Teleporting things into people as a weapon ..

[Lenwen]

Just wanted to update everyone that I have found an official ruling on the use of Teleportation as a weapon by teleporting things into people is in fact now supported by canon..

4. Regarding teleport object a PC wanted to teleport an object into ones Head! Now, I know that one can teleport into something solid and die. So going by that, one can teleport an object into an enemy's head. I have been allowing it but only in a life or death situation. Like an adrenaline rush.

Answer: Deliberately T-porting something into a solid object as an attack should be extremely difficult. The target will get a Saving Throw vs Magic. A strike roll without any bonuses should also apply.

Hope this helps people and thanks for the debate.

And for verification here is the link.

http://palladiumbooks.com/index.php/res ... -questions

[Lenwen]

Upon reading further down I also find that yes you can in fact have multiple MDC magical force fields around you .. as evidenced by this question..

26. When two tattoos are activated, lets say, Invulnerability and Fire Powers, from which one is MDC subtracted first?

Answer: Whichever tattoo was first activated.

And you can follow the link down to the question and verify it as well.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

Just wanted to update everyone that I have found an official ruling on the use of Teleportation as a weapon by teleporting things into people is in fact now supported by canon..

4. Regarding teleport object a PC wanted to teleport an object into ones Head! Now, I know that one can teleport into something solid and die. So going by that, one can teleport an object into an enemy's head. I have been allowing it but only in a life or death situation. Like an adrenaline rush.

Answer: Deliberately T-porting something into a solid object as an attack should be extremely difficult. The target will get a Saving Throw vs Magic. A strike roll without any bonuses should also apply.

Hope this helps people and thanks for the debate.

And for verification here is the link.

http://palladiumbooks.com/index.php/res ... -questions

Well it great to know my vanguard Mage can kill people like that now

[Lenwen]

Just wanted to update everyone that I have found an official ruling on the use of Teleportation as a weapon by teleporting things into people is in fact now supported by canon..

4. Regarding teleport object a PC wanted to teleport an object into ones Head! Now, I know that one can teleport into something solid and die. So going by that, one can teleport an object into an enemy's head. I have been allowing it but only in a life or death situation. Like an adrenaline rush.

Answer: Deliberately T-porting something into a solid object as an attack should be extremely difficult. The target will get a Saving Throw vs Magic. A strike roll without any bonuses should also apply.

Hope this helps people and thanks for the debate.

And for verification here is the link.

http://palladiumbooks.com/index.php/res ... -questions

Well it great to know my vanguard Mage can kill people like that now

or get taken out like such as well ..

[Mech-Viper Prime]

Just wanted to update everyone that I have found an official ruling on the use of Teleportation as a weapon by teleporting things into people is in fact now supported by canon..

4. Regarding teleport object a PC wanted to teleport an object into ones Head! Now, I know that one can teleport into something solid and die. So going by that, one can teleport an object into an enemy's head. I have been allowing it but only in a life or death situation. Like an adrenaline rush.

Answer: Deliberately T-porting something into a solid object as an attack should be extremely difficult. The target will get a Saving Throw vs Magic. A strike roll without any bonuses should also apply.

Hope this helps people and thanks for the debate.

And for verification here is the link.

http://palladiumbooks.com/index.php/res ... -questions

Well it great to know my vanguard Mage can kill people like that now

or get taken out like such as well ..

somehow I don't think that will ever happen.

[Lenwen]

Just wanted to update everyone that I have found an official ruling on the use of Teleportation as a weapon by teleporting things into people is in fact now supported by canon..

4. Regarding teleport object a PC wanted to teleport an object into ones Head! Now, I know that one can teleport into something solid and die. So going by that, one can teleport an object into an enemy's head. I have been allowing it but only in a life or death situation. Like an adrenaline rush.

Answer: Deliberately T-porting something into a solid object as an attack should be extremely difficult. The target will get a Saving Throw vs Magic. A strike roll without any bonuses should also apply.

Hope this helps people and thanks for the debate.

And for verification here is the link.

http://palladiumbooks.com/index.php/res ... -questions

Well it great to know my vanguard Mage can kill people like that now

or get taken out like such as well ..

somehow I don't think that will ever happen.

See thats not how I play, anything my npc's can do I would allow my PC's to do, and vice verse as well ..

I would not allow myself to be able to do something by not allow it for the PC's ..

But if thats your game more power to ya man.

[Mech-Viper Prime]

See thats not how I play, anything my npc's can do I would allow my PC's to do, and vice verse as well ..

I would not allow myself to be able to do something by not allow it for the PC's ..

But if thats your game more power to ya man.

Somehow I think you missed my point. I wouldn't stop them from trying, but doesn't mean they would actually be able to pull it off. It's about knowing your players and knowing how they will react to each encounter with every probability already planned out for.

[Lenwen]

See thats not how I play, anything my npc's can do I would allow my PC's to do, and vice verse as well ..

I would not allow myself to be able to do something by not allow it for the PC's ..

But if thats your game more power to ya man.

Somehow I think you missed my point. I wouldn't stop them from trying, but doesn't mean they would actually be able to pull it off. It's about knowing your players and knowing how they will react to each encounter with every probability already planned out for.

either or .. more power to your gaming bro.

[taalismn]

See thats not how I play, anything my npc's can do I would allow my PC's to do, and vice verse as well ..

I would not allow myself to be able to do something by not allow it for the PC's ..

But if thats your game more power to ya man.

Somehow I think you missed my point. I wouldn't stop them from trying, but doesn't mean they would actually be able to pull it off. It's about knowing your players and knowing how they will react to each encounter with every probability already planned out for.

Don't shortchange or underestimate your players....every now and then they may come up with some murderous insight (or read forums like this) that catches you offguard. After all; if you thought of something devious, so can they...unless you're playing with toddlers or vegetables(and even then; kumquats can be mean bastards on high rolls).

[Mech-Viper Prime]

See thats not how I play, anything my npc's can do I would allow my PC's to do, and vice verse as well ..

I would not allow myself to be able to do something by not allow it for the PC's ..

But if thats your game more power to ya man.

Somehow I think you missed my point. I wouldn't stop them from trying, but doesn't mean they would actually be able to pull it off. It's about knowing your players and knowing how they will react to each encounter with every probability already planned out for.

Don't shortchange or underestimate your players....every now and then they may come up with some murderous insight (or read forums like this) that catches you offguard. After all; if you thought of something devious, so can they...unless you're playing with toddlers or vegetables(and even then; kumquats can be mean bastards on high rolls).

I have been surprised a few times by they, which was kinda nice, shows me they are elevating their level of play, which makes for a funnier game, with an easier flow, ending in a brief review of the night, and each player saying what they like and dislike about that nights play

[Killer Cyborg]

Just wanted to update everyone that I have found an official ruling on the use of Teleportation as a weapon by teleporting things into people is in fact now supported by canon..

4. Regarding teleport object a PC wanted to teleport an object into ones Head! Now, I know that one can teleport into something solid and die. So going by that, one can teleport an object into an enemy's head. I have been allowing it but only in a life or death situation. Like an adrenaline rush.

Answer: Deliberately T-porting something into a solid object as an attack should be extremely difficult. The target will get a Saving Throw vs Magic. A strike roll without any bonuses should also apply.

Hope this helps people and thanks for the debate.

And for verification here is the link.

http://palladiumbooks.com/index.php/res ... -questions

Find a source for that FAQ answer, and you'll have something solid.
The FAQ itself is not always correct.

[Lenwen]

Just wanted to update everyone that I have found an official ruling on the use of Teleportation as a weapon by teleporting things into people is in fact now supported by canon..

4. Regarding teleport object a PC wanted to teleport an object into ones Head! Now, I know that one can teleport into something solid and die. So going by that, one can teleport an object into an enemy's head. I have been allowing it but only in a life or death situation. Like an adrenaline rush.

Answer: Deliberately T-porting something into a solid object as an attack should be extremely difficult. The target will get a Saving Throw vs Magic. A strike roll without any bonuses should also apply.

Hope this helps people and thanks for the debate.

And for verification here is the link.

http://palladiumbooks.com/index.php/res ... -questions

Find a source for that FAQ answer, and you'll have something solid.
The FAQ itself is not always correct.

Its not FAQ, its Cutting room floor ..

The two as far as I know are not the same..

[Killer Cyborg]

Just wanted to update everyone that I have found an official ruling on the use of Teleportation as a weapon by teleporting things into people is in fact now supported by canon..

4. Regarding teleport object a PC wanted to teleport an object into ones Head! Now, I know that one can teleport into something solid and die. So going by that, one can teleport an object into an enemy's head. I have been allowing it but only in a life or death situation. Like an adrenaline rush.

Answer: Deliberately T-porting something into a solid object as an attack should be extremely difficult. The target will get a Saving Throw vs Magic. A strike roll without any bonuses should also apply.

Hope this helps people and thanks for the debate.

And for verification here is the link.

http://palladiumbooks.com/index.php/res ... -questions

Find a source for that FAQ answer, and you'll have something solid.
The FAQ itself is not always correct.

Its not FAQ, its Cutting room floor ..

The two as far as I know are not the same..

They moved the FAQ to the Cutting Room floor.
If you follow your link, you should notice that the top of the left-hand column is labeled "FAQ Pages," and that the sub-heading of "Magic" is where your answer is from.

[Lenwen]

Just wanted to update everyone that I have found an official ruling on the use of Teleportation as a weapon by teleporting things into people is in fact now supported by canon..

4. Regarding teleport object a PC wanted to teleport an object into ones Head! Now, I know that one can teleport into something solid and die. So going by that, one can teleport an object into an enemy's head. I have been allowing it but only in a life or death situation. Like an adrenaline rush.

Answer: Deliberately T-porting something into a solid object as an attack should be extremely difficult. The target will get a Saving Throw vs Magic. A strike roll without any bonuses should also apply.

Hope this helps people and thanks for the debate.

And for verification here is the link.

http://palladiumbooks.com/index.php/res ... -questions

Find a source for that FAQ answer, and you'll have something solid.
The FAQ itself is not always correct.

Its not FAQ, its Cutting room floor ..

The two as far as I know are not the same..

They moved the FAQ to the Cutting Room floor.
If you follow your link, you should notice that the top of the left-hand column is labeled "FAQ Pages," and that the sub-heading of "Magic" is where your answer is from.

Ok so then the question here is simple..


Where does it show that some FAQs are not canon and others are ?

Or are you just saying that ?

Where is the proof ?

Edit;

There is an entire thread area where it's dedicated to FAQs .. And the link I provided is not for those.. And appear to be answered either by KS himself or some one acting on his behalf is why I asked KC..

And the reason I stated the FAQs and cutting room floor are not the same.

[Dr. Doom III]

Ok so then the question here is simple..


Where does it show that some FAQs are not canon and others are ?

Or are you just saying that ?

Where is the proof ?

Edit;

There is an entire thread area where it's dedicated to FAQs .. And the link I provided is not for those.. And appear to be answered either by KS himself or some one acting on his behalf is why I asked KC..

And the reason I stated the FAQs and cutting room floor are not the same.

The FAQ was generally decided to be unreliable somewhere around 2001.
The sheer number of outright wrong answers and the fact that a fan, whose name escapes me at the moment and not a Palladium insider, answered the questions were the major blows against it.
You can use it if you want I guess but anyone who knows anything about the FAQ will never accept it as any more authoritative that anyone else's opinion on these boards. Well some less than others of course.

[Chronicle]

Since you havn't been in there, you can't teleport it there

[cornholioprime]

Before an answer is given to the Op, an answer of sorts to the most recently posed question.

Ok so then the question here is simple..


Where does it show that some FAQs are not canon and others are ?

Or are you just saying that ?

Where is the proof ?

Edit;

There is an entire thread area where it's dedicated to FAQs .. And the link I provided is not for those.. And appear to be answered either by KS himself or some one acting on his behalf is why I asked KC..

And the reason I stated the FAQs and cutting room floor are not the same.

At the top of the entire section of the Palladium Forums titled "The Cutting Room Floor..."

On the "cutting room floor," you will find things that went out of print, were forgotten or left out for other reasons, along with general errata and excluded material from various books.

The answer that we can therefore extrapolate is:

Since we as people on the outside looking in don't know for what reason a particular piece of information was left on the so-called Cutting Room Floor, but the list of possible reasons why are all "bad," we can therefore conclude that the material left there, isn't canon.

It's not officially stated outright in the same way as most Rifter articles that it's unofficial, but it isn't official, either, and circumstantially one can argue that because it's on the Cutting Room Floor.....much if not most if not all of the information there represents ideas that the authors originally toyed with but then abandoned.

Now, on to the OP.

Just wanted to update everyone that I have found an official ruling on the use of Teleportation as a weapon by teleporting things into people is in fact now supported by canon..

4. Regarding teleport object a PC wanted to teleport an object into ones Head! Now, I know that one can teleport into something solid and die. So going by that, one can teleport an object into an enemy's head. I have been allowing it but only in a life or death situation. Like an adrenaline rush.

Answer: Deliberately T-porting something into a solid object as an attack should be extremely difficult. The target will get a Saving Throw vs Magic. A strike roll without any bonuses should also apply.

Hope this helps people and thanks for the debate.

And for verification here is the link.

http://palladiumbooks.com/index.php/res ... -questions

People teleport into and out of places all the time in the games.
Distant places, near places, crowded places, and desolate places.....

...and yet, unless the caster gets the worst possible roll of the dice, they don't teleport into, say, the furniture in the bedroom they're 'porting to.
Or the chairs and table that the maid rearranged in the kitchen since the last time that the mage was physically present.
Or the pets, children, relatives, friends, or other living things moving around all the time and in completely unpredictable ways.
Moreover, the spell allows people who have NEVER been to Destination X in their lives, but who have access to nothing more than photos of the place, to teleport with an extremely high chance of success.

CONCLUSION:

Just as the Teleport Spells (in-game) magically take into account all sorts of things like rotational velocities between the departure point and destination, yet still safely transports the traveler from point A to point B, it also makes sure that the teleporter arrives in a "safe" part of the area (again, unless one rolls badly).
Logically, we can proceed from that observation and deduce that the "failsafe" built into Teleport Spells works both ways, automatically, and you as a mage can't teleport things offensively in the way described even if he wanted to.

[Killer Cyborg]

Where does it show that some FAQs are not canon and others are ?

The proof is in the pudding.
The fact that some FAQs cite official sources such as books or KS directly, others not only fail to have such citations, they fail to make any sense in the context of the game.

Or are you just saying that ?

I was just saying what I said: The FAQ is not always correct.
It's unreliable.
It's like Wikipedia: it's a decent source of information, but don't take it too seriously until you check the sources for the information it's providing.

There is an entire thread area where it's dedicated to FAQs .. And the link I provided is not for those.. And appear to be answered either by KS himself or some one acting on his behalf is why I asked KC..

There are TWO threads dedicated to the FAQ.
The first thread is the discussion thread, where somebody poses a question and we all do our best to provide canon answers.
The second thread is a compilation of the accepted answers for the first thread, a list of answers that various question-askers have deemed acceptable.

My suspicion is that at some point, when these were getting pruned, a bunch of the answers from the second thread ended up in the Cutting Room Floor section.
Although I could be wrong, I see no reason to assume so at this point.
And I especially see no reason to believe that KS found the time to sit down and answer a few hundred questions from fans.

Edit:
Actually, I think it's worse that that- I think this is the old FAQ, the one that was so unreliable that it ended being ditched and replaces with the news FAQ system.
Check it out- Go to your link, then click on the "General Questions and Requests" FAQ, and flip down to #16
16. I was wondering who researches and answers these questions?
Answer: Well I myself (Rodney Stott), have been Playing Palladium based RPG's since 1984. I have written several articles for the Rifter. Assisting me is Shawn Merrow, another long term Palladium Player. He has also written several Rifter Articles. Of course we consult Maryann Siembieda and the gang at Palladium, Bill Coffin etc for assistance with the really tough questions. And of course, we discuss things among other Gamers, both in person and over the internet.

[Lenwen]

Of course we consult Maryann Siembieda and the gang at Palladium

That's really all that needed to be said right there.

I will continue to think it was answered to them by palladium (as pointed out above) rather then by just a couple of Rifter article writers until you can show me them saying they answered that particular questions by themselves.

Great work KC my hat is off to you good sir!

[Colt47]

It's plausible to do it, just not very practical or accurate. How often has an adhoc teleportation spell sent someone exactly where they wanted to go?

[Killer Cyborg]

Of course we consult Maryann Siembieda and the gang at Palladium

That's really all that needed to be said right there.

I will continue to think it was answered to them by palladium

Good luck with that.
There's no way of telling who answered it, or what they were basing their answer on.
But by all means, read through the old FAQ and start treating it as if it were all canon.
Keep us updated on how this works out for you.

[Lenwen]

Of course we consult Maryann Siembieda and the gang at Palladium

That's really all that needed to be said right there.

I will continue to think it was answered to them by palladium

Good luck with that.
There's no way of telling who answered it, or what they were basing their answer on.
But by all means, read through the old FAQ and start treating it as if it were all canon.
Keep us updated on how this works out for you.

As pointed out by your own quotes only some not all were helped by palladium official staff.. And that being said ..

This is Harder question then most, and as verified threw your post they helped on those which by default means the teleport question, was answered by the palladium staff .

Until proven otherwise .

Thanks KC.

[Killer Cyborg]

Of course we consult Maryann Siembieda and the gang at Palladium

That's really all that needed to be said right there.

I will continue to think it was answered to them by palladium

Good luck with that.
There's no way of telling who answered it, or what they were basing their answer on.
But by all means, read through the old FAQ and start treating it as if it were all canon.
Keep us updated on how this works out for you.

As pointed out by your own quotes only some not all were helped by palladium official staff.. And that being said ..

This is Harder question then most, and as verified threw your post they helped on those which by default means the teleport question, was answered by the palladium staff .

Until proven otherwise .

Thanks KC.

As I said, good luck with that.

[Lenwen]

I may need it KC hahaha

[The Beast]

Of course we consult Maryann Siembieda and the gang at Palladium

That's really all that needed to be said right there.

I will continue to think it was answered to them by palladium

Good luck with that.
There's no way of telling who answered it, or what they were basing their answer on.
But by all means, read through the old FAQ and start treating it as if it were all canon.
Keep us updated on how this works out for you.

Are you trying to make his head explode?

[Mack]

Of course we consult Maryann Siembieda and the gang at Palladium

That's really all that needed to be said right there.

I will continue to think it was answered to them by palladium (as pointed out above) rather then by just a couple of Rifter article writers until you can show me them saying they answered that particular questions by themselves.

Great work KC my hat is off to you good sir!

Do you know when Maryann left Palladium Books?
(It's significant because it demostrates how incredibly out of date the information is.)

[Lenwen]

Of course we consult Maryann Siembieda and the gang at Palladium

That's really all that needed to be said right there.

I will continue to think it was answered to them by palladium (as pointed out above) rather then by just a couple of Rifter article writers until you can show me them saying they answered that particular questions by themselves.

Great work KC my hat is off to you good sir!

Do you know when Maryann left Palladium Books?
(It's significant because it demostrates how incredibly out of date the information is.)

Notice the gang at Palladium tho too Mack, it is not just Maryann that was mentioned ..

Yes I am aware of the separation or what ver you call it my friend.

[Mack]

Of course we consult Maryann Siembieda and the gang at Palladium

That's really all that needed to be said right there.

I will continue to think it was answered to them by palladium (as pointed out above) rather then by just a couple of Rifter article writers until you can show me them saying they answered that particular questions by themselves.

Great work KC my hat is off to you good sir!

Do you know when Maryann left Palladium Books?
(It's significant because it demostrates how incredibly out of date the information is.)

Notice the gang at Palladium tho too Mack, it is not just Maryann that was mentioned ..

Yes I am aware of the separation or what ver you call it my friend.

At a minimum the info is over a decade old, and even then it was of questionable vericity.

[Killer Cyborg]

Of course we consult Maryann Siembieda and the gang at Palladium

That's really all that needed to be said right there.

I will continue to think it was answered to them by palladium

Good luck with that.
There's no way of telling who answered it, or what they were basing their answer on.
But by all means, read through the old FAQ and start treating it as if it were all canon.
Keep us updated on how this works out for you.

Are you trying to make his head explode?

Yes.

[Lenwen]

Of course we consult Maryann Siembieda and the gang at Palladium

That's really all that needed to be said right there.

I will continue to think it was answered to them by palladium (as pointed out above) rather then by just a couple of Rifter article writers until you can show me them saying they answered that particular questions by themselves.

Great work KC my hat is off to you good sir!

Do you know when Maryann left Palladium Books?
(It's significant because it demostrates how incredibly out of date the information is.)

Notice the gang at Palladium tho too Mack, it is not just Maryann that was mentioned ..

Yes I am aware of the separation or what ver you call it my friend.

At a minimum the info is over a decade old, and even then it was of questionable vericity.

And still it's been verified threw the poster that he went threw the crew at Palladium for the harder questions..

Time does not degrade an answer if new material has not come out.

Less I am missing something here ?

[Dr. Doom III]

And still it's been verified threw the poster that he went threw the crew at Palladium for the harder questions..

Time does not degrade an answer if new material has not come out.

Less I am missing something here ?

No the answers being questionable does that.
You have no idea what he may or may not have bounced off someone in the know and his work is not shown. Anyone who puts any stock in the FAQ’s answers doesn't really care if they are correct or not because there's no way to know that.

[Mack]

And still it's been verified threw the poster that he went threw the crew at Palladium for the harder questions..

Time does not degrade an answer if new material has not come out.

Less I am missing something here ?

Yes. The answers did not go through the same approval process as published material. They used a substitute, less rigorous one.

[Nightmask]

just to be clear, when teleporting an something into someone as a weapon:

1: This is targeting an area that you cannot see and, very likely, have not been to. Is the strike roll the only one for this? or is the normal teleport % used in addition?

2: When the object hits, what actually happens? Like is the target area displaced by the new object, do they meld together, or does this somehow just get added? On a related question, would this teleportation have an outwards appearance to those viewing the target (like target is larger due to added weight...).

3: Can you teleport objects inside things that would be otherwise impossible to penetrate? In example, rune weapons, or other indestructible objects or people.

4: How does this work in regards to creatures with specific weaknesses? In example, would teleporting a stake into a vampire's heart have the same effect of normally driving the stake into position?

Opened a can of worms, so I figured I'd ask away.
-Pax

You're overly literal to insist that the target isn't visible by insisting that when you see someone's head you can't target the interior. The target is visible, it's someone's head. Given you're intentionally seeking to merge a teleported object with someone's brain/internal organs you really don't need to know/worry about what's inside the skull as the familiarity is more about avoiding teleporting into things which you're not worried about when you're killing someone (or trying to).

[Nightmask]

just to be clear, when teleporting an something into someone as a weapon:

1: This is targeting an area that you cannot see and, very likely, have not been to. Is the strike roll the only one for this? or is the normal teleport % used in addition?

2: When the object hits, what actually happens? Like is the target area displaced by the new object, do they meld together, or does this somehow just get added? On a related question, would this teleportation have an outwards appearance to those viewing the target (like target is larger due to added weight...).

3: Can you teleport objects inside things that would be otherwise impossible to penetrate? In example, rune weapons, or other indestructible objects or people.

4: How does this work in regards to creatures with specific weaknesses? In example, would teleporting a stake into a vampire's heart have the same effect of normally driving the stake into position?

Opened a can of worms, so I figured I'd ask away.
-Pax

You're overly literal to insist that the target isn't visible by insisting that when you see someone's head you can't target the interior. The target is visible, it's someone's head. Given you're intentionally seeking to merge a teleported object with someone's brain/internal organs you really don't need to know/worry about what's inside the skull as the familiarity is more about avoiding teleporting into things which you're not worried about when you're killing someone (or trying to).

Teleport Superior: “The best results can be achieved when the character is personally acquainted with the target destination, some place he has visited or knows well-“

Teleport Lessor: “The only requirements are that the mage touches the object to be teleported and that the location of where it is being sent to is known to (the) him.”

What your saying is not under the conditions of the spell these quotes are directly from the text-

Someones head occupies and entirely different space than inside someones head, regardless the caster must be familier-and I have yet to see a reference that points enough to the point your trying to make to lead me otherwise.

That's because you're applying restrictions onto the word 'known' that really don't exist. It should be self-evident that one's head is just that one's head, you can't have parts of it occupying completely different space than the rest. You're also insisting on an unrealistic definition of 'familiar', insisting you'd have to know the interior of someone's head as if you've been inside of it to constitute familiar. I have a closed box in my right hand and a rock in my left, I most certainly know the location of the box in my hand, IT'S IN MY HAND. I'm most certainly familiar with that location, it's the space right above my hand. I do not have to open the box and look inside when I attempt to teleport the rock into the box because there isn't anything about that which I don't meet the criteria for.

You can insist on definitions of 'familiar' and 'known' that don't exist because you want to insist the spell is more restrictive than it actually is because you don't want to allow for the broader implications but that's never going to make the text actually say what you insist it says because the actual words involved don't serve your definitions of them and never will.

[Killer Cyborg]

just to be clear, when teleporting an something into someone as a weapon:

1: This is targeting an area that you cannot see and, very likely, have not been to. Is the strike roll the only one for this? or is the normal teleport % used in addition?

2: When the object hits, what actually happens? Like is the target area displaced by the new object, do they meld together, or does this somehow just get added? On a related question, would this teleportation have an outwards appearance to those viewing the target (like target is larger due to added weight...).

3: Can you teleport objects inside things that would be otherwise impossible to penetrate? In example, rune weapons, or other indestructible objects or people.

4: How does this work in regards to creatures with specific weaknesses? In example, would teleporting a stake into a vampire's heart have the same effect of normally driving the stake into position?

Opened a can of worms, so I figured I'd ask away.
-Pax

You're overly literal to insist that the target isn't visible by insisting that when you see someone's head you can't target the interior. The target is visible, it's someone's head.

Unless you can see the interior of the head, then the target can only be the surface of the head, the part that you do see.
The target has to be "known," not "well, I know kinda where it's at, but don't know what it looks like or anything."

[cornholioprime]

just to be clear, when teleporting an something into someone as a weapon:

1: This is targeting an area that you cannot see and, very likely, have not been to. Is the strike roll the only one for this? or is the normal teleport % used in addition?

2: When the object hits, what actually happens? Like is the target area displaced by the new object, do they meld together, or does this somehow just get added? On a related question, would this teleportation have an outwards appearance to those viewing the target (like target is larger due to added weight...).

3: Can you teleport objects inside things that would be otherwise impossible to penetrate? In example, rune weapons, or other indestructible objects or people.

4: How does this work in regards to creatures with specific weaknesses? In example, would teleporting a stake into a vampire's heart have the same effect of normally driving the stake into position?

Opened a can of worms, so I figured I'd ask away.
-Pax

Again, the way that the Spell functions on a regular basis on successful teleport rolls (doesn't teleport you into the physical space of someone [or even several people] who is/are moving around in the area you're 'porting into; doesn't 'port you into other solid objects that have been introduced into the space you might be familiar with since the last time you saw the area; doesn't partially teleport you into the floor; doesn't teleport you several hundred feet in the air above your target).....
......strongly, strongly indicates that the Spell has a built-in "auto-dodge" feature that doesn't allow you to deliberately teleport inside the physical space of your target (unless of course you're sending an object into the empty space inside another sufficiently large object).

As the spell is written, and as it performs in canon (i.e., there are no canon instances of the spell being deliberately used in such an offensive manner), any attempt to try and teleport an object into somebody's head -or elsewhere inside their body -would not result in the object being teleported into that guy's head; rather, it would result in the object being teleported to the general area where the target's head is.

The same way that the spell safely transports matter all the time.

As written, the only way that you can apparently teleport into solid matter is if you FAIL to successfully teleport; good luck with figuring out how to deliberately make the spell fail in such a way that it works EXACTLY in the way that you want it to, and hits PRECISELY the solid object that you wish it to hit.

[Nightmask]

just to be clear, when teleporting an something into someone as a weapon:

1: This is targeting an area that you cannot see and, very likely, have not been to. Is the strike roll the only one for this? or is the normal teleport % used in addition?

2: When the object hits, what actually happens? Like is the target area displaced by the new object, do they meld together, or does this somehow just get added? On a related question, would this teleportation have an outwards appearance to those viewing the target (like target is larger due to added weight...).

3: Can you teleport objects inside things that would be otherwise impossible to penetrate? In example, rune weapons, or other indestructible objects or people.

4: How does this work in regards to creatures with specific weaknesses? In example, would teleporting a stake into a vampire's heart have the same effect of normally driving the stake into position?

Opened a can of worms, so I figured I'd ask away.
-Pax

You're overly literal to insist that the target isn't visible by insisting that when you see someone's head you can't target the interior. The target is visible, it's someone's head.

Unless you can see the interior of the head, then the target can only be the surface of the head, the part that you do see.
The target has to be "known," not "well, I know kinda where it's at, but don't know what it looks like or anything."

Again, wrong. The target is known, 'that space right there'. The top of a table doesn't go from known to unknown because you put a box on it. That spot 'right there' where someone's head is doesn't go from known to unknown because someone's head (or anything else for that matter) occupies that spot. You're insisting on a meaning of 'known' that doesn't exist because you don't like the implications and would rather try and insist the spell is written with a meaning it doesn't have instead of just going 'yeah it doesn't specifically ban it but I house rule it so it can't'. Trying to say your house rule meaning for 'known' and 'familiar' is really the meaning of the words because you want more validity for your position when insisting that's how everyone ought to play it.

[Shark_Force]

As written, the only way that you can apparently teleport into solid matter is if you FAIL to successfully teleport; good luck with figuring out how to deliberately make the spell fail in such a way that it works EXACTLY in the way that you want it to, and hits PRECISELY the solid object that you wish it to hit.

beat insurmountable odds?

(more seriously: yeah, no way i'd allow this kind of shenanigans)

[cornholioprime]

As written, the only way that you can apparently teleport into solid matter is if you FAIL to successfully teleport; good luck with figuring out how to deliberately make the spell fail in such a way that it works EXACTLY in the way that you want it to, and hits PRECISELY the solid object that you wish it to hit.

beat insurmountable odds?

(more seriously: yeah, no way i'd allow this kind of shenanigans)

Good one....

[Nightmask]

That's because you're applying restrictions onto the word 'known' that really don't exist. It should be self-evident that one's head is just that one's head, you can't have parts of it occupying completely different space than the rest. You're also insisting on an unrealistic definition of 'familiar', insisting you'd have to know the interior of someone's head as if you've been inside of it to constitute familiar. I have a closed box in my right hand and a rock in my left, I most certainly know the location of the box in my hand, IT'S IN MY HAND. I'm most certainly familiar with that location, it's the space right above my hand. I do not have to open the box and look inside when I attempt to teleport the rock into the box because there isn't anything about that which I don't meet the criteria for.

You can insist on definitions of 'familiar' and 'known' that don't exist because you want to insist the spell is more restrictive than it actually is because you don't want to allow for the broader implications but that's never going to make the text actually say what you insist it says because the actual words involved don't serve your definitions of them and never will.

From: Webster’s Dictionary-

Familiar
1: a member of the household of a high official
2: one who is often seen and well known; especially : an intimate associate : companion
3: a spirit often embodied in an animal and held to attend and serve or guard a person
4a : one who is well acquainted with something b : one who frequents a place

Know-The root of Known
To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
To have a practical understanding of, as through experience;be skilled in: knows how to cook.

The words are clear-It is not I who wrote the words defined for the spell. And unfortunately you should better familiarize yourself with words before making assumptions (or attaching your own) about what those words mean.

You can say what you want-I am not attaching meaning to the words “known” and “familiar” these words are used commonly in the english language-and I know what they mean. When I apply the definitions of these words to the definition of the spell itself becomes clear, that the spell is not intended to be used this way-(and in my mind for obvious reasons)-and if it was intended to be used this way it should have been worded much differently.

I have sourced directly the definition of these words-tell me how I have attached my own meaning to these words-the definitions are right here in front of you to read.

Your assumptions about my knowledge is irrational-though I am a lot less smarter than I read

I know quite well what the words mean, and again you're the one attaching your own definitions to them not I. You don't want the spell to have the option of being used to instant-kill someone therefor you attach your own meaning to the words to justify that position. Someone directly in front of you is known and familiar to you because they're right in front of you and one can't possibly insist that someone you're looking at isn't known to you or familiar and be taken seriously. You don't have to cut someone's skull open and look at their brain to be familiar with the idea of a brain being in there or that the space it occupies can be a valid target.

You can attach whatever meaning you want to the words you want to justify whatever you feel like but they're your meanings working backwards to a meaning to justify a particular goal (insisting the spell itself says it can't be used a paticular way when it doesn't rather than just admit you house rule it that way).

[Pepsi Jedi]

I think the entire thing is (( insert your favorite negative adjective here)). Thus not allowed in my games.

And I'd hit you with the RUE.

Or the Spycraft core book.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, since basic English definitions won't work, let's look at how Palladium defines familiar and known. While we have little info on Teleport: Lesser, there are other Teleport options and some of them have references. Let's look at them, shall we?

HU2; Teleport power (page 295)
"Teleporting to a familiar location, or one that is clearly visible": This is either a list (which means that "clearly visible" doesn't count as familiar), or a second definition for clarity of what "familiar" means (in which case it means it needs to be visible ... and inside a person's head isn't "visible" unless you have X-Ray vision, the person's head is busted open, or you have a camera in their head for surgery or something).

Not convinced? Let's look further.

"-6% if 'porting to a place seen live via television": It goes on a bit more, but this means even if you can see it on television, it's NOT the same as being familiar with it or seeing it clearly. There's a penalty here. Inside a pocket is even more obscured.

"A place never seen, but described in detail: 38%": This probably fits our definition the best. It's not been seen, but you may know it in detail. Notice how "seen" or "visible" keeps popping up in these definitions? And you can't see inside someone's head any better than you can see inside their pocket or see while you're blind folded.

PF2; Teleport Object psionic (page 167)
This psionic may be located other places, but this is the location I know best.

"Teleporting into someone else's pcoket, sack, etc., who is within clear line of sight": This sounds like the category if we were teleporting inside a body (if allowed), yes? This is an 80% likelihood. You may be thinking that's the same as the spell, proof! Right? Wrong. This is the psionic, and let's look at it further.

"Teleporting the object ot any open location (not inside a trunk or pcoket) that the psychic can see clearly": Now we have clear line of sight, and the success rate is 88%! That's a higher chance of success. While the difference is only 8%, the fact that clearly visible is higher is important in reference to other abilities.

"Teleporting the object to a familiar place ...": We have the term "familiar" place here, and this is also 88%, equal to the clearly visible location. We also see here that Palladium does not consider something you cannot see (such as inside a pocket, inside a trunk, inside someone's head) as clearly visible or familiar. It's neither, at least not by Palladium's definition. But neither one of these are Rifts definitions, so let's go to Rifts!

RUE; Teleport Superior spell (page 225)
"Teleporting to a familiar location or a destination visible from one's starting point ...": Notice again how "familiar" and "visible" are in the same category? And try as anyone might, the inside of a pocket isn't visible unless it's turned inside out (and we see an example of that above).

"A place seen in a photo ...": Even though you can see it, lower percentage.

"A place never visited before, but described in detail ..." Inside an object wouldn't have been visited or seen, so the best you have is "described in detail." Again, lower percentage. Why is all this important?

RUE; Teleport Lesser (page 211)
Here we have that the location must be "known." There's also only one percentage, which means if it doesn't fall into this category it doesn't work. By Palladium's pattern we have a pretty clear indication this is a familiar location or something clearly seen (and we have examples of how that differs above). If it doesn't fit into those cateogries, it doesn't work.

So that means this isn't a guess, this isn't a rough estimate, this isn't seen in a picture, this isn't having heard or read the details but never seen it before, this isn't well he's wearing the same type of pants I am so his pockets must be the same ... none of those fit with what Palladium described here, or in any of its other examples. It just doesn't fit.

On an additional side note, looking at "Teleport Lesser" we notice that the "invocation is limited to non-living substances." Teleporting something INTO a living person is affecting that living person no matter how you want to justify it, and the spell doesn't work on people.

Let's also look at another fact. Neither the Teleport Lesser spell nor the Teleport Object psionc mention anything about losing items. BOTH mention failed teleports end up with the object being in an unknown location. This suggests that even on a failed roll it won't go appearing inside objects or people. It will ALWAYS be safe.

The Teleport Superior spell and the Teleport super power both mention the chance of teleporting inside something and death. Both mention appearing in some unknown place (same as the minor versions), but both have added possibilities, one of which includes death. These are superior/greater versions of the original, with greater risks. Just because the superior versions have this ability doesn't mean the lesser versions have that ability anymore than Invisibility Lesser gains all the abilities of Invisibility Superior.

Two items cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and the only powers that seem to indicate they may be capable of breaking this rule are superior versions, so let's not get confused on "lesser" and "superior," just saying.

Anyways, I kind of rambled, and at times my thoughts may have been all over the place. I apologize. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[flatline]

If you take it from a purely physics based opinion: then as the two pieces of matter begin to occupy the same space, a singularity is created. The singularity forms into a black hole and starts to consume its surroundings. Just like smashing atoms together in the hydron collider.

Totally wrong. Do the math and you'll see that doubling the density of lead comes nowhere close to being sufficient to create an event horizon.

I don't have time right now, but when I get home from work this evening, I'll show you the numbers.

--flatline

[flatline]

If you take it from a purely physics based opinion: then as the two pieces of matter begin to occupy the same space, a singularity is created. The singularity forms into a black hole and starts to consume its surroundings. Just like smashing atoms together in the hydron collider.

Totally wrong. Do the math and you'll see that doubling the density of lead comes nowhere close to being sufficient to create an event horizon.

I don't have time right now, but when I get home from work this evening, I'll show you the numbers.

--flatline

Causing to atoms to exist in the same point in space in tme is a little different than simply doubling the density

Let's see...the volume stays the same, but the mass doubles. Hmm...that's like exactly the definition of doubling the density of something. Even if you did manage to create a micro black hole, the thing would evaporate away all its mass in almost no time at all.

Now, there are other damaging effects possible, but creating a long lived black hole is not one of them. Depending on the materials super-imposed on each other, it's possible you might achieve critical mass for a fission reaction. Or if the resulting material is electrically conductive, it should tear itself apart as electrons flee to the surface and positively charged center repels itself (I don't really know how to predict how violent this would be...it might do nothing more than heat and swell the object).

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

just to be clear, when teleporting an something into someone as a weapon:

1: This is targeting an area that you cannot see and, very likely, have not been to. Is the strike roll the only one for this? or is the normal teleport % used in addition?

2: When the object hits, what actually happens? Like is the target area displaced by the new object, do they meld together, or does this somehow just get added? On a related question, would this teleportation have an outwards appearance to those viewing the target (like target is larger due to added weight...).

3: Can you teleport objects inside things that would be otherwise impossible to penetrate? In example, rune weapons, or other indestructible objects or people.

4: How does this work in regards to creatures with specific weaknesses? In example, would teleporting a stake into a vampire's heart have the same effect of normally driving the stake into position?

Opened a can of worms, so I figured I'd ask away.
-Pax

You're overly literal to insist that the target isn't visible by insisting that when you see someone's head you can't target the interior. The target is visible, it's someone's head.

Unless you can see the interior of the head, then the target can only be the surface of the head, the part that you do see.
The target has to be "known," not "well, I know kinda where it's at, but don't know what it looks like or anything."

Again, wrong. The target is known, 'that space right there'.

Okay.
How exactly do you know "that space right there?"
Could you pick it out of a line-up?
Have you been there personally?
Can you actually SEE it when it's got nothing other than empty air?
Are you assuming that people can and do memorize every spatial coordinate of empty air, everywhere in their line of sight, in case somebody's head might end up in that space at a later date?
Where are you going with this?

You're insisting on a meaning of 'known' that doesn't exist because you don't like the implications and would rather try and insist the spell is written with a meaning it doesn't have instead of just going 'yeah it doesn't specifically ban it but I house rule it so it can't'. Trying to say your house rule meaning for 'known' and 'familiar' is really the meaning of the words because you want more validity for your position when insisting that's how everyone ought to play it.

You're going with a version of "know" that means "Never actually seen or been to."
I think I'm on pretty safe ground here.

[Lenwen]

Are you aware that it is impossible to have two pieces of matter occupying the same exact space. Literally two completely different atoms becoming fused together. Doesn't really yield easy math. The closest example I can think of is the hadron collider where they smash atoms together, often resulting in several (while short-lived) micro-black holes.

Are you aware, that for that to happen you would need entirely another spell (completely new spell never before seen)?

Due entirely to how far apart matter is on the atomic level .. you think they are that close .. when relatively speaking .. its not ..

[Nightmask]

That's because you're applying restrictions onto the word 'known' that really don't exist. It should be self-evident that one's head is just that one's head, you can't have parts of it occupying completely different space than the rest. You're also insisting on an unrealistic definition of 'familiar', insisting you'd have to know the interior of someone's head as if you've been inside of it to constitute familiar. I have a closed box in my right hand and a rock in my left, I most certainly know the location of the box in my hand, IT'S IN MY HAND. I'm most certainly familiar with that location, it's the space right above my hand. I do not have to open the box and look inside when I attempt to teleport the rock into the box because there isn't anything about that which I don't meet the criteria for.

You can insist on definitions of 'familiar' and 'known' that don't exist because you want to insist the spell is more restrictive than it actually is because you don't want to allow for the broader implications but that's never going to make the text actually say what you insist it says because the actual words involved don't serve your definitions of them and never will.

From: Webster’s Dictionary-

Familiar
1: a member of the household of a high official
2: one who is often seen and well known; especially : an intimate associate : companion
3: a spirit often embodied in an animal and held to attend and serve or guard a person
4a : one who is well acquainted with something b : one who frequents a place

Know-The root of Known
To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty.
To regard as true beyond doubt: I know she won't fail.
To have a practical understanding of, as through experience;be skilled in: knows how to cook.

The words are clear-It is not I who wrote the words defined for the spell. And unfortunately you should better familiarize yourself with words before making assumptions (or attaching your own) about what those words mean.

You can say what you want-I am not attaching meaning to the words “known” and “familiar” these words are used commonly in the english language-and I know what they mean. When I apply the definitions of these words to the definition of the spell itself becomes clear, that the spell is not intended to be used this way-(and in my mind for obvious reasons)-and if it was intended to be used this way it should have been worded much differently.

I have sourced directly the definition of these words-tell me how I have attached my own meaning to these words-the definitions are right here in front of you to read.

Your assumptions about my knowledge is irrational-though I am a lot less smarter than I read

I know quite well what the words mean, and again you're the one attaching your own definitions to them not I. You don't want the spell to have the option of being used to instant-kill someone therefor you attach your own meaning to the words to justify that position. Someone directly in front of you is known and familiar to you because they're right in front of you and one can't possibly insist that someone you're looking at isn't known to you or familiar and be taken seriously. You don't have to cut someone's skull open and look at their brain to be familiar with the idea of a brain being in there or that the space it occupies can be a valid target.

You can attach whatever meaning you want to the words you want to justify whatever you feel like but they're your meanings working backwards to a meaning to justify a particular goal (insisting the spell itself says it can't be used a paticular way when it doesn't rather than just admit you house rule it that way).

“-GM, I Duck-to allow for Pepsi Jedi to get a clean shot with that very heavy looking book-“

I tried to make it clear that this is not my definition of the word(s) by sighting the dictionary. Prysus actually did an even better job in sighting even more relevant sources, to the topic were discussing, such as wordage from similar elements within the Palladium Universe.

In your case you have sighted nothing for your reasoning-only made assertions about the points I’ve tried to make and back up, from the text of the spell(s).

You have made statements that somehow “I” have attached a certain meaning to the words. Again this is nonsensical-I gave you reference: If the definiton is differe; please by all means tell me what you think definition means,-thats about all you can do anyway-

In regards to what I have said your statements make no sense-
You have not defined or sighted any reference-
Shew-Fly-Shew……

Ah yes, resort to the dismissive behavior and insults when you can't actually support what you keep claiming.

Your entire argument is to insist that something right in front of you you (someone's head) isn't something known to you by insisting that the head isn't really a head and defining it as if it were some room where the head is now something that the only thing known is the outer layer of skin cells because that's all you can see and behaving as if everything else is unknown. There is no way you can remotely get away with such nonsense as valid definitions of the words or concepts of 'familiar' or 'known', yet you keep insisting that it actually makes sense.

So the only one who needs to get shewing is yourself, who insists the known is unknown and everything's unknown because anything behind the first layer of atoms that reflect the light isn't knowable. Total nonsense.

[Lenwen]

I agree with the above post..

[Lenwen]

Are you aware that it is impossible to have two pieces of matter occupying the same exact space. Literally two completely different atoms becoming fused together. Doesn't really yield easy math. The closest example I can think of is the hadron collider where they smash atoms together, often resulting in several (while short-lived) micro-black holes.

Are you aware, that for that to happen you would need entirely another spell (completely new spell never before seen)?

Due entirely to how far apart matter is on the atomic level .. you think they are that close .. when relatively speaking .. its not ..

Solid matter is not displaced by teleport, that much has already been proven. Assuming the literal millions of atoms present inside of a piece of solid matter, it is almost certain that one is gonna land in another.

I disagree.

After all that does not happen when you jump into a pool of water .. Does it ?

[Nightmask]

Ah yes, resort to the dismissive behavior and insults when you can't actually support what you keep claiming.

Your entire argument is to insist that something right in front of you you (someone's head) isn't something known to you by insisting that the head isn't really a head and defining it as if it were some room where the head is now something that the only thing known is the outer layer of skin cells because that's all you can see and behaving as if everything else is unknown. There is no way you can remotely get away with such nonsense as valid definitions of the words or concepts of 'familiar' or 'known', yet you keep insisting that it actually makes sense.

So the only one who needs to get shewing is yourself, who insists the known is unknown and everything's unknown because anything behind the first layer of atoms that reflect the light isn't knowable. Total nonsense.

Yes, consider yourself dismissed
You have never made any worthwhile comment, other than to make the claim that I am attaching meanings to words that do not exist-
The words I have used have definitions-I provided them for your benefit-because it’s obvious you don’t understand.
What else should I do other than dismiss you then?
Saying that a person is wrong in their understanding is fine, but if you provide no evidence as to why they are wrong-your argument is very weak.
At this point I have realized that your comments have no actual meaning, and even In writing this I have wasted my time. (your welcome)
Your random babble = nonsensical

Yes the words have definitions, they've just never had the definitions you kept saying that they have. You attach what is obviously your meaning of them that you can't support and don't even deny that you're doing it because you don't agree with the Teleportation spell being exploited to do instant-kills. That's the only reason one would try and insist that a few molecules (the outer layer of something) render everything inside an unknown and unknowable location. To insist that a location is unknown for such reasons is absurd. Your position literally has been that you could hold an inflated balloon in your hand which would make the location of the space in your hand unknown because a few molecules thickness of rubber has transformed it into a space unknowable.

Worse because you can't successfully validate that house rule that rewrites the actual meaning of several common words you resort to 'attack the poster' fallacies, being dismissive and condescending.