All of these questions and answers were posted on the Assistance Forum of this website and are archived here for easy reference. If you do not find an answer to your questions here, please post it in the Forum.

Q: Why isn't a Power Surged weapon dead as a doornail? And is it possible to burn a weapon out?

On the topic of power surge: any reasonable quality device would have a built-in circuit breaker, to prevent someone with that ability from burning it out. So this ability should only be able to cause permanent damage or fires in poorly-built stuff. Besides the mundane reasons for circuit breakers, most of the galaxy has, at one time or another, perpetrated a witch hunt against savants, so that sort of basic defensive measure is perfectly reasonable.
In any event, power surge is mostly about temporarily redirecting energy. We had a rule about shorting circuits out during playtesting, but every form of the rule made Power Flux way too powerful - and it is already quite effective even without any permanent damage.

Q: Page 222 gives an example with a cost of 200 EXP. Is this a typo?

Yes, The chart on page 222 gives the correct EXP cost for advancing from Initiate to Templar, which is only 20 EXP.

Q: If a savant wants to use TK to grab a gun out of someone's hand, how does he do it?

There are a few approaches to handling this. The one people think of first is to equate Telekinesis to a Strength attribute and do a standard grappling-type test. I think there is a problem with this test, however: Telekinesis deals in mass and speed, while Strength deals in forces.

Telekinesis could be visualized in terms of forces and acceleration, but even a physics major would be burdened by the kind of math necessary for even very simple calculations. Players and GMs should also stick to mass and speed because trying to think in terms of force will only cause confusion (for example, if Telekinesis produced a force, it should be able to move heavier objects in space, but it can't).

So when you use Telekinesis, don't get caught up in forces and focus on mass (which is gravity independent). Can the savant lift the mass of the gun? Yes. Can the gun's owner hold onto the mass of the gun? Yes. Therefore, the gun cannot be taken away so easily. The savant could use enough power to pick up the whole person but even then, the person is strong enough to hold himself onto the gun.

I would say the only way to take the gun away from the person would be to surprise them (they wouldn't expect invisible forces pulling on the gun). That would be an AG test (with something like a +30 if the target knows he is facing a savant).

Q: This improved and corrected version of Telekinesis corrects a problem with some offensive uses of the power.

There isn't actually very much wrong with the original description of the Telekinesis power, but there are places where the original runs into problems. One particular problem comes when players try to use TK to throw targets against walls and do damage. Not only is the damage a little high, but when one does all the math, the power actually does more damage this way when used in a snap action than when the savant uses all of his power. This is counter-intuitive at best, and not the intention of the original rule.

The new definition is only different in that part of the Strength contribution to the power is defined in terms of speed, not range.

Strength: 1 PP per 100 kg.

Strength: 1 PP per 1 meter/second velocity.

Range: 1 PP per 25 m.

Targets: 1 PP per additional object.

Thus the range travelled is the time the power is used (2, 5 or 15 seconds) multiplied by the velocity – something that shouldn't be difficult for playing groups to calculate. Conveniently enough, speed tops out at about 65 km/h for a powerful savant using all of his power for a whole round, which is the same top speed for the same savant using the old power. The difference is that, used in a normal or snap action, the speeds are lower, which puts it back into the paradigm used for other powers. To find collision damage, convert m/s to km/h (multiply the power's velocity by 3.6) and then use the usual crashing damage rules for the collision

Q: Can a savant use Telepathy to meet the communication requirements for Mind Control?

Yes, telepathy can be used to speak to the target (in fact, the book says this at the very top of page 228). This can even be used to overcome the usual line of sight requirement, since Telepathy can contact subjects the user already knows (but the usual range penalties for Mind Control still apply).

Q: What good are a savant's shields if you can't do anything else while they're on?

First, it is correct that you can't do anything else. While you are maintaining an energy shield, you would have to concentrate on it, and it would block shots that you'd try to fire out of it.

I wouldn't say that it is useless though. Here are some good uses:
1) it is a great way to provide cover while someone else does something. For example, a medic trying to administer first aid or a technician trying to get a door open before the guards blast you
2) While energy weapons can't shoot through energy shields, projectile weapons certainly can. This could be a great way to provide protection for a friend with a gauss rifle (or similar weapon). Physical shields work the same way with energy weapons.
3) Used as an interrupt action, it can be used to block a shot or a whole volley of shots.
4) On a vehicle, the shield could surround the entire vehicle and give extra protection there (provided you have enough PP)
As you can see, with this power and others, savants work best in teams, which is how they were designed.

Q: Can an NPC use an interrupt action to dodge my savant's use of Throwing Attacks? Does he need cover?

Yes, to both questions. "Dodging" attacks isn't really possible at all without some sort of cover being available because the assumption is that the attacker would still hit unless something intervenes (hence the danger of standing in the middle of a field). In the case of Throwing Attacks, the projectile is essentially guided anyway, doubling the need for cover. However, the projectile is not sufficiently guided to turn around or navigate tight corners.