Telekinesis overpriced?

[Col. Orange]

With the Advantages required for true Telekinesis/Psychokinesis, does anyone else find it an overpriced power?
I was thinking it might be better just to buy a Multipower with an IPE EB in one slot and Stretching (doen't cross intervening space) PLUS some STR.
Of course, you'd be running these powers off of OCV as they stand...

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Col. Orange
With the Advantages required for true Telekinesis/Psychokinesis, does anyone else find it an overpriced power?
I was thinking it might be better just to buy a Multipower with an IPE EB in one slot and Stretching (doen't cross intervening space) PLUS some STR.
Of course, you'd be running these powers off of OCV as they stand...

Is it EXPENSIVE? Yes, it's certainly expensive.

Is it OVERPRICED? Here, I'm not so sure.

At its full structure, you hit with ECV, so you'll rarely miss. It has invisible power effects, so no one even knows where it came from. That's a pretty powerful effect.

On the flip side, why does it cost 50% more than STR? Yes, it's usable at range, but in grants no figured characteristics and does not stack with STR. An RKA (range, does not stack w/ STR) and an HKA (no range; stacks with STR) both cost the same. Maybe the same logic should apply to "basic" TK and it should cost 1 point per STR point.

I have never seen a player character based solely around TK (they always have an EB, for example, to inflict damage at 1d6 per 5 character points), and this cost factor goes a long way to explaining that. On the other hand, we've all seen characters based on STR! Assuming an AP limit of 60, our Brick does 12d6, but the best our Telekinetic can get from pure TK is 8d6. Balanced?

I don't know the answer, as I haven't seen it played out, but when the power's not in demand, that may attribute to excessive cost.

Maybe Farkling can tell us how munchkins abuse Telekinesis?? ;)

[Blue Jogger]

My last character had (extra) STR and Stretching. Mostly because of the campaign limit, and I wanted to use my full Strength. However, I did have a VPP and sometimes I would switch over to TK.

Why?

Because 75 points of TK (50 STR) can be use 375" away. Try to do that with combat stretching. But sometimes, I wanted to lift something, way, way, way over there. Now imagine your typical battle and someone is 300" inches away lifting a nearby (to you) car to smash you. The brick may pick up a car and he may toss it at the TK, he's not going to toss it 300". He might pick up a rock and throw 300", will he hit? More likely than not, no.

If I'm using stretching, I'm at the battle.

[Fireg0lem]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Is it EXPENSIVE? Yes, it's certainly expensive.

Is it OVERPRICED? Here, I'm not so sure.

At its full structure, you hit with ECV, so you'll rarely miss. It has invisible power effects, so no one even knows where it came from. That's a pretty powerful effect.


You use your ECV, but its against your opponent's DCV, so you aren't all that certain to hit. And you don't get IPE for free. BOECV doesn't provide invisibility.

[Keneton]

In fact it is UNDERPRICED.

1. It is inherently indirect for free.
2. It is constant

Nuff said.

Do not compare anything to strength for price. Everyone knows strength is underpriced. In many ways its free!

I DO reccomend buying a physical EB for a telekinetic punch.
I DO reccomend a multipower with various types of TK powers including AE TK, Fine Work TK etc...

Good luck:)

[Ndreare]

TK in my mind has alway been incredably under priced. After all the damage a character can do even with a 15 STR TK and advantages is rediculous to say the least.

Keneton touches on the basics add 0-end and we have a nasty little power indead. Can you imagine a player whos character holds four of the villians in the air doing pathetic damage to all of them waiting fopr the other other players to get around to finishing them off or even doing it him self with his other powers.

[BobGreenwade]

Someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that an earlier version of TK did without the "Telekinetic Punch/Squeeze," and cost 1 point per STR. (I'm certain of the latter part, but not the former.) In any event, that's how I'd construct it -- to do the punch/squeeze, buy Energy Blast.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Fireg0lem
And you don't get IPE for free. BOECV doesn't provide invisibility.

Sorry; I was thinking "TK with all advantages to by psychokinesis", which to me includes IPE. Even more expensive than what the post suggested, but part of "true" psychokinesis.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Ndreare
Keneton touches on the basics add 0-end and we have a nasty little power indead. Can you imagine a player whos character holds four of the villians in the air doing pathetic damage to all of them waiting fopr the other other players to get around to finishing them off or even doing it him self with his other powers.

Keneton mentioned 15 STR TK. 15 STR is not sufficient to hold four man-sized people in the air. AE TK could do it, of course. But how many characters will be unable to break a 15 STR Grab? Certainly, it's dangerous while you're in the air if you relied heavily on DCV, but other area effect attacks are also dangerous to such a character.

If we're talking 15 STR area effect, IPE, BOECV TK, how big a 1 hex area EB could have been purchased instead to smack that same character?

And Keneton's post also implied a multipower - so shifting it to finish them off with other attacks isn't in the cards. No reason you have to buy it in an MP, but now you're looking at paying full points for two separate attacks, which gets expensive.

I had forgotten the Indirect aspect, however, which does go a long way to equalizing the two. You could make your TK "direct" and get a cost much closer to 1 STR/point. With that in mind, my initial thoughts that it's not so ineffective may be more accurate.

As I said, I don't see many people using it, which implies it's too costly, but also means I haven't seen it used much.

[Oruncrest]

Originally posted by Keneton
In fact it is UNDERPRICED.

1. It is inherently indirect for free.

Not really, because you lose the action/reaction, so you can't pick yourself up.


2. It is constant

So is STR. If I wanna pick you up and hold you for as long as I can with my bare hands, I can (at least until I either run out of END or you power out of my grip). Why shouldn't I enjoy that with TK as well?


Nuff said.

Do not compare anything to strength for price. Everyone knows strength is underpriced. In many ways its free!

We have to compare normal STR to TK STR. they both do the same things: picking stuff up and decking somebody. Stepping around the 'STR is underpriced' arguement (I have no desire for it to take over this thread), STR and TK are both pretty balanced with one another, as we can see if we compare their game mechanics:

STR | TK
lift | lift
DC | DC
Figured Chars | NO Figured Chars
no Range | Range
action/reaction | no action/reaction
not indirect | indirect

...yet TK costs 1½ times as much as STR. Heck. come to think of it, even if we didn't compare it to STR, TK still comes off as overpriced.

[Ndreare]

Actually 15 STR 0 END TK could lift any number of people as long as they all weigh less than 200KG each because it is a continuous attack once he starts the power he may maintain it at full power while starting it again on a second target also at full power. The normal controlling factor for continuous powers is END cost however buy paying +1/2 this has been eliminated.

Hell for 60 AP he could have a 27 STR TK 0-END.


In short I still think TK is way to Cheep.

[Keneton]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Keneton mentioned 15 STR TK.

And Keneton's post also implied a multipower -


I never mentioned 15 STR TK. Re-read my post.

I did say build a multipower with many different types of TK.

You can strike a chracter while holding them with TK.... Its a CONSTANT POWER.

I am still correct.
:)

[Keneton]

Originally posted by Oruncrest
Not really, because you lose the action/reaction, so you can't pick yourself up.

So is STR. If I wanna pick you up and hold you for as long as I can with my bare hands, I can (at least until I either run out of END or you power out of my grip). Why shouldn't I enjoy that with TK as well?

We have to compare normal STR to TK STR. they both do the same things: picking stuff up and decking somebody.
Stepping around the 'STR is underpriced' arguement (I have no desire for it to take over this thread), STR and TK are both pretty balanced with one another, as we can see if we compare their game mechanics:

STR | TK
lift | lift
DC | DC
Figured Chars | NO Figured Chars
no Range | Range
action/reaction | no action/reaction
not indirect | indirect

...yet TK costs 1½ times as much as STR. Heck. come to think of it, even if we didn't compare it to STR, TK still comes off as overpriced.

Question: What does action reaction have to do with Indirect?!
Answer: Nothing!

Question: Did I ever say Strength was not Constant.
Answer: No

Yes you are correct that you can do these things with Strength. What is your point in comparing a power like TK to Strength when the rules PROHIBIT you from buying Strength at Range to simulate TK? You are only pointing out why Steve made it illegal!

You say to step around the cost but that is your whole argument. You ONLY compare it to strength or did I miss some other power in your post?

No I read it twice. and I quote you again. . .

"Stepping around the 'STR is underpriced' arguement . . ....yet TK costs 1½ times as much as STR."

Strength does not allow you to.
1. Block at range.
2. Avoid all grab penalties.
3.Use martial arts on a guy 200"away.
4. Attack through your own forcewall.
5. Hit the character in the car without hitting the car.
6. Choke the driver of a mech without the mech's defenses.
etc...

I stand by my original conclusion and thank you for your thoughts.
:)

[Tasha]

Originally posted by Keneton


Strength does not allow you to.
1. Block at range.
2. Avoid all grab penalties.
3.Use martial arts on a guy 200"away.
4. Attack through your own forcewall.
5. Hit the character in the car without hitting the car.
6. Choke the driver of a mech without the mech's defenses.
etc...

I stand by my original conclusion and thank you for your thoughts.
:)

1) P 137 FReD states that "Other than Grab and "punch" (Strike) a character cannot use TK to perform any other Combat Maneuvers. It does go on to state that at "GM's Option" that it is possible to use maneuvers that the character paid for (ie Martial Arts Maneuvers) So in many campaigns this wouldn't be true.

2) True

3) See #1 this is at GM's option only

4) True

5) Open to interpretation, but yes if the TK character can see the Driver of the car then they could be attacked through the windshield of the car

6) I would personally rule that this one is more of a suit of armor than a vehicle. It could also run into the can't see the pilot then can't use TK rule. Also see above again for using Maneuvers with TK

Tasha

[JmOz]

I'm Confused: Where does it say TK is indirect?

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by JmOz
I'm Confused: Where does it say TK is indirect?

The description of Telekinesis in FREd says that the Power is "inherently Indirect in some ways" (p. 147), although from the writeup it's hard to find an element of Indirect that TK doesn't have.

I do think that it's a bit misleading to require that "true" Psychokinesis have BOECV and Invisible Advantages to them. If you look at the depiction of psychokinetic abilities in books and movies, they don't all necessarily require BOECV. The implication is that it's an act of will, but there's often nothing to imply that Ego is the basis for targetting rather than Dexterity; these abilities are not usually shown working at any great distance from their user. The degree of Invisibility for psychokinesis is variable as well: there's often wind rising in the vicinity of the user, objects trembling all around him, a chill in the air, nearby animals freaking out, etc.

Telekinesis in HERO is essentially a game mechanic for Strength usable at range, and considering all the benefits that it provides I don't think that it's overpriced, even compared to normal Strength. Certain kinds of Psychokinesis may indeed be BOECV and Invisible, but in a game context that's a powerful ability, and IMHO having to buy Advantages to reflect that is fair and balanced.

As always YMMV. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by JmOz
I'm Confused: Where does it say TK is indirect?

Actually, in FREd, it says TK possesses some aspects of Indirect (eg. you can strike someone towards you rather than away from you, but you can't use it to avoid the target's personal defenses). It's not specifically indirect.

Perhaps a better answer would be to reduce the cost of TK and remove its indirect effects from the base power. You want Indirect, buy it as an advantage.

[Keneton]

Originally posted by Tasha
1) P 137 FReD states that "Other than Grab and "punch" (Strike) a character cannot use TK to perform any other Combat Maneuvers. It does go on to state that at "GM's Option" that it is possible to use maneuvers that the character paid for (ie Martial Arts Maneuvers) So in many campaigns this wouldn't be true.

2) True

3) See #1 this is at GM's option only

4) True

5) Open to interpretation, but yes if the TK character can see the Driver of the car then they could be attacked through the windshield of the car

6) I would personally rule that this one is more of a suit of armor than a vehicle. It could also run into the can't see the pilot then can't use TK rule. Also see above again for using Maneuvers with TK

Tasha

1. Grab includes a block element in Fred as in Grab and Block so I am still correct.

2. You already agreed.

3. Not open to interpration. The rules say you can. If you want to rule out this possibility as a GM go ahead, but you still can.

4. You agree.

5. You can and you do not have to see as the power is not a line of sight power. You can attack someone that you do not percieve with a targeting sense but with penalties. You could also target the inside of a car with an area TK without seeing inside.

6. Nit Picky. I said DRIVER. That implies a vehicle. If it were personal defense, the defense would apply. Obviously I meant a vehicle.

[Hugh Neilson]

BTW, sorry about the 15STR - there was another post close to yours which I confused it with.


Originally posted by Keneton
Question: What does action reaction have to do with Indirect?!
Answer: Nothing!

One is an advantage STR provides that TK does not. The other is an advantage TK provides that STR does not. The poster was comparing the two, so it seems valid to mention both.


Originally posted by Keneton
Question: Did I ever say Strength was not Constant.
Answer: No

You cited the fact that TK is constant (I can keep holding the guy as long as I want) as an advantage. The poster noted that you can also keep your grip with STR as long as you want.


Originally posted by Keneton
Yes you are correct that you can do these things with Strength. What is your point in comparing a power like TK to Strength when the rules PROHIBIT you from buying Strength at Range to simulate TK? You are only pointing out why Steve made it illegal!

As a strict point of order, Steve did not make STR at range illegal. he merely continued the rule from 4th Ed BBB. Other things from BBB, he did change. The game evolves, it gets played so it gets tested, and rules changes are made in new editions to reflect what we have learned may have been inappropriately priced.

4th Ed (or Steve) also set the cost of TK at 1.5x STR, and we're discussing the appropriateness of that cost. Really, a lot of threads on this board become moot if we take the position that FREd is deemed always to be the best, most appropriate way to do things. You yourself say "everyone knows STR is underpriced", but Steve/FREd set the cost of STR at 1 point - he made that legal! You clearly don't buy the "rules are always right" argument yourself, so I'll chalk it up to less than perfect phrasing (I'm sure I'll be guilty of that in my post!)


Originally posted by Keneton
You say to step around the cost but that is your whole argument. You ONLY compare it to strength or did I miss some other power in your post?

You pay for TK strength at 150% the cost of Strength. What should we compare it with, force field? TK is basically STR with range, which is why the issue of whether it can be purchased in that fashion is addressed by the rules in the first place.


Originally posted by Keneton
Strength does not allow you to.
1. Block at range.
2. Avoid all grab penalties.
3.Use martial arts on a guy 200"away.
4. Attack through your own forcewall.
5. Hit the character in the car without hitting the car.
6. Choke the driver of a mech without the mech's defenses.
etc...

1. Ummm...block works against HTH attacks directed at you. How does TK allow you to Block at range? The rules explicitly state that the only combat maneuvers usable with TK by default are Strike and Grab. Even Haymaker doesn't make the list, and you can do that with almost any attack power.

2. That's a nice extra to TK, for sure. It could be offset with levels if you wanted to use STR, but it's definiteky a TK advantage.

3. As noted previously, the rules limit your ability to use other combat maneuvers. Perhaps adding the ability to use any comat maneuver would help justify the high cost of TK, but presently this is not the rule. FREd also says, I believe, that use of the maneuvers may require the "Fine Manipulation" adder. STR comes with "fine work" built right in, with no skill roll required!

4. Debateable given TK possesses "aspects of Indirect", but I'd agree this is the default. Now, how many people use Force Wall is another question, but it makes TK a great choice for a character that does!

5. This one's muddy. TK doesn't allow you to ignore a target's defenses. This is mentioned as an exception to the "indirect" aspects, so that should go beyond the usual restrictions for Indirect. I'm inclined to assume the usual Indirect rules apply, and that the statement was solely for reinforcement of that concept.

6. I'd say the mech constitues the character's "personal defenses". A choke hold is not automatically permitted with telekinesis either. Finally, can you see the target well enough to hit him (in the neck unless this is a special maneuver).



Originally posted by Keneton
I stand by my original conclusion and thank you for your thoughts.
:)

Thank you for yours - you have shed a lot of light on the subject. I'm still not sure TK is appropriately priced, but the addition of Indirect as part of the base cost, something I had not considered, provides a lot more value than I had previously attributed. As noted previously, maybe the solution for those who feel it is overpriced would be to make it cost STR point for point, but make it Direct by default.

[Keneton]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Actually, in FREd, it says TK possesses some aspects of Indirect (eg. you can strike someone towards you rather than away from you, but you can't use it to avoid the target's personal defenses). It's not specifically indirect.


No indirect power lets you avoid personal defenses. As Lord Liaden points out it works like indirect. I cannot think of a good example of TK not being indirect.

Your suggestion on limiting the TK has some good merit for a price break of likely (-1/2).

:)

[JmOz]

On the indirect aspect of TK, I always considered it similar to streatching (another power that is only Psedo Indirect. Put simply you englobe a tk'd there screwed unless they have indirect, thus the reason for my question about indirect as it related to Force Wall (I tend to think of force walls as glbes...)

[Keneton]

Hugh:

I understand that we are basically in agreement and also note your points. I am well aware of what FRED says about TK, but I add the caveat of using UMA and the options allowed. You did not get a chance to read my reply to Tasha regarding Point1 as your post came almost simultaneously with mine!

My original post was prefaced with dont compare to strength for reasons already noted. Even if we did you would add ranged and indirect to the strength cost and still have more active points then it has now. True your REAL cost factoring in lims like no action reaction (-0), No figured (-1/2) and the cost breaks with PD, Stun and REC would be far less, but in power frameworks ACTIVE points rule.

I also pointed out his own objection to comparing to strength which he then did within 15 words.

The base power for most comparisons is the EB or 1 DC per 5 points. With this evaluation TK is priced just right. Is it the most efficient power? No. Is it overpriced? Again no.

Also Steve does specifically prohibit strength at range simulating TK. It is under the TK description in FRED. You are correct in stating that this was an evolution of the rules. You are also correct in statingthat I do not always agree with the rules!

On points 5 and 6 please read my post to Tasha. . . A car is not a personal defense and you can target the occupents. If you can place clairsentience there, you can attack there.

Thanks agin for your helpful response. You guys know how to make a guy think first and type second!
:D

[Keneton]

Originally posted by JmOz
On the indirect aspect of TK, I always considered it similar to streatching (another power that is only Psedo Indirect. Put simply you englobe a tk'd there screwed unless they have indirect, thus the reason for my question about indirect as it related to Force Wall (I tend to think of force walls as glbes...)

Not correct. You can attack out of forcewalls and or entangles with TK.
:)

[BobGreenwade]

(Watching steamroller speed by...)

[Stray Cat]

I've been reading this thread for a while. It's thoroughly enjoyable. I've had ideas for characters who had what our group calls "Cinematic TK," but always the active points kicked me to the curb. Lord Liaden's points about the invisibility of TK and ways around it has helped particularly.

My question for you guys is this: One of our players has a character whose power armor is constructed as a vehicle. Are we saying that TKs could squish him inside the armor? But not if he bought the DEF of the vehicle with the Personal limitation, right? I just want to be certain I'm understanding the rules and the general interpretation of them..

Cat

[Edited to correct grammar.]

[JmOz]

Originally posted by Keneton
Not correct. You can attack out of forcewalls and or entangles with TK.
:)

That would depend on the F/X: If my power is to create a Energy tether from my hands then it is conceivable being inside of a Force globe (Not just a wall) would stop it.

Thus the reason why it is only Psudo-indirect, if you want your TK to be able to work with out being able to draw a line (Even if the line bends a few times) to it in my games then you will need to by indirect for the power

[Keneton]

TK can bend around corners, move things around corners and act in every way as indirect. if I am entangled, say in hand cuffs it can bring me a key. If I am in a jail cell, it can drag the guard to me. If I am wrapped in spidermans webs or Dr. Stranges magic field, it can still work as long as I can activate the power.

Special effects have REAL value, yes, but TK Is Indirect, not pseudo indirect. Psiren, my character has a targeting mental sense. She can use her TK through walls at will. there is no straight line or line of sight required.

Jim, what makes you think otherwise. Where do you get pseudo indirect? I see where you are coming from but I dont see any evidence in the rules to support your contention.

If its just a house rule, cool! I have a ton of them. I just dont understand your abjection to moving things with your mind when entangled or behind a wall.


:)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Keneton
Jim, what makes you think otherwise. Where do you get pseudo indirect? I see where you are coming from but I dont see any evidence in the rules to support your contention.

The only thing I've seen in the rules is directly in TK, where it says TK is indirect in many ways, rather than simply stating itb to be indirect. Nothing in the FAQ addresses this, however. I posted a rules question earlier today, but Steve didn't provide much on the differences (although his answer implies they are extensive).

The discussion notes that this can't bypass personal defenses, but that's the same for all indirect attacks (as Steve reiterated on the rules board).

I'm inclined to say TK should be fully indirect, given its cost. Characters with an energy tether should then get a limitation for not getting this indirect ability. Maybe a better answer is to make TK cost equal the TK STR and remove the indirect effect (requiring advantages if you want "indirect TK").

[Keneton]

In true indirect the visible special effect may originate at a different point then the power source. With TK and visible, the power source is visible and is at one location even if the effect occurs simultaneously visible elsewhere.

This is the only thing that I can think of off hand. As noted above I see no other REAL difference bewteen the two.

It possibly ,according to interpretation could effect range calculations when a target is grabbed 10" away and thrown at another target 10" away, TK would count the second target range cumulatively. With indirect you could in all fairness calculate both at 10"

Even this is likely a hokey argument. For all normal purposes it is indeed indirect.

:)

[innominatus]

I'd argue that Telekinesis is EXACTLY the right price for what it does, and that TK's behaving like it has the +3/4 version of Indirect (any direction, no direct connection to source of power) should be the DEFAULT method of treating the power. This same argument came up in an old campaign I was in, where the GM and I were debating whether my TK could affect an object seen through a plate glass window, or if I would have to first smash out the window so I'd be able to extend an unobstructed "TK tether" between me and the object...

Consider: imagine you were trying to "reverse engineer" Telekinesis using other existing powers (yes, I know the book says you shouldn't do this; but follow my reasoning for the sake of argument). Buying Strength with the Advantage "Usable at Range (+1/2)" and the Limitation "Doesn't Affect Figured Characteristics (-1/2)" seems the obvious choice, but that means 1 point of TK STR should cost only 1 pt. Now granted, that's how it used to be in Editions 1-3, but now it's 1.5 pts. per pt. of STR, so clearly there's some other advantage to TK over STR Usable at Range.
However, if you add the Indirect Advantage to the mix, the formula works out to:
["X" pts. of STR x (1+1 1/4)] / (1+1/2)
Which means that it costs 1.5 pts. to buy 1 pt. of TK STR, which is exactly what's listed in the book.

Based on this logic, I allow TK in my campaign to behave automatically as a fully Indirect power. Of course, if a character WANTS to have to have an unobstructed "TK Tether" path in order to use his power, he's free to limit it in this way (and save the appropriate amount of points).

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by innominatus
Consider: imagine you were trying to "reverse engineer" Telekinesis using other existing powers (yes, I know the book says you shouldn't do this; but follow my reasoning for the sake of argument). Buying Strength with the Advantage "Usable at Range (+1/2)" and the Limitation "Doesn't Affect Figured Characteristics (-1/2)" seems the obvious choice, but that means 1 point of TK STR should cost only 1 pt. Now granted, that's how it used to be in Editions 1-3, but now it's 1.5 pts. per pt. of STR, so clearly there's some other advantage to TK over STR Usable at Range.
However, if you add the Indirect Advantage to the mix, the formula works out to:
["X" pts. of STR x (1+1 1/4)] / (1+1/2)
Which means that it costs 1.5 pts. to buy 1 pt. of TK STR, which is exactly what's listed in the book.


Thank you! Reverse engineering the power, to me anyway, is a highly appropriate way of assessing how it stacks up to other powers. If I can build it three ways, and they all give the same cost, it seems to me it's balanced.

Which only leaves me with whether to pull the "standard" indirect and reduce the base cost...:)

[eepjr24]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Thank you! Reverse engineering the power, to me anyway, is a highly appropriate way of assessing how it stacks up to other powers. If I can build it three ways, and they all give the same cost, it seems to me it's balanced.

Which only leaves me with whether to pull the "standard" indirect and reduce the base cost...:)

Or you could just leave it and have characters who don't want the indirect aspects apply a custom limitation "Not Indirect" for -1/2, giving you the exact same pricing. I realize the active cost will be a bit higher, but given the usefulness of high AP TK, I would be okay with that.

As always, YMMV.

- Ernie

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by eepjr24
Or you could just leave it and have characters who don't want the indirect aspects apply a custom limitation "Not Indirect" for -1/2, giving you the exact same pricing. I realize the active cost will be a bit higher, but given the usefulness of high AP TK, I would be okay with that.

As I said, need to decide. Considering TK gives the effect of an EB (Strike) and a modified Entangle (Grab), I'm inclined to agree the higher AP isn't that big a deal. It provides a meaningful constraint only in a power framework (or if you enforce AP limits strictly).

[Lord Liaden]

A little while ago I posted a question to Steve asking what advantages to Indirect would not be granted by Telekinesis as a default. Off the top of his head, he couldn't come up with any ;) :

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4843&highlight=indirect+telekinesis

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden
A little while ago I posted a question to Steve asking what advantages to Indirect would not be granted by Telekinesis as a default. Off the top of his head, he couldn't come up with any ;) :

Thanks for the link. On mine, he said he lackewd the timew to provide all the details. Looks like a good candidate for future FAQ update!