Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Not in any way true. I've definitely seen people miss inanimate objects with attacks.

You can also allow for interpreting a "miss" as contact, but in an awkward way that has no effect.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Most attacks against inanimate objects (And sweeping poles through areas at waist height, or non-resisting and immobile people, for that matter) would be All Out (Determined) Telegraphic attacks. If you can't reliably hit with an extra +8, you probably shouldn't be trying. And if you're in a situation where you can add in an extra +4 non-combat TDM, then you might as well not roll.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

I buy it, larger creatures are less precise, though the whole +SM combat has issues, besides a Telegraphic Attack eliminates all the penalties for that 10 yard reach, which makes sense since you see it coming a mile away.

You've seen people miss hitting something that's in the space they're sweeping a staff through?
Sounds like you're failing in imaging what I'm talking about, people miss with strikes all the time, but if you sweep some staff type thing through an area with a human sized target and to hit the target you can't miss, unless you're some sort of spazz of course.

Unfortunately, while we can sort of hand wave it away like that for some things, but when it gets to the point where we're talking about Deathtouch, a jet, or any other secondary effect coming from the attack it fails.
After all, that contact from that fire sword or flamethrower still sets whatever it touches on fire.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

You are the GM.

You are the GM.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

I thought you didn't like silliness. And what you just said is a whole bunch of silliness to me. I mean your not scaling at all. That's like saying if we were playing with the PCs as little 6" tall fairies, then humans wouldn't be able to hit each other because they'd be at range penalties. No when they're both of a size you should scale things to match. IMO anyway.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

I'm saying real world biological things don't really scale up very much, scaling down is fine.
I don't like silliness, but when you're talking about physical biological systems there are clear range limits where you do lose precision for massive reach, in nature you see a lot of slow/telegraphic reaches when a creature is going for something far out, especially if the reach is not being done by the head/nerve cluster.

The further from the nerve cluster controlling the motion, the less precise the reach, and with real world physical biological systems you start getting to the edges of what's neurologically feasible without "magic" real quick.
AFAIK, this is why dinosaurs like theropods, T.Rex and such, had very normal sized arms, roughly human length, precision.

This isn't an issue of relative proportional size, but of actual biological and neurological physical limits, and that's all without even getting to the additional limits on controlling an inanimate object at the end of that reach.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Sorry, but if a creature is clumsy, it should buy down DX or take a Disadvantage of some sort. Large SM is pretty disadvantageous already (unless playing rather low-tech).

What you describe - large-SM attacks being 'slow' would result in a creature of sufficiently large SM not being able to perform a full-Reach attack within one second. That's DTR, which should be a separate Disadvantage.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

There's that, of course, but there's also the issue with many natural attacks by large creatures being methodical multi-second enveloping attacks and not the sort instant super fast attacks seen in movies and horror stories.

Not that you don't want to be able to mimic those movies and horror stories in a game, you do, but those things aren't natural and shouldn't be part of a semi-realistic base, they should be options you flick on when you choose a fully cinematic or cartoon setting.
The people who think that giant humanoids would be moving and reacting twice as fast because they're bigger tend to have both a lack of imagination and a lack of understanding of reality.

In other words, we really shouldn't just scale things up and say they work the same, they don't.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Yes we should, as long as SM is a Feature. The un-scaleability should be done using Meta-Traits.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

No we shouldn't allow infinite Reach without consequence, that way go Munchkins and rules exploits.

Allowing Reach without the normal Range penalties leads to breaking things, which is idiotic since things aren't broken if we simply apply the normally available penalties.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

How very cute.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

I can understand where your coming from Ze'Manel Cunha but I rather agree with vicky_molokh's statement.

In this I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Sure, but to make sure, let me give you an example:

You have a character which is getting pummeled, looking around you don't see anyone.

Standing anywhere from next to your character to 100 yards away amidst dozens of other people is someone with:
TK ST 10, range 100 yards, +30% [65]

I don't have any problem with the power in general, but I would find it complete silliness for a GM to say that there is no difference between pummeling someone from 1 yard away and from 100 yards away. If I had a player try that on me, or a GM make that type of ruling, I'd tell both of them that they're rules Munchkins trying to break the game and if we're not playing a Toon based game, then I'm not tolerating that type of Munchkin silliness.

Mind you, I don't have any issue with the character having No Roll required for +100%, I just don't tolerate Munchkin rules exploits which gives them that bonus for free.

How do you feel about Munchkin rules exploits?

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Not same thing. What you describe is a case of a TK using SM0 'hands' to pummel someone waaay beyond her natural Reach.

OTOH, a proproperly scaled SM+5 entity will not only have more Reach, but will also have SM+5 fists. And we all know that hitting an eye-sized target with a 16-yard explosion is no harder than hitting an SM0 target with it, because at this point, the impact zone is large enough to compensate any penalties.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Really, the current rules are crystal clear on this, maybe not clarified in Basic but it has been discussed in Powers and elsewhere. For melee combat, you use relative SM. Period. You don't also assess a range penalty for giants fighting each other at a longer Reach, the cumulative effects of said Reach and the larger target size of their opponents are already accounted for and cancel each other out.

Or, in other words, if you're going to assess range penalties for Reach above 2, then also give characters the target's full SM as a bonus, since you're effectively treating their melee attacks as though they were ranged attacks in every other respect. It should even out exactly the same as if you just used relative SM in the first place.


Edit: None of which is necessarily an argument for treating things the same way for Stretching, or especially TK, just for natural Reach due to your SM. Increased Range on TK could be cheap enough that I can see the argument that it rapidly becomes a munchkin rules exploit. Stretching I see less of an argument for, given that it's quite expensive for the additional Reach you get anyway, but I could probably be persuaded.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

I'm now very curious about FAQ-type answers to the following:

a)Can Invisible melee attacks be Telegraphic? What's the effect if they are?

b)Do "Ranged Melee" Attacks (like from TK) take Range penalties?

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

I'd answer the former, but I'm not so brave now that Kromm said that TK TAs become visible. I'm unsure of the latter as, once again, there's little precedent, and Kromm's voice is needed.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Which is exactly what this thread is about, and why I was advising the OP to use Range penalties as the easiest fix for this type of rules exploit.

Which as far as I'm concerned doesn't mean we should be ignoring Range penalties, but should instead be considering and talking about modified Area Attack rules for both your example of the SM and the previously mentioned Jet issue.
Which is how we got to our current tangent.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

My gut assumption is that a) Telegraphic Invisible attacks become more obvious. The character picks up a visible weapon and swings it in a wide arc... or they shout as they attack... or there's enough "shimmer" in the air to warn the target. Basically, the victim gets the +2 bonus to defend against a Telegraphic attack on top of the penalty to defend against an invisible opponent.

As for b) I don't really like how RAW handles long melee attacks (ie, polearms and jets). All attacks should take Range penalties.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Yes. You get +4 to hit, the target gets +2 to defend against you if they're getting a defense against you (which is possible)

No.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Do you have a source for this as definitive? JC

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

What does this look like? Why is it easier to defend against?
Source?

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Rules absences asside, I have to agree with Ze'... it's silly to think that the target is far far away, but just as easy to target. He's much smaller in your visual field, and all his "bits" aren't as readily targetable as before.

You take range penalties to see things, why would you not take them to hit things?

Do you really think it's as easy to pick a lock with your eye a palm's distance from it and with the lock 200 yards away from you? The non use of ranged penalties in TK would generate exactly that situation.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

unless the TK has a force feedback effect, but that is covered by another power Clair-touch. Ooh that might be useful.



A member of the "stuff" takes range penalties choir.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Because the hits aren't coming from you, far from the target. They're coming from your TK, close to the target.
I don't think you can pick a lock numb, unless you've got something that lets you see inside the lock while you're working on it. If you can't either feel what you're doing or see what you're doing, I don't care whether you're inside the lock or 200 yards away, you can't do it.

A range penalty doesn't really cover the issue. Either you can tell what's going on in the lock or you can't. And if you can, I see no problem with picking it 200 yards away via TK.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

But you are directing it. You have the skill to hit, not the hands. That's like saying that you can fight blind-folded at no penalty because the hits aren't coming from your eyes, they're coming from your hands.

And I argue that unless you have remote vision as well, you must take range penalties. Scratch the lockpicking example then, use any other fine motor skills that rely on eye-hand coordination. Like drawing. Can you draw without a penalty from 200 yards away? If you had a camera there, sure, but from a far you can't even see what you're doing.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Not really, when you put in the picks you're not really feeling for all the tumblers, you're more making sure you have right angles and pressure than anything else.

I suppose you might find someone who'll tell you they feel all the tumblers through their picks, but from personal experience I'd shoot the numb issue down as unnecessary.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

No, it's like saying that range penalties for attacks aren't based on your ability to see the target. Which I think is the case. Some penalties to attacks obviously are based on vision, but not all of them are.
Well, I can't really draw at point-blank range with my own hands, but I think some people do do a degree of drawing without looking...

Also, again, why ranged penalties? Do you have significant difficulty discerning details of a drawing at 2 yards? If the character can't draw blind, they need to be able to discern what they're drawing, but again it seems binary.

There's considerably more to shooting a target than visually discerning the target. Using TK to hit someone in the face isn't like sniping them in the face with a rifle. The rifle has be laid within a miniscule arc to actually hit. The TK just has to be positioned a yard in front of the target, and then the hit area is the same arc as it would be for an ordinary punch.
Eh? If you say so. My quite limited experience was that you could feel whether you were putting enough or too little pressure on the cylinder, and when one of the pins had been defeated. If that isn't needed, then feel free to telekinetically pick a lock on the underside of a desk in a coal cellar 100 yards away that you can't see, while blindfolded...assuming you can get the picks into the lock in the first place.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

And what's the advantage which allows you to position the TK force in the precise angle a yard in front of the target from 100 yards away?

Unless you're paying for Area Attack perhaps?

That's the point, without Remote Viewing, or some other similar advantage, you can't do that at all because you can't in any way shape or form actually hit the lock.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

I don't get all the arguing... i remember a spell in Magic 3rd: Distant Blow (not sure it's in 4th as well, but i guess so) that let's you hit a far away opponent with melee attacks.. with range penalties. Seems very linear to me, and i always used such penalties in all my TK experiences and no one ever felt abused or tricked.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Just looked it up Distant Blow does exist in 4th Ed. It does require "standard ranged attack modifiers" and in the description it is described very much like I would imagine a strike using TK.



But then I am biassed.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

I draw a lot, I'm pretty decent at it, although I wouldn't call myself a professional, it's better than a lot of art I've seen around. As an amateur artist I can tell you that it's not "binary". Reality is rarely "binary". The loss of information from vision to brain is massive, every inch closer represents masses of information you don't loose. It makes a big difference.

In drawing, you often find yourself bending over the paper to see closely. And if distance made no difference, why would we have "zoom" features in drawing programs.

You take darkness penalties in melee, which is ENTIRELY because of visibility. You can still see the target, quite well from -6 up. Yet, the lack of discernment costs you skill.

Unfortunately, I can't argue much more. You have assumed the posture that visibility or perception of the target is all or nothing ("binary" as you say) and that intermediate states are completely irrelevant. This is contrary to a lot of evidence in the rules in general. Frankly, I'd understand better if you were arguing from the purely rules perspective of "it doesn't say there's a range penalty, so there isn't". But you're entitled to your position, even if I clearly disagree and think your logic is flawed.

Yup, this is true for 3e Distant Blow, which seems the exact same thing as TK blows. I refrained to using this as an example because it's 3e and because it had, if I remember correctly, questionable defenses (defenses didn't take range into account, I think). Edit didn't know it existed in 4e, so there you have it.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

On the originl question, the wording of Distant Blow doesn't help me form an opinion for allowing Telegraphed Attacks for either that or Telekinesis.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Telekinesis. The TK manipulation moves to where you want it, and there's nothing about that that involves 'aiming'. You just will it there, and it goes.

Consider, if you were pointing out a small spot far away on a parking lot, would it be easier to do so accurately using a laser pointer, or by driving a remote-control car to the spot? TK moves like the car, not the laser dot.
Well, probably not, but that's not going to give you a range penalty, it's going to outright deny you a Lockpicking roll.
Ok. So should Acute Vision give bonuses to drawing? Or at least to drawing without using zoom features or sticking your nose in the drawing pad?
Certainly, and I'm not sure exactly why you take darkness penalties in melee. My guess would be that you, in fact, can't see the target "quite well", but rather can see it quite poorly over most of that penalty range.

The visual effects of darkness and distance seem quite different, though, so I don't assume the game would treat them the same.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

If that were the case, there would be no need to roll at all. You'd always automatically hit, unless it was defended against. The comparison to hands being at the location isn't casual, you still have to manage to land your punches or whatever.
Edit: if what you say is true, then there certainly can be no Telegraphic Attack, as that's basically extra careful aiming, it also disallows most combat maneuvers and options, which don't suit the "hands there" thing.

Not really, because most of the skill is still up to practice once you have the basic prerequisites at a decent level. It's bad vision that gives you penalties. And yes, you can't draw as well if you can't see clearly, the better you can see, the more you can work the details in, provided you have the skill. But if you can't see at all, the skill is no good, and if you can see badly, your skill suffers. I can put on my girlfriend's glasses, get blurry vision, and draw... it turns out to be crap (looks like a very childish and bad cartoon). If I close my eyes, it's even crappier (I'm lucky if the eye is inside the head's space). It's definitely not binary, the less information, the worse.

If you look at what the darkness penalty levels mean, you'll notice that visibility is quite "good" in many of those cases. My point here was to show that there is a clear visual component in hitting things, and that it's not binary, it's gradual. Or is treated as gradual in GURPS. The closer, the more adequately lit, the bigger and the more stationary your target is, the better.

TK ignoring all this seems munchkinny. By your reasoning it shouldn't be any harder grab an object passing by at mach 4 than it is to catch a stone mid trhowing arc, or a plume slowly drifting to the ground. Or to catch a minuscule falling pin and a falling banana. Size and speed seem to matter, I don't see why range would not.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

This is because you need to succeed in a to-hit roll before rolling 1d-2 for damage, and I was discussing failures to hit rather than successes.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Wow, Thanks for the enlightenment! Distant blow was one of those spells that wasn't used regularly (if magic was even allowed at all) so I'd forgotten all about it.
This has made the most sense to me and I'm glad to hear from the many voices that I'm not alone. I needed to have some sort of RAW before I made a final decision in the game I'm running. I'll use this until the great minds here behind SJ Games and GURPS rule it one way or another and have it officially added to the lists of errata. ;)

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

The PC initially invoking this thread has purchased the area effect with his TK. With this I'll allow as many fast-draws as he would like to make but at a cumulative penalty for each successive attempt. After the first failure... that's it - no more attempts for that round. When he goes to flourish his ability in the form of an intimidation using weapon art, all readied objects have to perform the exact same movement or he suffers a penalty for each object in independant motion.
I'd, of course, have no arguement about the whole distance thing if the character had an appropriate ability in the lines of ESP. But then he might need to buy into compartmentalized mind to effectively use them both at the same time!
You hit on a lot of the points I was trying to address. Thank you for all of your input!

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

Uh-uh, nope, TK is not some self-willed poltergeist you're unleashing on a target, it's basically an invisible extra pair of hands which reach out from your body, you're basically launching a right cross from where you're standing to a target a 100 yards away.

Meh, the driving a remote-control car you're describing sounds more like some sort of remote sensing with both touch and vision, TK actually moves like flying hands which you send out flying to strike at the target at the speed of thought on your turn.

Though of course we'd allow the penalty reduction for aiming which you could describe as moving slowly to the point, just like driving a remote-control car to the spot, not that I'd describe it that way, but that'd take a lot longer than normal aiming the way you're describing it...

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

We try to help, if nothing else we give you a wall to bounce your thoughts off of.

Re: TK and Telegraphing attacks...
 

I tend to think of the Telegraphic attack as including things like grabbing a guy's shirt collar to steady him before you pop him in the kisser. It's not controlled enough to be a grapple, but it makes it easier to hit him and easier for him to know what you're about to do. Hence, a bonus for all.
The same could be done with TK.

Melee attacks don't take range penalties.