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

[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.

[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.