Forums of the Megaverse®

Well I'm wondering how contiguous an object has to be in order to be teleported. Something like a gem is obvious. I think a weapon, even though it might be made of constituent parts, would work since it's considered a whole weapon. A bottle of wine, I think works but I wonder if the mind mage could teleport ONLY the bottle. What about something like a bag of coins? Is just the bag teleported or can the mind mage move the whole thing?

-Vek
"Never trust a mind mage."

Under the general understanding of the KISS principal that PB used, if the MM/wiz wanted to t-port a bag of coins then the whole bag of coins (w/coins) would be t-ported.

However, as a GM I encourage players to fully describe what they really want happen when using their psi powers or magic spells.

Since magic/psionics is part belief, then beliefs of the player can effect it, especially if he thinks he can't do it.
Especially considering when you teleport someone you don't just get their skin, you get the whole lot, so even if they didn't want the contents I think they would come along and would count against the weight limit. If the player came up with a decent reason why the contents wouldn't come however I'd probably allow it.

I generally go with the "What is the conceptual idea of this object" and use that.
This means that you get the bottle and wine because that is what a bottle of wine is. You get bag and coins because that is what a bag of coins is.
I would allow though someone to teleport a persons jacket off of them yes. But you will get the jacket... and everything in its pockets, which may or may not put you over weight. If you use a spell to teleport a person you get that person, and all that they are carrying and wearing. I do not allow teleportation spells or abilities to be used as a simple way to strip people for capture or to loot them or the like...this goes both ways though, you can also rescue your friends and not worry about leaving their stuff behind either.

Well, I agree as well but it's the range of touch that makes me wonder. Technically, you're not touching anything in the bag. But, it's essentially magic so what the hell.

-Vek
"Never trust a mind mage."

All the Universe is one.

Renaming it "teleport matter" and having the weight limit apply to any number of objects might be easier.

Veknironth wrote:Well, I agree as well but it's the range of touch that makes me wonder. Technically, you're not touching anything in the bag. But, it's essentially magic so what the hell.

-Vek
"Never trust a mind mage."

If it was just touch you would only get the upper layer of molecules, and it doesn't depend on the contiguity of matter either so it doesn't make sense either way.
It's just another one of the will defining reality things.

Maybe "touch" should be "any matter which would be touched by a line in between any two points on your body" ? So if I held out my hands 2 feet apart, the space between my palms is being 'touched'?

Veknironth wrote:Well, I agree as well but it's the range of touch that makes me wonder. Technically, you're not touching anything in the bag. But, it's essentially magic so what the hell.

-Vek
"Never trust a mind mage."

Seriously getting way too technical. You need to keep it simple. The bag would be considered "touched" as well as everything in it. The player is in contact with the bag and all its continents. Just use normal reason.

If you wanted to get right down to it nothing in the universe touches anything else when you boil it down to the subatomic level. There is always space between objects.

It all comes down to what can reasonably be called or thought of "an object."
Is a bag of coins "an object?"
Is a bag of gun parts?
Is a gun?

Generally speaking, yes.
Having components doesn't make something not a single object.

I would tend to use my loose definition of an aura to do this. Teleporting a bag full of things, within the weight limit? That seems reasonable; all the things are inside the bag's aura and can be teleported together.

Maybe an object includes anything within its barriers as part of an object?

But then, how do we define the barriers... how tight must a bicycle be put together for its parts to collectively be 1 object?

Axelmania wrote:Maybe an object includes anything within its barriers as part of an object?

But then, how do we define the barriers... how tight must a bicycle be put together for its parts to collectively be 1 object?

What do you think?

Axelmania wrote:Maybe an object includes anything within its barriers as part of an object?

But then, how do we define the barriers... how tight must a bicycle be put together for its parts to collectively be 1 object?

Anything that falls off if you shake it a couple times isn't part of the same object.

Mark Hall wrote:

Axelmania wrote:Maybe an object includes anything within its barriers as part of an object?

But then, how do we define the barriers... how tight must a bicycle be put together for its parts to collectively be 1 object?

Anything that falls off if you shake it a couple times isn't part of the same object.

Who's shakes? A juicer could shake the tires off a bicycle... a kaiju could shake the cement and glass off a building.