TK vs Indirect EB

[JohnTaber]

Hi Folks,

 

Help me figure out what I am missing...

 

For 50 STR of TK it costs 75 points.

For a 10d6 EB Fully Indirect it costs 87 points.

 

What am I missing? TK is fully indirect and you can punch with it... Should TK be more expensive???

[Blue]

Good question. Hmm. I can't remember, does TK automatically do Knockback? I mean, I know you can throw someone with it but that's not exactly the same.

[pinecone]

Ummm...no rule book handy ...but I thought that TK was partially indirect...not fully indirect, does this change the numbers enough to get a closer match?

[JohnTaber]

Why is TK not fully indirect? I thought it was???

[Gary]

Re: TK vs Indirect EB

 

Originally posted by JohnTaber

Hi Folks,

 

Help me figure out what I am missing...

 

For 50 STR of TK it costs 75 points.

For a 10d6 EB Fully Indirect it costs 87 points.

 

What am I missing? TK is fully indirect and you can punch with it... Should TK be more expensive???

 

Having a high base cost makes a difference when adding other advantages.

 

50 STR area effect TK costs 150 pts.

10D6 EB Fully Indirect area effect costs 137 pts.

 

It's a even bigger discrepancy when you apply more advantages.

[JohnTaber]

Hi Gary: Sure. It still doesn't help the initial question though...

 

I guess maybe I should post it to Steve to ask if there is an oversight or something??? It might just be..."Change it in your own game if you don't like it."

[NuSoardGraphite]

I don't ever recall TK being stated as fully indirect. The text always stated that TK had some indirect ability inherent within the power, but it never says how much. That is probably up to each individual GM.

 

The reason why TK isn't more expensive is because at 1.5pts per point of STR, its already fairly expensive (God forbid you start throwing advantages on it!) and it would be much less attractive at a higher cost...and TK is one of the most common abilities among Superhero and Sci/fi mentalists.

 

If you were to price TK correctly (including the fully indirect advantage) it would cost thus:

 

STR 1pt per +1 STR:

Ranged (+1/2)

Indirect (+3/4)

 

10 STR TK costs 22.5pts.

+1 STR for 2.25pts

 

For 20 STR TK is 45pts.

 

For 45pts you can barely keep ahold of a strong normal. Any Martial Artist worth his salt will break that in a phase or two. A Brick will shrug it off with casual STR.

 

Too costly if you ask me.

 

1.5pts per 1pt of STR is just right.

 

Then again, I'm kind of biased, as TK is one of my favorite abilities.

[Intrope]

Actually, 10 TK would be:

 

10 STR

Ranged (+1/2)

Indirect (+3/4)

No Figured Chars (-1/2)

 

Which works out to be...15 points, for that 2:3 ratio.

 

On the other hand, if you let people buy this with AoE, it actually becomes too cheap: only 108 pts!

[Lord Liaden]

I looked over the desciption of the Indirect elements of Telekinesis vs. the Indirect Advantage in FREd, and could find little practical difference between them. It is unclear, though, whether or not it must be obvious that the TK is originating from the character, i.e. having some continuous visible effect emanating from the character directly to the point of effect.

 

I do think that the interaction with other Advantages is the key to balancing the effects. For ex, the 10D6 EB Fully Indirect costs 87 pts. and uses 9 END. TK STR 50 costs 75 pts. and uses 7 END. But buying both to 1/2 END use would raise the EB to 100 pts. and 4 END, and the TK to 94 pts. and 4 END.

 

I do want to think about it more, though.

[BobGreenwade]

All of this is a large part of the reason I tried to lobby for the removal of the damaging aspect of TK when 5th Edition was under development. I very strongly preferred having a straight 1:1 cost, with no punch/squeeze aspect (let TK punch and squeeze be bought with Energy Blast).

 

(Am I remembering wrong that 3rd and earlier editions handled TK in more or less the same manner?)

 

If and when there's a Sixth Edition, maybe we can all gang up on Steve for that.

[Crimson Arrow]

I go along with the analysis NuSoardGraphite's provided (although Intrope has got the calculation more accurate).

 

TK is expensive to buy with advantages, due to the high base cost. Consider also that TK is classically (if not in comics) Invisible to Sight Group. I had a mentalist character in 4th Ed who had Psychokinesis and once TK had been bought Invisible and with Fine Manipulation, I think I could only manage 20 STR. It might have been less than that and don't even ask about the END cost for this most mighty of powers! Even having an extra 100 character points to play with wouldn't get round active point caps.

 

Taking away all damaging capabilities seems a bit much, but I'd never thought of this as a way to reduce the base cost. It seems a little off-kilter to me. Perhaps you could squeeze for damage on the phase after the grab (a little like the Crush move from UMA), but no TK punches. Flat out removing the ability to squeeze seems a little illogical, especially as, if you bought this as an EB, you would have to consider making it Continuous, to reflect the fact that once someone is grabbed, they continue to take damage, until they break free.

 

As a further alternative, how about making "Does Damage" and Advantage for TK (+1/2?), so you can lower the base cost, but still do the usual comic-book stuff without buying a separate power, if you want? I'd still keep the post-grab squeeze, though.

 

Lord Liaden, isn't the END cost for the 1/2 END TK, 3 (half of 7 is 3.5 and rounds down to 3)? I thought you looked at the rounded down cost of the END (7) and then halved it, rather than the unrounded cost (7.5). However, you're usually right, so apologies if I've called this wrong. If it is 3 END, then it looks a little worse, although...

 

I agree that the explanation of how Indirect TK is leaves a bit of doubt. However, there is definitely an implication that TK might not have the full Indirect Advantage (without really explaining how it does not!).

 

Your question about the source remaining visible is a good one. This simulates the "Green Lantern" effect, but how many times has a GL simply encased a target in a bubble? The energy shell remains visible, but it does not emanate from the ring. It could be Flight UAO, or somesuch, I suppose.

 

There are other things you can do with an EB, such as Spreading the attack, Bouncing, and even pushing buttons, which you can't do with TK (you can do the last, but only with FIne Manipulation added).

[BobGreenwade]

TK alternatives

 

Originally posted by Crimson Arrow

Taking away all damaging capabilities seems a bit much, but I'd never thought of this as a way to reduce the base cost. It seems a little off-kilter to me. Perhaps you could squeeze for damage on the phase after the grab (a little like the Crush move from UMA), but no TK punches. Flat out removing the ability to squeeze seems a little illogical, especially as, if you bought this as an EB, you would have to consider making it Continuous, to reflect the fact that once someone is grabbed, they continue to take damage, until they break free.

 

As a further alternative, how about making "Does Damage" and Advantage for TK (+1/2?), so you can lower the base cost, but still do the usual comic-book stuff without buying a separate power, if you want? I'd still keep the post-grab squeeze, though.

I certainly could live with this (either alternative).

[JohnTaber]

Great replies folks!

 

Here are some comments...

 

Re: Why is TK not fully indirect? According to the text in TK and the text in Indirect they can do exactly the same thing as far as I can tell. Maybe if they were not the same I could get the difference in cost...

 

Re: Source of the power. Same applies to both Indirect and TK. The way I understand it you still know the source unless you buy the Invis Power Effects advantage.

 

Re: TK and striking with it. I agree with Bob. Granted I am an old school Hero gamer but I really think that is the crux of the issue. If you get rid of this ability even if you keep the squeezing it might help balance everything out.

 

Re: Cost of TK being too high. I disagree that the cost of TK is currently too high. If anything I would argue that it might be too low. I am running a 350 pt superhero game with the attacks centering around 60 to 80 active points. The PC with 50 STR TK (75 active points) as his only "weapon" is easily the most flexible PC in the bunch. The only reason it does not get completely abusive is that I have a kick fanny player holding his reins who won't abuse it. If he was abusive he could just grab any PC with less than 50 STR and eliminate them. One per phase could be removed as long as his END holds out. Mentalist get a face full of dirt so they can't see, EB get shoved into trash cans or under cars, martial artists just get squeezed until they pop... TK is VERY effective.

 

Anywho...nice discussion folks...

[Crimson Arrow]

Originally posted by JohnTaber

Re: Why is TK not fully indirect? According to the text in TK and the text in Indirect they can do exactly the same thing as far as I can tell. Maybe if they were not the same I could get the difference in cost...

 

Re: Source of the power. Same applies to both Indirect and TK. The way I understand it you still know the source unless you buy the Invis Power Effects advantage.

 

Well, Lord Liaden and I have posted questions about these and, in summary, both of these comments are spot on.

[Tech]

As I understood it, TK is fully indirect. Regardless of whether it is or not, I use a houserule and go with it not being indirect and the cost is 1 per 1 pt.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Originally posted by Intrope

Actually, 10 TK would be:

 

10 STR

Ranged (+1/2)

Indirect (+3/4)

No Figured Chars (-1/2)

 

Which works out to be...15 points, for that 2:3 ratio.

 

On the other hand, if you let people buy this with AoE, it actually becomes too cheap: only 108 pts!

 

Ooh, ooh! I forgot No Figured Characteristics! Doh...its even more expensive than I figured.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by Crimson Arrow

Lord Liaden, isn't the END cost for the 1/2 END TK, 3 (half of 7 is 3.5 and rounds down to 3)? I thought you looked at the rounded down cost of the END (7) and then halved it, rather than the unrounded cost (7.5). However, you're usually right, so apologies if I've called this wrong. If it is 3 END, then it looks a little worse, although...

 

 

Well, by strict reading of the description of the Reduced Endurance Advantage, that first +1/4 will cause the Power to use 1 END per 20 Active Points, rather than per 10 as normal, not just halve the normal END usage. That would move the break point for rounding from every 5 AP to every 10. So, if the Power that Reduced END were applied to had been 70 AP, the END use would have been reduced to 3; but since it was over the break point at 75 AP, the END use is reduced to 4. Most of the published 5E characters that I've seen appear to be consistent with that thesis, but there's nothing in the FAQ about it specifically.

 

But please, don't assume that I'm usually right; if nothing else that would put you at odds with several of my friends and almost all of my family.

[pinecone]

Hmmm...still no rule book handy but I have considered Fully indirect to be "I'll fry anybody behind that wall"...I don't think I would go for "I'll grab anyone behind that wall"....I have considered TK to be sort of like streaching,having some indirect functions,but not all...but that is Me , not the rule book ...I can quite possably be wrong...

[Crimson Arrow]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

Well, by strict reading of the description of the Reduced Endurance Advantage, that first +1/4 will cause the Power to use 1 END per 20 Active Points, rather than per 10 as normal, not just halve the normal END usage.

 

Yes, you're right, of course. I just went "half of 7 is 3.5, rounds down to 3, surely", instead of actually applying the Advantage to the power at the start. I was in too much of a hurry to get my other ideas down.

 

In response to John Taber's comments that TK is too expensive, I've been thinking about thise. 50 STR TK could be used effectively against characters as he described, but...

 

Not if there is a team acting like a team (ie they don't just pair off with the opposition).

 

Not if the opposing character hits the TK user first and takes him out. This could just be higher DEX, not even higher SPD.

 

Not if the TK user fails the attack roll to grab the opponent.

 

I am not trying to pick holes in JohnTaber's argument (which is pretty sound) and everyone knows that there is a way to take out any given tactic in HERO system (one of its many advantages). Hence I have left out a whole host of other options (eg invisible foes, desolid ones, Indirect EBs that travel round the car etc.). I was trying to show ways that the tactic is not foolproof when facing just about anyone. Of course you could have a character with lots of levels just with TK and lots of resistant and special defences, but not many GMs are going to fall for that (I hope).

 

Anyone else got thoughts on whether TK is over-priced or too cheap?

[JohnTaber]

Hi Crimson Arrow,

 

Of course you could have a character with lots of levels just with TK and lots of resistant and special defences, but not many GMs are going to fall for that (I hope).

 

Um...guilty.

 

The PC in my game is called Survivor. He has just about every special defense AND power absorption on energy AND physical attacks that feed his defenses. Luckily he does not have a lot of levels. I'm aso fortunate that as I describe the player is NOT abusive with it. In fact, he might be the best player I have in this particular regard...

 

Thanks for the GREAT comments!