TK and Telegraphing attacks...

[Gudiomen]

Originally Posted by Desthro

You are the GM.

How very cute.

[Poonbahbah]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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

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.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Poonbahbah

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.

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?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

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?

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.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

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.

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.

[sir_pudding]

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?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

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?

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.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

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

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.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

OTOH, a properly 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.

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.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

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?

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.

[The Benj]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

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?

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)

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

No.