Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Follow-up doesn't care about damage. So if a miss is a miss, everything's OK. If a miss is actually 'hit for 0 damage', then the follow-up should kick in.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

No, Sean isn't an idiot and he didn't write any such silliness into the rules.
B112's Innate Attack talks about the normal 1-2 yard hit, and while we can ignore the minor issue of the -1 penalty for the 3-4 yard reach, it does not speak to the significant issue of when it comes to a 10 yard or 100 yard melee attack which the rules expressly do not address, at all.

Now, you personally may like playing in silly settings where there are no differences between striking at 1 yard vs 10 yards vs 100 yards with a melee strike, but the rest of us who use GURPS like its realistic verisimilitude and don't misread rules to create inane silliness like that.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

I didn't include hits for 0 damage, because those can still have effects like you said. The event "failed to strike the target with enough force to inflict 0 or more points of damage" includes the narrower case of "failed to strike the target with enough force to inflict 0 points of damage".

Thanks for telling me that, Dad, but I'm afraid you misread what I wrote, as well.

There can indeed be physical contact not suitable for transmitting a Deathtouch, as detailed on p. 11 of MAGIC under Melee Spells. There are other insufficient contact situations covered by failed attack rolls rather than active defenses, but it might take me some time to locate the citeable references for them. How long can I expect it to take you to post the cite for your ""the reason we roll to hit is because you're assumed to be defending" assertion?

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

If you can find a reference to a melee attack's range instead of its reach, that would be more persuasive to me.


Innate Attack is not mentioned on that page of my copy.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

That's a gameable assertion, not a rules quote, if you're simply going to stand there like a statue, then no die roll is necessary to hit you unless the attacker is unskilled and crippled, since the TDM would be over +10 and an automatic hit is guaranteed.
No die roll required +100% = +10 bonus.

Of course if you're running a silly setting then you'd have them roll anyway in order to see if a crit failure happens and silliness can ensue.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

That's because the RAW is silent on melee attacks with range, it only talks about reach of 1 to 4.

I wish you'd be helpful about this sort of thing and help us clarify an area where the RAW is silent, instead of wasting your time telling us that the RAW is actively cartoon wacky on the issue, because no one is buying that the game is purposefully written to be stupid.

*sigh* yes that was a mistype, I meant Melee Attack, not Innate Attack.
*rolls eyes*

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

RAW talks about SM>0 giving extra Reach to Mêlée attacks (up to pretty long ones, too). Doesn't mention giving extra penalties, though.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

So an 1d-2 attack rolling 1 is not eligible to have its Follow-up work normally? Sorry, not buying it. Damage is damage, hit is hit. We've got rid of PD for a reason.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Actually, your ruling would result in two really large giants being unable to hit each other with their fists at full arm extension, since you'd treat their 10 yard + Reach as range. Not buying it.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Ummm, perhaps a reference to the text under the size/speed range table might shed some light on this argument, since referring to ranged and melee combat specificly doesn't seem to be leading anywhere.

The page of the size speed range table begins with this text:
"The main use for this table is ranged combat, but the GM can
also use it for Sense rolls and other success rolls that size, speed,
or range might believably affect."

So it explicitly outlines ranged combat as being the purpose for the table. This suggests that ranged combat, and melee combat are different in the eyes of the rules for the purposes of using the size, speed, and range table. It also adds that the GM can use it for Sense and other success rolls that size, speed or range might believable affect. So in this case, it's GM's discretion.

Text further down states this:
"Note that there is no modifier at ranges of 2 yards or less –
shooting a close target is no easier (and no harder) than attacking
it in melee combat!"

This text suggests that attacking in melee combat is equally easy/hard as attacking a target at ranges of 2 yards or less. This suggests that by the RAW, melee attacks do not suffer range penalties as they are the equivalent to attacking a target with a ranged weapon at point blank range.