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.

Spoiler: Lamellar armor, you can see how it laces at the sides

Show

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.

Spoiler: Kinda bad armet replica, but you can see how it's closed over your chin

Show

Spoiler: Proper armet, fully closed

Show

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.