Telemechanic Mental Operation and power armour

[Baron mugwort]

My character has the skills Pilot:robots and power Armour and Robot Combat basic. He also has Telemechanic Mental Operation.

Can he control the whole robot or suit of power armour without being inside it?

I am thinking of a situation where I cannot enter the vehicle for whatever reason (but am within range).

An example being the CS has caught me and I am being led to a cell through a camp. As I pass an unmanned robot/PA (and am within range). Can the robot/PA come to life and shoot my captors? Can I make it fight?

As an aside I do not have Telemechanic Possession and don't want to pick it.

If this has already been answered elsewhere I apologise

[jaymz]

Pretty sure operation is literal operation, as in you have to be in the PA and using it traditionally, and you would need Possession to do what you are asking.....

Not 100% sure though.

[Baron mugwort]

It has a range of 20ft +5/level though

[Blue_Lion]

well reading the first paragraph it seams fairly clear.

This power is a step beyond the mere understanding of machines granted by Telemechanics, it allows the psychic to telepathically operate machines with his mind! As long as the machine functions, he knows how to use it, and it is turned "on," the psychic can manipulate it with his mind as if his fingers were on the controls!....drive a hover car (even if there is already a driver, but at -30% when usurping the pilot)


So you could operate the power armor if it is turned on. If it is powered down the power might not allow its operation do to the requirement that it be turned "on".

[Axelmania]

Point of order: what if you don't have fingers?

[shadrak]

For many machines you could probably assume that, so long as there was a power source, you would not need to turn them on prior to using telemechanic operation...you could telemechanically operate whatever electronically regulated power source turns the machine on and off.

[Blue_Lion]

Point of order: what if you don't have fingers?

What is the point of this?

[Shark_Force]

For many machines you could probably assume that, so long as there was a power source, you would not need to turn them on prior to using telemechanic operation...you could telemechanically operate whatever electronically regulated power source turns the machine on and off.

i'd expect that depends... if it's an electrically operated switch, i'd say you could turn things on. if it's a physically operated switch (by this point, probably standard for CS vehicles given they've been treating psychics like garbage for decades and i can't imagine they've failed to figure out such a simple counter to psychic attacks of that nature by now after probably numerous occasions where it was a problem).

that said, i wouldn't be too surprised if there were machines with the power turned on from time to time... and i also wouldn't be too surprised if the grunts' first response to anything even remotely funny happening (whether you could plausibly be the source or not) was to attempt to KO or kill you (depending on your value as a prisoner). so make your ambush count

[Blue_Lion]

Manual toggles are not a significant inconvenience, and would have a added level of security.

I could reasonably see the main circuit breaker toggle to power the system still being manual. This would allow them to cut all power to the robot or power armor so they could provide maintenance safely. Making this the main way you power on and off the vehicle for use sets the habit of breaking power to the system.

[Killer Cyborg]

Point of order: what if you don't have fingers?

Then you'll probably have a pair of fingerless gloves.

[The Beast]

Point of order: what if you don't have fingers?

Then you'll probably have a pair of fingerless gloves.

They're called mittens.

[Axelmania]

Point of order: what if you don't have fingers?

What is the point of this?

You quoted "as if his fingers were on"

For someone with 4 fingers, it is as if they have 4 fingers on.

For someone with 3 fingers, it is as if they have 3 fingers on.

and so on.

[torjones]

My character has the skills Pilot:robots and power Armour and Robot Combat basic. He also has Telemechanic Mental Operation.

Can he control the whole robot or suit of power armor without being inside it?

I am thinking of a situation where I cannot enter the vehicle for whatever reason (but am within range).

An example being the CS has caught me and I am being led to a cell through a camp. As I pass an unmanned robot/PA (and am within range). Can the robot/PA come to life and shoot my captors? Can I make it fight?

As an aside I do not have Telemechanic Possession and don't want to pick it.

If this has already been answered elsewhere I apologize

Personally, I'd allow it, but I'm a very permissive GM, and a very restrictive GM might rule otherwise. As far as the rules as written, I believe that they allow it as well. Problem would come with a robot or PA that was powered down. Sure, you could flip the switch to power it up, but IIRC, that takes a bit of time to fully boot the robot, and by the time it was done booting, you'd likely be long out of range to control it, unless you get creative.

Reasoning: example given of a VCR, I realize that many of our younger players have no idea what that is, but it's kinda like a primitive version of a DVD player that recorded SD(360p and later 480p) images on magnetic tape reels contained in a rectangular plastic cassette. Anyway, you don't have to be within the VCR in order to operate it, and in fact, you merely need to be within range (25') to operate it. That same rule applies to any other machine you'd be controlling, as long as you're within range of the machine you want to control, you control it.

Also, as a low level character, the skill you get from telemechanics and TMO are 88% so, it's likely better than your skill at piloting normally. just something to keep in mind, so that you roll on the correct percentages...

[Killer Cyborg]

Point of order: what if you don't have fingers?

Then you'll probably have a pair of fingerless gloves.

They're called mittens.

Mittens are a kind of two-fingered glove.

[Blue_Lion]

Point of order: what if you don't have fingers?

What is the point of this?

You quoted "as if his fingers were on"

For someone with 4 fingers, it is as if they have 4 fingers on.

For someone with 3 fingers, it is as if they have 3 fingers on.

and so on.

That is what the power says. Word for word. The question really has no merit.

[Blue_Lion]

Point of order: what if you don't have fingers?

Then you'll probably have a pair of fingerless gloves.

They're called mittens.

Mittens are not gloves.

Mittens are hand covering that do not cover individual fingers.

Fingerless gloves are typically used in work outs to protect the palms but allow for grip.

[Axelmania]

Point of order: what if you don't have fingers?

What is the point of this?

You quoted "as if his fingers were on"

For someone with 4 fingers, it is as if they have 4 fingers on.

For someone with 3 fingers, it is as if they have 3 fingers on.

and so on.

That is what the power says. Word for word. The question really has no merit.

I was fishing to see if anyone thought that people without hands should still be able to do hand-like operations with it.

One thing that comes to mind would be someone with Ectoplasm, since those can create hand-like limbs. So if you created an ectoplasmic hand, you should then be able to use TMO as if you had hands.

Mittens are not gloves.

Mittens are hand covering that do not cover individual fingers.

Fingerless gloves are typically used in work outs to protect the palms but allow for grip.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mitten#Noun says "a type of glove", if gloves required finger sheathes then "fingerless glove" wouldn't make sense, because fingerlessness would make it a non-glove.

[Killer Cyborg]

Point of order: what if you don't have fingers?

What is the point of this?

You quoted "as if his fingers were on"

For someone with 4 fingers, it is as if they have 4 fingers on.

For someone with 3 fingers, it is as if they have 3 fingers on.

and so on.

That is what the power says. Word for word. The question really has no merit.

I was fishing to see if anyone thought that people without hands should still be able to do hand-like operations with it.

One thing that comes to mind would be someone with Ectoplasm, since those can create hand-like limbs. So if you created an ectoplasmic hand, you should then be able to use TMO as if you had hands.

Mittens are not gloves.

Mittens are hand covering that do not cover individual fingers.

Fingerless gloves are typically used in work outs to protect the palms but allow for grip.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mitten#Noun says "a type of glove", if gloves required finger sheathes then "fingerless glove" wouldn't make sense, because fingerlessness would make it a non-glove.

Ergo, gloves do not require finger sheaths.

[torjones]

I was fishing to see if anyone thought that people without hands should still be able to do hand-like operations with it.

One thing that comes to mind would be someone with Ectoplasm, since those can create hand-like limbs. So if you created an ectoplasmic hand, you should then be able to use TMO as if you had hands.

I don't think "Hands" is the operative word there. After all, if an Octo-man (or whatever they're called, it's been a long time since I've looked them up) who has 8 tenticles for arms and no hands on any of them, I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to rule that they couldn't use the power just because they didn't actually have hands, in spite of the fact that they have no problems what so ever (afaik) of manipulating humanoid technology including computers and weapons. I realize that we have some strange people in this forum who like to take strange positions for strange reasons, but even they I don't believe would make such a ruling, it's nonsensical. So the possibility of using Ectoplasm as a hand shouldn't even enter into it.

[Blue_Lion]

Point of order: what if you don't have fingers?

What is the point of this?

You quoted "as if his fingers were on"

For someone with 4 fingers, it is as if they have 4 fingers on.

For someone with 3 fingers, it is as if they have 3 fingers on.

and so on.

That is what the power says. Word for word. The question really has no merit.

I was fishing to see if anyone thought that people without hands should still be able to do hand-like operations with it.

One thing that comes to mind would be someone with Ectoplasm, since those can create hand-like limbs. So if you created an ectoplasmic hand, you should then be able to use TMO as if you had hands.

Mittens are not gloves.

Mittens are hand covering that do not cover individual fingers.

Fingerless gloves are typically used in work outs to protect the palms but allow for grip.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mitten#Noun says "a type of glove", if gloves required finger sheathes then "fingerless glove" wouldn't make sense, because fingerlessness would make it a non-glove.

well no if you use a real dictionary US and not wiki you would see that is a mitten is hand covering not a glove.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mitten
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mitten

Mittens are hand covering not gloves.
The term fingerless gloves a is specific type item that is not mittens.

https://www.bing.com/shop?q=fingerless+ ... ORM=SHOPTB

Now more to the point, I would say reguardless of the state of the users hands it would allow them to use the power as though they had fingers on the controls. (if intent was to ask about that then you worded it poorly you came acrossed as attacking the wording for the sake of attacking. So I asked what the point of it was, and your reply continued the trend that it appeared as an attack on the word and not a question about use of item. You never phased it as an actual question with merit until now.)

[Axelmania]

well no if you use a real dictionary US and not wiki you would see that is a mitten is hand covering not a glove.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mitten
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mitten

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ish/mitten "a type of glove with a single part for all the fingers and a separate part for the thumb"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mitten "A glove with two sections, one for the thumb and the other for all four fingers."

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... ish/mitten "a glove having one section for the thumb and a single section for the other fingers"

You about done? I don't have a high opinion of M-W, they make a lot of mistakes in my experience.

Now more to the point, I would say reguardless of the state of the users hands it would allow them to use the power as though they had fingers on the controls.

How many?

(if intent was to ask about that then you worded it poorly you came acrossed as attacking the wording for the sake of attacking.

You should question why you jump to false conclusions about people's motives like that.

So I asked what the point of it was, and your reply continued the trend that it appeared as an attack on the word and not a question about use of item. You never phased it as an actual question with merit until now.)

The purpose of asking "what if you don't have finger?" was 100% clear, and meritoriously phrased from the outset.

[Blue_Lion]

well no if you use a real dictionary US and not wiki you would see that is a mitten is hand covering not a glove.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mitten
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mitten

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ish/mitten "a type of glove with a single part for all the fingers and a separate part for the thumb"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mitten "A glove with two sections, one for the thumb and the other for all four fingers."

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... ish/mitten "a glove having one section for the thumb and a single section for the other fingers"

You about done? I don't have a high opinion of M-W, they make a lot of mistakes in my experience.

Now more to the point, I would say reguardless of the state of the users hands it would allow them to use the power as though they had fingers on the controls.

How many?

(if intent was to ask about that then you worded it poorly you came acrossed as attacking the wording for the sake of attacking.

You should question why you jump to false conclusions about people's motives like that.

So I asked what the point of it was, and your reply continued the trend that it appeared as an attack on the word and not a question about use of item. You never phased it as an actual question with merit until now.)

The purpose of asking "what if you don't have finger?" was 100% clear, and meritoriously phrased from the outset.

Oxford and Cambridge are UK dictionaries words have different meaning than they do in US. Merian-webster is a leading English dictionary for the US. Your regard for it is irrelevant it is how words are defined in the US. (webster is the US equilvent of UK's oxford dictionary, Merian-webster there flag ship that receives regular updates. Originally the two dictionaries went head to head, however they used different polling methods to determine the meaning of words. Oxford limited it to just a limited group of academics while Webster did a general population poll. However when it was determined that Webster's polling method was superior oxford switched to it. Webster's still is the main dictionary used in the US, where 75% of English speakers live. OED is more allied to English historically than how it is used currently.)


I go to that conclusion because I have noticed a trend from you to attempt to turn debates into petty arguments, over trivial irrelevant things. The question just seams petty attempt to derail the thread into a petty argument than address what was being discussed.


The number of fingers they have is irrelevent. It is just a petty distraction. It really serves no purpus to discuss how many fingers because we do not have any information on the affect fingers have on the controls of power armor in game and the fingers only for the power only exist in the users mind.

[Mack]

This is a Rifts forum. We don't need a pedantic argument over what constitutes a glove.

[eliakon]

The answer to what happens if you don't have hands is pretty blindingly obvious here people.
You turn to your GM and say "okay, so how does this work I don't have a hand?"
And I will bet you that 999 times out of 1000 the GM will say "it is as if your manipulator is on the controls dumb***, don't bog down with the details, just tell me what you want to do"

[dreicunan]

This is a Rifts forum. We don't need a pedantic argument over what constitutes a glove.

How about a pedantic argument over which dictionary is better? The answer is the OED.

On the topic at hand, I agree with Eliakon and the others who say that the power just works, don't get bogged down.

[Axelmania]

Oxford and Cambridge are UK dictionaries words have different meaning than they do in US.

Sometimes. I don't think this is one of those cases.

Merian-webster is a leading English dictionary for the US.

I can say with 100% certainty that this statement is false.

This is a Rifts forum. We don't need a pedantic argument over what constitutes a glove.

How about an earmuff?

I will bet you that 999 times out of 1000 the GM will say "it is as if your manipulator is on the controls

So what would that be for an armless man? His toes?

[torjones]

Merian-webster is a leading English dictionary for the US.

I can say with 100% certainty that this statement is false.

Sadly, Merian-Webster is *A* leading US English dictionary, though, Webster's is the most popular, and American Heritage is the most technically accurate as it is a prescriptive dictionary. It doesn't tell you how people misuse the language, it tells you how you're supposed to use the language.

I will bet you that 999 times out of 1000 the GM will say "it is as if your manipulator is on the controls

So what would that be for an armless man? His toes?

Stop getting bogged down in irrelevant nonsense. It works as though a normal person with arms and hands had their hands on the controls. Leave it at that, and move on with the game. If you were at my table bringing this stupidity up bogging the game down you'd be on your second warning already before being asked to leave for the night so that the rest of the players could get on with what they're here for, which is playing the game.

[Blue_Lion]

Oxford and Cambridge are UK dictionaries words have different meaning than they do in US.

Sometimes. I don't think this is one of those cases.

Merian-webster is a leading English dictionary for the US.

I can say with 100% certainty that this statement is false.

This is a Rifts forum. We don't need a pedantic argument over what constitutes a glove.

How about an earmuff?

1 well as the definition of the British one was different than the Americans dictionaries that does indicate this is one of those times.
All the leading American dictionaries are calling it a hand covering, the british ones calls it a glove. That indicates they are not defined the same. https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Mittens

2 I can say with 100% for the US your statement is blatantly wrong. It is as a said a leading English dictionary in the US.

3 Mack was right this is pointless. And are you now trying to troll him with the earmuff comment?
(I am through with this glove discussion, I think the main point I had was that fingerless gloves is refence to a particular type of hand covering that covers the palm but leaves fingers free to grip.)

I think the important thing is it would allow you to steal the PA if the suit is powered, if they cut the power when they store it then you might not be able to steal it.

[Axelmania]

Merian-Webster is *A* leading US English dictionary

Merriam-Webster is a dictionary which has notably high sales, I'll wager.

If you were at my table bringing this stupidity up

Why is following the RAW "stupidity" only when it bothers you?

1 well as the definition of the British one was different than the Americans dictionaries that does indicate this is one of those times.

Or that Merriam-Webster is managed by a bunch of fops who try to shape language instead of report it.

Merriam-Webster has been owned by Encyclopedia Brittanica (originally a Scottish company) since 1964, which has been owned by Jacqui Safra (a Brazilian with Syrian-Swiss background) since 1996, so it has strayed from its Massachusetts origins for the 22 years it's been out of the hands of the Benton foundation.

All the leading American dictionaries are calling it a hand covering, the british ones calls it a glove. That indicates they are not defined the same. https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Mittens

M-W listed "mitt" and "mitten" under glove's synonyms at https://books.google.ca/books?id=7YrUaeScLzYC&pg=PA315 published 1996.

I have an old Grosset-Webster dictionary which does have the narrow 'individual finger sheath' definition though, and I believe the phrase "fits like a glove" probably doesn't have mitts/mittens in mind.

That said: baseballs mitts (which are also called baseball gloves) DO have individual finger sheaths. Albeit very oversized ones.

I think it would be safe to say that glove has different uses, some implications being narrow while some usages broad.

3 Mack was right this is pointless. And are you now trying to troll him with the earmuff comment?

That was a joke about one of the images from Federation of Magic.

I think the important thing is it would allow you to steal the PA if the suit is powered, if they cut the power when they store it then you might not be able to steal it.

Glad we're back on track. What about if PA is off but there is a power button?

[Mack]

Topic locked because some posters would prefer to argue about dictionaries than have a productive discussion.

Additionally, I allowed many of the pedantic, quibbling, word game arguments with ridiculous assertions to go on because I prefer to give forum members leeway to resolve disagreements. It's apparent that some members have trouble wielding that leeway responsibly. Consider this to be your "knock it off" warning.

If you think this applies to someone other than yourself, think again.