TK for Champions 3rd Ed.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hello all,

 

I have a quick and perhaps odd question. I was poking around 3rd Ed and it comes to Telekinesis. My reading of it seems that TK could not be used to “Punch” any one besides the listed prohibition of no squeezing the target. Am I reading that right? Or am I reading into it? Or has that always been a grey area of those edition rules. 
 

Anyways thanks in advance

[Duke Bushido]

It's the rule.  If you want to punch someone, that is not TK.  That is a PD Energy Blast.  "Telekinetic punch" is the SFX for the blast.

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

14 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

It's the rule.  If you want to punch someone, that is not TK.  That is a PD Energy Blast.  "Telekinetic punch" is the SFX for the blast.

 

 

Ok, thought so because when I saw sample idea for EC in 4th, they listed under TK the same thing-EB as TK punch.

 

Thanks again.

[Duke Bushido]

Any time; the old stuff is really the only place I _can_ help, rules-wise,   

 

Juat for kicks, though:  is it not that way any longer?  Dont get me wrong: I have always allowed TK to be built as X STR: Ranged, which alowed essentially doing anything you normally xould do with X STR, but at Range.  

 

anyway, does 6e build an EB into TK the way 5e built a ln Hth attack into size powers?

[DreadDomain]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

anyway, does 6e build an EB into TK the way 5e built a ln Hth attack into size powers?

I was curious because I far as I can remember, we always used TK as "STR at range" and I wondered if it was our house rule. I looked into 6E and it says:

 

"USING TELEKINESIS Except where noted otherwise, a character can use Telekinetic STR any way he could use normal STR — it can pick things up, Grab characters, “squeeze” something, throw things (the same distance a character with that amount of STR could throw the object with a “Running Throw”; see 6E2 81), or “punch” an opponent."

 

The text is almost identical in 4E, 5E and 5ER. The punch effect has been RAW for a long time!!!

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

1 hour ago, DreadDomain said:

I was curious because I far as I can remember, we always used TK as "STR at range" and I wondered if it was our house rule. I looked into 6E and it says:

 

"USING TELEKINESIS Except where noted otherwise, a character can use Telekinetic STR any way he could use normal STR — it can pick things up, Grab characters, “squeeze” something, throw things (the same distance a character with that amount of STR could throw the object with a “Running Throw”; see 6E2 81), or “punch” an opponent."

 

The text is almost identical in 4E, 5E and 5ER. The punch effect has been RAW for a long time!!!

 

 

 

 

It has.  I recall noting the change when my original GM got the 4e book.  None of us liked it, simply because it kind of flew in the face of separating SFX from mechanics: if you already have a mechanic for doing damage at range, then you use that mechanic; you don't need to create a new mechanic that does that thing _plus_ some other thing.

 

Disclaimer:

 

I don't mean this to be any kind of malicious, hateful, insulting, snide, purist or anything else:  it is stating a personal opinion.  Like all opinions, it's based on perceived facts, but filtered through personal experience and emotion.  That being said:

 

It's why I don't like the Long editions.  While on the one hand there is splitting out some things that I agree-- one mechanic should do one thing, period-- but then turns around and folds different things together: the exact opposite thing.  Like "Growth Momentum" (used only as a well-discussed, and therefore well-known, example; as before: no malice.)   I recognize that a lot of folks believe that a lot of problems were resolved (and the changes to Characteristics in 6e really did fix a lot of problems; even a curmudgeon like me can see that), the end result-- again, _in my opinion_, period-- is that the mechanics problems ultimately weren't solved; they were just rearranged and shuffled.

 

Second disclaimer: I don't say that to start a discussion about the changes; that's just going to lead to an argument, hurt feelings, etc.  Right now, I'm the only guy at risk because I'm the only guy who has posted an unpopular opinion.  As a person who has endured a suspension or two, I highly encourage anyone thinking about turning this into a discussion to re-think it until it doesn't seem like a good idea anymore.  I said it for one purpose:  to explain this next statement:

 

I really think that some of the minor changes in 4e and the increasingly larger ones in the subsequent editions have made learning the system more difficult for the new player simply by maintaining the idea of the SFX / mechanics split while increasingly blurring the lines between what is a mechanic and what is a special effect.  I selected Growth Momentum simply because this idea being folded into part of Growth or Shrinking _mandates_ a special effect whereby a Character grows-- physically goes through a process of increasing enlargement, and does so at such a rate as to inflict physical damage caused by the kinetic speed imparted to his outer surface.

 

Yes:  You can take a Limitation: No Growth Momentum, which removes this aspect.  However, it doesn't change the fact that there is a default SFX assigned to this power as of 5e.  The power is Growth; the mechanic is "becomes bigger," and there are a few Characteristics necessary to support the increased size, etc.

 

I have had four Growth characters over the years (I tend to go all-in on Growth, making those characters grossly overpowered, if only briefly, so I don't do them often).  None of them have had this effect.  Tree was a plant / man (actually an homage to the Thing, but everyone assumed "Swamp Thing" because "Tree."  His Growth power was literally walking into a tree.  He would merge with it and it would form itself to a larger version of him.  He shrank back down the same way: he would re-root the tree (or trees) he was bonded with, then simply walk back out of the last one.

 

Fakir was a mystic (whose secret ID was a con-man fake mystic at an amusement park.  Yeah; for some reason, I thought that was a great idea thirty-odd years ago).  His Growth was summoning an astral version of himself-- essentially his spiritual strength made physical, a man inside, for lack of a better word, a gigantic "suit of armor" made entirely of his aura.  To un-Grow (sorry), he simply dispelled the the physical aspect of his aura.

 

Fracture was a multi-dimensional alien being whose Growth was simply unfolding himself-- twisting and turning those aspects of himself that were in higher dimensions until they were three dimensional, which caused them to fold out of his many dimensional creases (looking at him was like looking into a mirror with several cracks:  there was a guy there, but none of his bits fit together just right, and when he moved, people got queasy).  He didn't have any way to grow fist-first; he didn't even get bigger per se; he just shifted more of himself to the place it was needed.

 

Feral (yes: the one from the youth campaign: the kids started the game with old characters from a campaign in the 80s) has Growth, but the SFX there is becoming a large animal.  It's not really American Werewolf in London style, bones cracking and stretching, etc, so much as he rushes forward, becoming briefly amorphous and re-solidifying in the chose shape. 

 

I had a Shrinking character once, way back when.  He had the "Growth Momentum" punch.  It was bought as extra dice of damage and labeled "Grow-Up Punch."  It wasn't just assumed to be folded into Growth or Shrinking because that would imply a specific Special Effect as being the "acceptable" or "Desirable" effect over all others, and that just flew in the face of SFX =/= mechanic; mechanic =/= SFX.

 

 

I am terribly sorry.....

 

I no longer know where I was going with this-- the flood of memories, you see.  Sorry about that.  😕

 

At any rate, it's something I've wanted to get off of my chest since 4e.....

 

Thank you for your patience.

 

 

:oops:

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

No problems Duke! I’m shocked that you got a suspension!

 

Btw, Elemental Control came in handy. I’ll have to post Twister up at some point.

[Duke Bushido]

Dude!

 

I _love_ ECs!    They got a bad wrap over the years as being super-gimme (and honestly, in 4e, they may have; I really don't remember as I haven't done much in 4e save Sci-Fi and Western over the years.  Not a lot of EC opportunities there), but if you really pay attention the costing and the rules on minimums, overflows, etc-- it works out that you are not getting the same discount you could get with a multipower, but you get a broader utility.  Frankly, that seems reasonable to me. 

 

[DreadDomain]

5 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

It has.  I recall noting the change when my original GM got the 4e book.  None of us liked it, simply because it kind of flew in the face of separating SFX from mechanics: if you already have a mechanic for doing damage at range, then you use that mechanic; you don't need to create a new mechanic that does that thing _plus_ some other thing.

 

Champions has always been in this strange zone where the basic idea is to reason for effect but it is not deconstructed enough to really work that way. Many powers come with a name that conveys a lot of pre-conceived ideas. Think of Flight, Running, Tunneling or even to a lesser degree Teleport or Telekinesis. They all come with some baggage that makes people intuitively assume they work in a certain way. If I want to build The Flash, I naturally go to buy a truck load of Running... to find out that what I need is Flight and/or Teleport with a bunch of advantages and limitations on top of them... I want to run fast but I am NOT going to buy Running... ok... Oh, and I want to run really fast when out of combat so let's buy several levels of Non-Combat Movement. Wrong again, you need to buy MegaScale as an advantage. But wait, don't just add the advantage on your Running Flight Power, that's not cost effective. Just create a second power with only 1 meter of Running Flight and then scale up the MegaScale advantage on it.  So I want a lot of Non-Combat Movement but I am NOT going to increase Non-Combat Movement... uh...ok.

 

All that to say that since the system has never been super consistent on how powers are built from effect and since I always saw TK as STR projected at range by the power of the mind, I never thought a TK punch was out of place within the context of how much TK cost per +1 STR. Now it doesn't have to be that way. TK is one on those powers doing what it is suppose to do (and by that I am mean the mechanics seems to align with the name) but damage does not have to be part of it (what is TK really?). But if it's not, I believe the cost needs to be adjusted.

 

Apologies if it came off a bit rantish.

[Ninja-Bear]

@DreadDomain don’t worry about it. I started with Hero at 4th so I was already in the TK is basically STR at Range. Like I said I was plucking around 3rd and when I read TK I was hmmm is that what they mean? I’m sure that TK was house ruled a bunch to allow a Punch in 3rd.  So for the character I’m writing up, I wonder if it’s really being munchkin to have both a EC and an MP. 

[Ninja-Bear]

11 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Dude!

 

I _love_ ECs!    They got a bad wrap over the years as being super-gimme (and honestly, in 4e, they may have; I really don't remember as I haven't done much in 4e save Sci-Fi and Western over the years.  Not a lot of EC opportunities there), but if you really pay attention the costing and the rules on minimums, overflows, etc-- it works out that you are not getting the same discount you could get with a multipower, but you get a broader utility.  Frankly, that seems reasonable to me. 

 

What I’ve done though using EC is to make sure that I’m keeping to concept rather than take advantage of any bonuses. For example, the character I’m working on has several Powers that are only 20 pts so the EC is 10 pts. I have both TK and EB at 50 pts. So I’m not increasing the 20 pts just to take advantage of any bonuses if I made all the powers 50 pts.

[Duke Bushido]

7 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

 

Champions has always been in this strange zone where the basic idea is to reason for effect but it is not deconstructed enough to really work that way. Many powers come with a name that conveys a lot of pre-conceived ideas. Think of Flight, Running, Tunneling 

 

I am sticking with my "I have no intention of creating any sort of backhanded insult toward any edition or any author" stance of earlier, and my "I am not calling out any change as a good / bad idea" position as well.  

 

Now that we know that, I want to say that I love your choice of Tunneling as an example, because this one has been _the_ glaring example of muddying the distinction between SFX and mechanics since the very first edition.  4e _kind_ of solved it, but in what will most likely be seen by new players as a nonsensical way.

 

I don't know if you have any early rules editions or not, but take _any_ edition and look at Tunneling:  It's a Movement Power that allows movement on a ratio of distance to density.  That is, you can move X inches through Y DEF of material (DEF may have been changed to BODY later on; I can't recall, and I'm out of town and working from a phone, so I can't run to the book shelf right now).   IF you can move 10" through 5 DEF, then you can move 5" through 10 DEF, or 50" through 1 DEF; you see how that goes. 

 

That's fine.   That's a perfectly workable mechanic.

 

Then you have the "leaves no tunnel" option.

 

That's Desolidification.  You walked through solid matter, and popped out with no hole.  The rules don't state that it's obvious where you popped out of the cliff face, or that you have disturbed the matter through which you walked in any way, so you have passed through solid matter with your Movement Power and left it completely unchanged in the process.

 

In the early editions, swap out "DEF" for "BODY," and boom-- that's Desolidification.

 

To the Players over the years that give me "but-but-but-but---  he has to dig the tunnel and fill it back in behind him..."  I say "No; he does not _have_ to do that.  The mechanic is movement through solid matter.  To assume he is digging is to assume a special effect for that movement.  He may stretch into an infinite noodle and thread his way between the molecules for all we know.  That would be a possible SFX, and totally up to the Player to decide."   But once you determine that he leaves no hole, you are in Desolidification country.......

 

The mechanical difference is DEF versus BODY (for what it's worth, if you allow both Desolid and Tunneling: no tunnel, that really is the only difference), period.  Easier to say "Tunneling leaves a hole, period" and allow Players to determine if their Desolid works versus DEF or BODY, or to pick one as Mandatory.  Or....   Decide they _both_ work versus the same one, and the difference is the Tunnel, period.  Then you don't really need a separate mechanic, though, do you?  You make the hole optional.....

 

Eventually, you arrive at the 4e decision, where Desolid stops being a movement power and becomes "invincible with exceptions" to grandfather in the need for "affects desolid" and "affects solid."  You have to provide your own movement, though.

 

As you say, though:  the name _implies_ certain things to new players, meaning that I may be the only person on earth who uses Tunneling for "desolidification with difficulty passing through dense matter."  I say that based on the number of times "porous" or "gelatinous" power builds have been posted to this very board with the goal of "solving" the problem of "how do I create a Power that allows me to slip through a chainlink fence but not walk through solid walls?"

 

Tunneling.  Tunneling is how you do that.  The finer the hole, the more mass exists around and between the holes, right?  Buy Tunneling with a relatively low amount of DEF (or BODY, depending on what's been changed or hasn't been changed via official or house rules) through which you can "Tunnel."   You can easily pass through a chainlink fence, but it's going to be a lot harder to pass through a shadowbox fence or a drainpipe.  (remember the infinite noodle SFX?  It's viable if you don't start thinking in terms of shovels or scoop-like clawed hands because the name is "tunneling.")

 

No; I'm not going anywhere with that.  I just wanted to be reasonably balanced with my comments, being as how I was quite sincere that it was not my intent to bash the Long Editions in any way whatsoever:  While he rearranged the problem, and may or may not have exacerbated it in places, he most emphatically did _not_ create the problem all by himself, and I thank you for the opportunity to address that in a fair and objective way.

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

 

 

 

 

or even to a lesser degree Teleport or Telekinesis. They all come with some baggage that makes people intuitively assume they work in a certain way. If I want to build The Flash, I naturally go to buy a truck load of Running... to find out that what I need is Flight and/or Teleport with a bunch of advantages and limitations on top of them...

 

Totally get it: the name implies things; there is zero argument from me there.  

 

Considering what I have seen of the Flash in the scant handful of comics my son has read over the years (I bought them comics when they were kids because hey: _I_ am not a comic guy (and am most _certainly_ not a "let's watch a bunch of grown men chase a ball!" guy, either), it was important to me not to make up their minds for them: let them try this stuff, and if it sticks, great.  If it doesn't, also great), were I to attempt to build the Flash, I would go straight to "Teleport."    I mean, the one thing that sticks out to me from the few I've read is an issue where (and comic book guys, feel free to correct me if I am wrong here) the Flash raced-- on foot, mind you-- raced ACROSS THE FREAKIN' UNIVERSE against an honest-to-God teleporter and _won_!

 

Caveat:  Comic book guys, correct me if I am wrong.  Do not bother correcting me with random nitpicks about how or why this did or didn't work because of this or that, because I absolutely do not care.  Correct me if I misunderstood "raced across the universe on foot and beat a teleporter."   That is the core statement here.

 

 

The only way I can think of to do that is to have teleport, period.

 

Which comes to another problem, mechanically:

 

Why is instant teleportation slower than any other form of movement?

 

 

Running:  Extra speed with your feet.

 

Flight: all-new ability for the human body; grants truly 3-dimensional movement with no barriers present.

 

Teleport: wink out of existence in one place and reappear in another.

 

50" running:  run 25" in half phase.

50" Flight run 25" in half phase.

50" teleport: pop 25" in half phase

 

All of these do 50" in a full phase, too.

 

T-port is, without adding limitations, instant.

 

But if the above want to make full-moves, the T-port isn't quite as instant as it was.   if the T-port guy only has 25", it's going to take him (assuming the same SPD) _twice as long_ as the other two guys move 25."

 

Now perhaps I am just assuming an SFX:  just assuming that "instant" is a requirement for Teleport.  I'm not immune to shaping my interpretations based on previous experience; I never claimed to be immune to it.  I do, because of my love of this game, try to be very cognizant of what I think and why when creating things for this game (neat, hunh?  I developed better science skills from a recreational activity than I ever learned in school!   ), but I am not immune to the sort of missteps that lead to things like "Growth means Growth Momentum" any more than is anyone else.

 

To address that, let me add this:  the rules don't specifically state (at least not up to 3e) that T-port is instant.  They also mention "preparing a half-phase for longer transits" or words to that effect (again: not at home; not near the bookshelf, and really, _really_ tired of proofing this for typos-- what can I say?   I don't usually have this kind of time when I'm working from a phone    )  So it seems that I may well be reading something into that, doesn't it?  (full disclosure:  I realized this _decades_ ago, but like Tunneling/ Desolid, it's a beautiful example to work with).  Still, I had a certain expectation, and Players had a certain expectation, so this particular one, I _did_ address:  I have a house rule that says Teleporters "land" first.  It happens without regard for DEX or SPD (though their next actions, etc, are still subject to them).

 

Briefly: 

 

T-porter says "I teleport to the top of that piece of equipment over there!" and poof-- he moves to that location.  If it's a half-move, he still has a half-phase, but he can't use it until all other movement is resolved.  if it's a full move, he still moves there, instantly, before all non-t-port movement is resolved, and while he has no other action until his next Phase, he is still sitting there for second half-phase, during which he can be shot at, or what-have you.

 

Effectively, it has zero affect on the game (save once in a while making a teleporter easier or harder to target owing to distance modifiers, of course), but it solves a problem of _feel_ that we have.  An erroneous problem, to be sure, as nothing in the rules says T-port is instant (unless it does now), but one of, as you note, reading too much into the power because of the name.

 

See?  I am not going to pretend to be the perfect rules lawyer for the old stuff, either!   

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

All that to say that since the system has never been super consistent on how powers are built from effect and since I always saw TK as STR projected at range by the power of the mind, I never thought a TK punch was out of place within the context of how much TK cost per +1 STR. Now it doesn't have to be that way. TK is one on those powers doing what it is suppose to do (and by that I am mean the mechanics seems to align with the name) but damage does not have to be part of it (what is TK really?). But if it's not, I believe the cost needs to be adjusted.

 

I have advocated for either of these options over the years:

 

1) TK should, by default, move things at a distance, period. Everything else has an existing mechanic:

 

Grab at distance: Entangle

Punch:  Energy Blast

Throw: any sort of increased KB ability (caveat: I also argue for more than one doubling of increased KB)

Squeeze: Well, that's really another sort of blast, or some sort of lethal entangle

 

You can keep running down the list, and except for move things at a distance, there is nothing unique to TK.

 

 

2) TK should be priced by default as STR: Ranged.

 

Using TK against more than 2 targets should require "extra limbs."

Anything you can do with STR you can do with TK: it _is_ STR.

 

 

Either of these options would make me much happier with TK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

 

Apologies if it came off a bit rantish.