Telekinesis overpriced?

[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

[Guest 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").

[Guest 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.

 

[Guest 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!