I am confused why you are talking about RAW and the spell while replying to me.Due to the context of the conversation. It matters not when you popped in and I've been present seen the start so I know your contributions. The wall of text as you called it details the route the discussion has taken and at what point the argument you're vying against entered the ring. There was but what literal RAW argument while the rest were, as I said, implicit RAW as the result of certain assumptions or interpretations about what rules may apply to the spell beyond what the spell itself states. I agreed that it's not clear, hence my remarks on the DM ruling, but I shed some context on the position and showed how the defense of these assumptions/interpretations could be found in proof through contradiction. That the original RAW argument concerning the spell, the one that birthed this tangent, was so contradictory to game logic and the world's implicit rules served as a platform to make another implicit read based on the time it would take the spell to remove armor. The exact speed at which this loses one's AC was called into question and when we assume the opposite position, that it can instantly lose your AC because the moment you begin the undoffing process the armor is undoffed, would lead us back to that original RAW result against the spell of effectively removing armor instantly. As mentioned, that was so contradictory to game logic and the world's implicit rules that it was deemed erroneous, yet here another backdoor is trying to be used to accomplish the same end. Adhering to the complete process through an implicit interpretation, and frankly all RAW or not readings are interpretations of what the words mean (see Warhammer 40k boards for people who know how to stretch English for all it's worth), would make logical sense in compliance with the rest of the game's RAW rules that are being used implicitly in connection with the spell's effect. Ergo, it stands to reason that it's a viable position to hold regardless of whether it's accurate or not.

To add, correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be under the impression that there is only one RAW. It is a failing of English that the same sentence can have multiple meanings and therefore multiple RAW interpretations. A classic example is "I didn't say he stole the money" which can have seven different meanings. Each person reading the same sentence would then come up with an interpretation that suits how they read the sentence initially. In truth, multiple interpretations exist as valid readings and the conflicts arise when someone feels their interpretation is more correct.

[Amnestic]

That's obvious sophistry. There is a difference between one item composed of several parts and a suit composed of several items.

Perhaps you want to consult the other armour items on the list?

Padded: Padded Armor consists of quilted layers of cloth and batting.

Leather: The Breastplate and shoulder protectors of this armor are made of leather that has been stiffened by being boiled in oil. The rest of the armor is made of softer and more flexible materials.

Hid⁠e: This crude armor consists of thick furs and pelts. It is commonly worn by Barbarian tribes, evil Humanoids, and other folk who lack access to the tools and materials needed to create better armor.

Scale M⁠ail: This armor consists of a coat and leggings (and perhaps a separate skirt) of leather covered with overlapping pieces of metal, much like the scales of a fish. The suit includes gauntlets.

Breastp⁠late: This armor consists of a fitted metal chest piece worn with supple leather. Although it leaves the legs and arms relatively unprotected, this armor provides good Protection for the wearer’s vital organs while leaving the wearer relatively unencumbered.

Half⁠ Plate: Half Plate consists of shaped metal plates that cover most of the wearer’s body. It does not include leg Protection beyond simple greaves that are attached with leather straps.

Chain⁠ Mail: Made of interlocking metal rings, Chain Mail includes a layer of quilted fabric worn underneath the mail to prevent chafing and to cushion the impact of blows. The suit includes gauntlets.

Splint: This armor is made of narrow vertical strips of metal riveted to a backing of leather that is worn over cloth padding. Flexible Chain Mail protects the joints.

The idea that you could strip studded leather from someone in a single round because it's fluff doesn't explicitly call out multiple parts but *not* leather armour is baffling to me.

Alternatively, if you believe a plate suit is composed of individual objects then, clearly, if one of them is removed it's no longer a full plate suit, and as such no longer confers any AC, because you're not wearing it anymore. You're wearing bits of Plate Mail. And, again, per don rules - you only get the full AC once it's fully donned. Taking off your helmet equaling -8 AC seems a bit over the top to me, but if it will bring this discussion to a close I can happily compromise at that.



One object at a time.

Note that when grouped, this is explictly not always the case. One of the object interaction options you can do on your turn is "fish a few coins from your belt pouch". Individual coins, clearly, are objects, and yet you can interact with more than one when they're grouped into "a few".

The same easily applies to plate mail - each plate is an individual object, and yet it itself is a larger object when combined together. Because again, you can't purchase separate pieces of plate mail, you don't equip it piecemeal or enchant it piecemeal. It's one object.

[Willie the Duck]

First, quick aside: In game, I would make TK only be able to dis-armor someone by spending several rounds and probably several checks. None of this has to do with RAW, which I consider an interesting aside at best, and do not feel beholden to when actually gaming.

There appears to be a discrepancy between "move" a worn object and the ability to "remove" one. Telekinesis does not allow you to "remove" an object, nor break one; only "move" it. The spell would not allow you to move an object through a solid wall any more than it would allow you to break iron manacles or full plate harness to forcibly remove them faster than would normally be allowed.
This seems compelling, at least in isolation. It wouldn't be the first time an ability allowed you to do X, but not Y which would logically follow from an ability which could X. However...

RE: Emphasis. Why not? The spell does not say it allows you to disregard the specific rules regarding donning amd doffing armour. The exemption is required.
This is less convincing. Why is such an exemption required? Nothing in the Don/Doff rules state that they are the only way that armor can be changed from worn status to unworn. If there were a spell (actually I think there is a invocation, but it is UA material, so not germane to this discussion) that instantly armored you up, I don't think it would need to explicitly state that it bypasses the Don/Doff rules -- its very presence would be a declaration of exception. This 'required,' er, requirement, seems to be one for which I cannot find in-ruleset support.

With no consensus on RAW, proof through contradiction can be obtained.
I would disagree. RAW is perfectly capable of creating contradictory or nonsensical results. One of the primary reasons I don't place it on a pedestal.

That's fluff, not crunch.
I have seen so many people make statements like this. So far as I know, this fluff/crunch distinction is something that does not exist in the actual ruleset.

[Kyutaru]

I would disagree. RAW is perfectly capable of creating contradictory or nonsensical results. One of the primary reasons I don't place it on a pedestal.It's also capable of being read multiple ways which is why I acknowledge all varieties as RAW. When someone concludes that one interpretation is RAW they immediately stop looking at other interpretations as valid because how can there be more than one valid RAW. Except there usually is, and not through contradiction but through the problem with English possessing multiple meanings for the same words, along with the books having so many RAW rules interacting that it's unclear how they prioritize. Given two RAW interpretations, one which makes more sense, I'd favor the one that seems more likely but it only matters that more than one RAW can exist.[/QUOTE]

[NaughtyTiger]

...
so your position is "argument is explicitly that the only valid interpretation of Doffing armor is that you have full AC until you have spent the entire time to remove it".



The exact speed at which this loses one's AC was called into question and when we assume the opposite position, that it can instantly lose your AC because the moment you begin the undoffing process the armor is undoffed, would lead us back to that original RAW result against the spell of effectively removing armor instantly.

As mentioned, that was so contradictory to game logic and the world's implicit rules that it was deemed erroneous,

There is not universal agreement that this interpretation is erroneous.

The mechanics (RAW) explicitly state that "You benefit from the armor’s AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor."

A narrative explanation is that you can have the breastplate over your head, but the straps are still loose... the loose breastplate interferes with your movement inhibiting your ability to dodge or absorb glancing blows. Similar to running with loose shoe laces.



Plate consists of shaped, interlocking metal plates to cover the entire body. A suit of plate includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and thick layers of padding underneath the armor. Buckles and straps distribute the weight over the body.
Clearly the buckles and straps serve a purpose.

Again, since the mechanics (RAW) do not explicitly determine your AC while removing armor, I am going to step into the narrative for an explanation to inform my interpretation.

If the straps are loosened enough that the armor is not tight against my body, the armor may interfere with my movement inhibiting my ability to dodge or absorb glancing blows. Or the loose fitting armor exposed my vital bits.

But you like the contradiction as proof, so let the mechanics help me out.

Per RAW If I am putting on heavy armor for 9 minutes 30 seconds, my AC does not benefit at all, it is 12. 30 more seconds it jumps from 12 to 18.
Per your interpretation of the gaps, I can spend 4 minutes 45 seconds removing my armor and it remains 18.
However, if I start putting the armor back on, my AC immediately drops to 12 because "You benefit from the armor’s AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor.", and I cannot don armor if it is already donned.. (there is a weakness to this argument, but it should be enough to cast doubt that there is only one valid interpretation of the AC while doffing)
This scenario "can instantly lose your AC because the moment you begin the [S]undoffing doffing process the armor is undoffed"


To add, correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be under the impression that there is only one RAW.
It is a failing of English that the same sentence can have multiple meanings and therefore multiple RAW interpretations.
A classic example is "I didn't say he stole the money" which can have seven different meanings. Each person reading the same sentence would then come up with an interpretation that suits how they read the sentence initially. In truth, multiple interpretations exist as valid readings and the conflicts arise when someone feels their interpretation is more correct.

Stating the RAW and interpreting are different things.
RAW is the rules as written. If it is not written down it is not RAW.
Interpretations of the RAW, addressing conflicts in the rules, filling in gaps in the rules is not RAW.
There can be multiple valid interpretations of RAW. I said this in both posts you quoted.
5 of my 8 posts in thread have stated my position on this.



It's also capable of being read multiple ways which is why I acknowledge all varieties as RAW. When someone concludes that one interpretation is RAW they immediately stop looking at other interpretations as valid because how can there be more than one valid RAW. Except there usually is, and not through contradiction but through the problem with English possessing multiple meanings for the same words, along with the books having so many RAW rules interacting that it's unclear how they prioritize. Given two RAW interpretations, one which makes more sense, I'd favor the one that seems more likely but it only matters that more than one RAW can exist.
This guy gets it....
Given that Pooga's argument is that there is only one valid interpretation of the RAW and I have stated there are multiple, I should think you would be on my side.

[Willie the Duck]

It's also capable of being read multiple ways which is why I acknowledge all varieties as RAW. When someone concludes that one interpretation is RAW they immediately stop looking at other interpretations as valid because how can there be more than one valid RAW. Except there usually is, and not through contradiction but through the problem with English possessing multiple meanings for the same words, along with the books having so many RAW rules interacting that it's unclear how they prioritize. Given two RAW interpretations, one which makes more sense, I'd favor the one that seems more likely but it only matters that more than one RAW can exist.

I agree with, and applaud this framing. There doesn't need to be a single, unequivocal RAW that precludes other equally valid RAW conclusions. Great point and one of which we should not lose sight. However, I was addressing the idea that we can apply proof through contradiction to RAW questions. RAW does not have to make sense. I too would favor interpretations that make the most sense, but the one that doesn't make sense can also be RAW (since, as we agree, there can be more than one).

[Kyutaru]

so your position is "argument is explicitly that the only valid interpretation of Doffing armor is that you have full AC until you have spent the entire time to remove it".No, and I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion, especially given the last sentences that conclude the paragraph. For example, "Ergo, it stands to reason that it's a viable position to hold regardless of whether it's accurate or not." I in no way ever claimed that the only valid interpretation is what you just wrote, I stated that it was a valid interpretation and nothing more. RAW can at times be conflicting with itself, depending on your perspective of how to read it, which I went into subsequently and multiple valid interpretations may exist (some absurd and some less so).


There is not universal agreement that this interpretation is erroneous.I did not say there was, did you not wonder to question who deemed it so? It was hardly a consensus, I said -we- seemed to agree it was given the past positions each person has stated. I also have not rejected the notion that the claim of instant dis-armor-ment was RAW, only that it was absurd RAW and other forms of RAW fit better.


The mechanics (RAW) explicitly state that "You benefit from the armor’s AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor."
A position we all hold as valid.


Again, since the mechanics (RAW) do not explicitly determine your AC while removing armor, I am going to step into the narrative for an explanation to inform my interpretation.That is quite unnecessary seeing how the original RAW argument makes little sense narratively so applying or not applying the narrative when the original shirks it completely would be equally valid.


Per RAW If I am putting on heavy armor for 9 minutes 30 seconds, my AC does not benefit at all, it is 12. 30 more seconds it jumps from 12 to 18.
Per your interpretation of the gaps, I can spend 4 minutes 45 seconds removing my armor and it remains 18.
However, if I start putting the armor back on, my AC immediately drops to 12 because "You benefit from the armor’s AC only if you take the full time to don the suit of armor.", and I cannot don armor if it is already donned.. (there is a weakness to this argument, but it should be enough to cast doubt that there is only one valid interpretation of the AC while doffing)I follow along right up to the However. Partially removing armor with its AC remaining at 18 does not mean you need to start putting it back on afterward. The action was aborted and nothing came of it, so in defiance of logic the armor is still donned. I know it makes no sense but previous RAW arguments made even less sense. The Lesser Evil.

Your interpretation is still valid but it has the same effect as simply ripping off the armor, an instant and implausible drop in all protection within seconds (the most nonsensical claim of all). This is where that proof via absurd contradiction comes into play to promote an option that isn't this. Multiple RAW arguments except two are crazy? Go with the third, but that's just me.


Stating the RAW and interpreting are different things.
I wholly disagree. I can say a single sentence that holds seven different meanings. Interpretation is mandatory to all RAW arguments because else you will have seven different understandings of the same thing. It's important to state what meaning you're using in your assessment of what is RAW in case it does not match with someone else's reading of the same rule.


There can be multiple valid interpretations of RAW.Then there's no need to continue the debate on armor doffing because both interpretations are valid views. I feel some are a tad more ludicrous than others but that's RAW for you and I find it's better to ignore them and go with a RAW interpretation that makes more sense. RAW is RAW after all.

[Kyutaru]

Given that Pooga's argument is that there is only one valid interpretation of the RAW and I have stated there are multiple, I should think you would be on my side.
Oh I seldom take sides or face off opponents. Once I consider you an enemy it's off the block list. This is a discussion among equals and nothing more. Quoting a person also does not mean I am contradicting or disagreeing with them and I frequently do so just to add to their point (as I did with the wall example which JackPhoenix took completely off-base). In short, you're all good, I'm not on anyone's side here but my own.


I agree with, and applaud this framing. There doesn't need to be a single, unequivocal RAW that precludes other equally valid RAW conclusions. Great point and one of which we should not lose sight. However, I was addressing the idea that we can apply proof through contradiction to RAW questions. RAW does not have to make sense. I too would favor interpretations that make the most sense, but the one that doesn't make sense can also be RAW (since, as we agree, there can be more than one).
I begrudgingly agree. I much prefer not to validate and support RAW interpretations that don't make sense because from what I've seen you don't want to give too much credence to people who willfully ignore English meanings to extrapolate some extremely far-fetched claims as I have seen on Warhammer 40k boards. With all the different ways people can interpret the same things it's best we stick to the ones that are the least offensive to logic because there will undoubtedly be a few of those to discuss too.

[NaughtyTiger]

No, and I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion, especially given the last sentences that conclude the paragraph. For example, "Ergo, it stands to reason that it's a viable position to hold regardless of whether it's accurate or not." I in no way ever claimed that the only valid interpretation is what you just wrote, I stated that it was a valid interpretation and nothing more. RAW can at times be conflicting with itself, depending on your perspective of how to read it, which I went into subsequently and multiple valid interpretations may exist (some absurd and some less so).

Wall of text and flowery prose made it challenging to process correctly.

Oh, and you have argued with 4 of my posts that explicitly stated there is more than one valid interpretation of RAW.


That is quite unnecessary seeing how the original RAW argument makes little sense narratively so applying or not applying the narrative when the original shirks it completely would be equally valid.
I disagree.
The RAW argument for AC instantly on makes a fair amount of sense to me, based on the narrative that I used to justify it.
The narrative for adding/removing armor is used to inform how I interpret the gaps in the rules, such as AC while removing armor.


Your interpretation is still valid but it has the same effect as simply ripping off the armor, an instant and implausible drop in all protection within seconds (the most nonsensical claim of all). This is where that proof via absurd contradiction comes into play to promote an option that isn't this. Multiple RAW arguments except two are crazy? Go with the third, but that's just me.

To be fair, after 1 action of doffing, you are still wearing armor. You just may not get the full AC from it.


Then there's no need to continue the debate on armor doffing because both interpretations are valid views. I feel some are a tad more ludicrous than others but that's RAW for you and I find it's better to ignore them and go with a RAW interpretation that makes more sense. RAW is RAW after all.

As long as you hold Pooga to the same standard...

edit: to clarify, there is no RAW that defines your AC while removing armor. All 3 interpretations/rulings that I have seen for how to fill in the gap in the RAW are valid.

[Kyutaru]

Wall of text and flowery prose made it challenging to process correctly.I understand, it's a side effect of severe head trauma and you're not the first to claim it. I am quite literally incapable of speaking (or writing) in any other way without losing my train of thought. It's why we have discussions though to better understand the other person's perspective and if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them.


Oh, and you have argued with 4 of my posts that explicitly stated there is more than one valid interpretation of RAW.
As long as you hold Pooga to the same standard...Well this has me wonder, what precisely is the purpose of continuing with Pooga then? If your interpretation is valid are you merely looking for him to accept that is? A task in futility I find as folks can often be resistant, especially if it's taken so many posts. He may believe that there is only one RAW but that belief does not matter to the discussion. You can't please everyone so don't try too hard to do so.

[NaughtyTiger]

Well this has me wonder, what precisely is the purpose of continuing with Pooga then? If your interpretation is valid are you merely looking for him to accept that is? A task in futility I find as folks can often be resistant, especially if it's taken so many posts. He may believe that there is only one RAW but that belief does not matter to the discussion. You can't please everyone so don't try too hard to do so.

I haven't actually stated my interpretation of RAW or of the RAW.

My interaction with Pooga is simply to counter his claim that HIS raw is the ONLY raw. That HIS speculation and implication is RAW and the only RAW.
I disagree that shutting other interpretations does not matter to the discussion. If you aren't going to listen to arguments, then it isn't a discussion.
I guarantee pleasing Pooga is not my intent.

If Pooga continues to claim that his speculation is RAW, then I will challenge that, as often as it requires.

[Unoriginal]

Alright, here's another approach to consider the issue:



Sir Roland the Eldritch Knight is wearing plate armor, a Dread Helm, a pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power, and a pair of Boots of Striding and Springing.

Hocus the Wizard casts Telekinesis and beats Roland's save. Can Telekinesis remove the plate armor, the Dread Helm, the Gauntlets and the Boots in one turn?

Follow up question:

Sir Roland shows up to the rematch wearing only a suit of plate armor +2. Hocus the Wizard casts Telekinesis again. Can Telekinesis remove the plate armor, which none the less has an helmet, gauntlets and boots included in its +2 magic, in one turn?

[Willie the Duck]

I begrudgingly agree. I much prefer not to validate and support RAW interpretations that don't make sense because from what I've seen you don't want to give too much credence to people who willfully ignore English meanings to extrapolate some extremely far-fetched claims as I have seen on Warhammer 40k boards. With all the different ways people can interpret the same things it's best we stick to the ones that are the least offensive to logic because there will undoubtedly be a few of those to discuss too.

Oh, we get our share of willfully ignoring the nuances of English language here too. The distinction I am making is someone being perfectly forthright and looking at the rules with an open mind, but coming to the honest (and correct) conclusion that the rules say something absurd, contradictory, or even logically impossible. The rules can do that. There's nothing stopping them. That's a reason I find over-fixation on RAW (other than as a means of passing the time) to be itself ridiculous.


I understand, it's a side effect of severe head trauma and you're not the first to claim it. I am quite literally incapable of speaking (or writing) in any other way without losing my train of thought. It's why we have discussions though to better understand the other person's perspective and if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them.

Sorry to hear it. Join the club. Mine tends more to causing exhaustion, which combined with websurfing here on work breaks, have undoubtedly suggested to others that I have train-of-thought issues.


Alright, here's another approach to consider the issue:
Sir Roland the Eldritch Knight is wearing plate armor, a Dread Helm, a pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power, and a pair of Boots of Striding and Springing.
Hocus the Wizard casts Telekinesis and beats Roland's save. Can Telekinesis remove the plate armor, the Dread Helm, the Gauntlets and the Boots in one turn?
Follow up question:
Sir Roland shows up to the rematch wearing only a suit of plate armor +2. Hocus the Wizard casts Telekinesis again. Can Telekinesis remove the plate armor, which none the less has an helmet, gauntlets and boots included in its +2 magic, in one turn?

It seems like (again by a RAW I find ridiculous and would rule against) each object would have to be removed separately, so yes the EK with plate armor and 5 magic items (magic gauntlets and boots are specified as pairs, right?) would need 6 removals (if plate is one item, see next point). With the other, it would seem to need just one save, if plate is a single item, to which I am still not clear (except that I find 'that's just fluff, it doesn't count' unconvincing).

[SVamp]

One must also remember that effectively you can be allowing said spell to grant a -8 AC penalty. Whether or not you consider that balanced is the point of consideration in allowing it or not.

Oh additionally, with Telekinesis having a duration, one must also consider whether you will allow this debuff to be repeated on subsequent turns until all enemies have the same penalty.

Do we REALLY need YET another reason for the wizard to say ‘quack it, I summon ten flying mini golems out of these ten caltrops with animate objects and have them attack the targets on their own, each round, while I continue doing something else’?

It uses concentration. It uses an action. It’s 5th level. It uses a memorization slot to have handy just in case an enemy with plate armour shows up today. Give it a break. This is why people always pick the same safe boring spells that have zero DM input.

If you can’t possibly stomach it, split the armour into main components: chest, legs, arms, helmet and have the spell be able to strip each item each round: chest -5 AC, leg -1, arm -1, head -1 . But you then open the horrible can of worms of ‘I wear a helmet do I get +1 AC?’, lol. (Answer: only if you’re wearing a full plate helmet, and you need to be proficient with heavy armour or else you carry the full penalties, heh )

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

Realism be damned, this is D&D!

But it's a solid game system, with a great tool for this situation. Is plate armor worn but especially hard to take off? Give the mage disadvantage on the opposed roll (or the target advantage) and move on.

Yay!

Anyway,

Ken

[smp4life]

You can't get a RAW answer because this isn't a RAW issue. RAW state that whatever is worn can be moved, but there's wearing a hat and wearing the underwear. Unless you want to argue that telekinesis can magically remove your underwear without affecting any other part of clothing. For even more extreme example, are handcuffs worn? Can you therefore remove them via telekinesis even if you don't have a key? Is jewellry worn? Can you remove piercings this way?

Once we depart from sheer stupidity land, that "worn" thing pretty clearly means some article of clothing you can remove by yanking hard enough, like a hat or a coat. If this is the case, does it apply to armor? Well, by RAW no, removing armor specifically is doffing, and takes several actions - there's nothing stating if you can or cannot do that via telekinesis.

If we decide to determine the answer based off of how armor works, the answer is sometimes. Something like a gambeson, chain mail or lamellar armor probably could be removed that way - it won't be comfortable, exactly, it takes quite a bit of force and wriggling to get out of a sweaty gambeson.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/15/93/7d/15937dde0d69338fc2af477cd66c87f1.jpg
Shoulder bits were historically somewhat rare, which isn't stopping everyone and their mother from using them these days


Field plate, on the other hand, is a different beast entirely, it's strapped to your body in many places, and some elements of it are hinged and secured with pins on some models - the only way that armet is leaving your head is if it breaks or if your head gets ripped off.

https://armstreet.com/catalogue/full/armet-helmet-medieval-sca-etched-armor-18.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/39/db/e4/39dbe40c76f04a7a69c5820b14f926f0.jpg

Tournament plate? No dice at all, you often can't remove that thing by yourself.

The spell specifically states you have to see the item. So you can't really target underwear.

[micahaphone]

The spell specifically states you have to see the item. So you can't really target underwear.

Wear long shirts and high waisted pants lest ye get a telekinetic atomic wedgie!

[AnotherAnonymou]

Already mentioned armour and cursed items...that's multiple. I don't require more.

RAW, Telekinesis does not explicitly exempt the doff armour rule, which is a specific rule governing the removal of worn armour, nor can it break an item in order to circumvent said rule. Therefore, RAW, Telekinesis is not capable of performing the OPs proposed use of the spell.

For the absolute longest time, your argument bugged me to no end, and I only recently understood why: you're assigning arbitrary specificity to barely related, tangential rules, and claiming that those barely relevant, tangential rules back up your claim. It's sophistry.

Your argument is this: "okay, you failed the saving throw so you're stunned for 1 minute." "my character is immune to the stunned condition!" "nope, that's the general rule, this feature specifically applies the stunned condition, and specific beats general, so you're stunned." But at least here, it's not tangential, so your argument is somehow even worse than this.

Secondly, donning/doffing is entirely unrelated to "pulling the object away from a creature and moving it up to 30 feet in any direction."

Thirdly, armor IS a single, discrete object. As per the Forge Domain Cleric's Blessing of the Forge feature: "...you can touch one nonmagical object that is a suit of armor or a simple or martial weapon." Saying a suit of armor isn't an object because it's made up of sheets of metal and straps of leather is about as nonsensical as saying a book isn't an object because it's made up of sheets of parchment and bound in leather.

Also, cursed items don't all apply the same curse. Some cursed items specify "you are unwilling to part with the object," Telekinesis is able to pull that cursed object away assuming you aren't the caster. Some specify "you can't remove the object," again, Telekinesis is able to pull that cursed object away assuming you aren't the caster--YOU can't remove it, someone else can.



Sir Roland the Eldritch Knight is wearing plate armor, a Dread Helm, a pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power, and a pair of Boots of Striding and Springing.

Hocus the Wizard casts Telekinesis and beats Roland's save. Can Telekinesis remove the plate armor, the Dread Helm, the Gauntlets and the Boots in one turn?

Follow up question:

Sir Roland shows up to the rematch wearing only a suit of plate armor +2. Hocus the Wizard casts Telekinesis again. Can Telekinesis remove the plate armor, which none the less has an helmet, gauntlets and boots included in its +2 magic, in one turn?

You said it yourself: a suit of plate armor +2. Not a +0.5 helmet, +0.5 gauntlets, +0.5 boots, and a +0.5 chestpiece, all adding up to a magical +2 AC bonus. It's a single suit of +2 plate armor.

So, since a suit of armor--any kind of armor--is one object, and is also worn or carried, it's entirely valid for Telekinesis to be able to pull it off a creature, assuming the caster succeeds on their ability check. How the DM chooses to describe it is up to them, but them's the rules.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Thread Necromancy