Results 121 to 141 of 141
-
2020-08-11, 07:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2018
- Location
- Space Australia
- Gender
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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
Originally Posted by DMG p246
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?"
-
2020-08-11, 07:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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?
That's obvious sophistry. There is a difference between one item composed of several parts and a suit composed of several items.Last edited by Unoriginal; 2020-08-11 at 07:12 AM.
-
2020-08-11, 07:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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.Last edited by Kyutaru; 2020-08-11 at 07:42 AM.
Trolls will be blocked. Petrification works far better than fire and acid.
-
2020-08-11, 07:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Location
- Castle Sparrowcellar
- Gender
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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.
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.
-
2020-08-11, 07:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
-
2020-08-11, 07:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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]
Trolls will be blocked. Petrification works far better than fire and acid.
-
2020-08-11, 08:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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".
There is not universal agreement that this interpretation [starting to remove armor instantly kills AC] 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.
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.This scenario "can instantly lose your AC because the moment you begin the
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)undoffingdoffing process the armor is undoffed"
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.
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.
-
2020-08-11, 08:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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).
-
2020-08-11, 08:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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).
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.
A position we all hold as valid.
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 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.
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.
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.Trolls will be blocked. Petrification works far better than fire and acid.
-
2020-08-11, 08:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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 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.Trolls will be blocked. Petrification works far better than fire and acid.
-
2020-08-11, 09:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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.
Originally Posted by Kyutaru
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.
Originally Posted by Kyutaru
Originally Posted by Kyutaru
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.
-
2020-08-11, 09:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2014
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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.
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.Trolls will be blocked. Petrification works far better than fire and acid.
-
2020-08-11, 10:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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.
-
2020-08-11, 10:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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?
-
2020-08-11, 12:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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.
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.
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).
-
2020-08-21, 12:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2013
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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 )
-
2020-08-22, 05:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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
-
2020-08-22, 05:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2020
-
2020-08-23, 01:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2019
- Location
- North
-
2023-12-13, 04:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2023
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
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.
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.Last edited by AnotherAnonymou; 2023-12-13 at 05:31 AM.
-
2023-12-13, 08:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Grognardia
- Gender
Re: RAW, would Telekenesis allow you to Strip off an enemy's armour?
Metamagic Mod: Thread Necromancy
(Avatar by Cuthalion, who is great.)