Sight Question

[Sean Waters]

Can anyone work out how 'sight' costs 35 points?

 

Detect A Large Class Of Things 11- (Unusual Group), Discriminatory, Range, Sense, Targeting: 32 points

 

Now, unfortunately, this still is not the full form of discriminatory - it is still 'somewhat less'(could you tell someone's religion if you did have discriminatory? I doubt it even if you had 'analyse' to be honest): so that might be a -1/2 on the discriminatory element, reducing the cost to 30: at least it is a round number now - but how do we get to 35?

 

This seems like a pretty basic infrastructure point: where am I going wrong?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Sight Question

 

Can anyone work out how 'sight' costs 35 points?

 

Detect A Large Class Of Things 11- (Unusual Group), Discriminatory, Range, Sense, Targeting: 32 points

 

Now, unfortunately, this still is not the full form of discriminatory - it is still 'somewhat less'(could you tell someone's religion if you did have discriminatory? I doubt it even if you had 'analyse' to be honest): so that might be a -1/2 on the discriminatory element, reducing the cost to 30: at least it is a round number now - but how do we get to 35?

 

This seems like a pretty basic infrastructure point: where am I going wrong?

 

35 points is how much Physical Complication: Blind is worth. For purposes of Adjustment Powers, senses are considered to have a point cost equal to the value of the Complication you'd take for not having the Sense.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sight Question

 

35 points is how much Physical Complication: Blind is worth. For purposes of Adjustment Powers' date=' senses are considered to have a point cost equal to the value of the Complication you'd take for not having the Sense.[/quote']

 

Unless I misrecall, the chart where the costs of senses are listed for sellback purposes is followed by an explicit statement that characters cannot purchase adjustment powers to act against senses. The point costs are, I suppose, still useful for any relevant advantages such as Megascale.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Sight Question

 

Unless I misrecall' date=' the chart where the costs of senses are listed for sellback purposes is followed by an explicit statement that characters cannot purchase adjustment powers to act against senses. The point costs are, I suppose, still useful for any relevant advantages such as Megascale.[/quote']

 

Whoops. I think you're right, I misremembered.

[Naanomi]

Re: Sight Question

 

I agree that it is related to the cost of the complication...

 

but as an aside, to make it work as above how about '+5: first targeting sense', since not having ANY targeting sense is pretty harsh.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Sight Question

 

6E2 p13 does have an Optional Rule for Draining or Suppressing Senses.

 

-2 PER for every 5AP on the Drain/Suppress Dice. But only works per Sense, not Sense Group. Exceeding the points make it go away until Faded.

 

An interesting optional rule to work with, for some games who want the extra options for Builds.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sight Question

 

35 points is how much Physical Complication: Blind is worth. For purposes of Adjustment Powers' date=' senses are considered to have a point cost equal to the value of the Complication you'd take for not having the Sense.[/quote']

 

Except...(6.1.425)

 

Before taking this Complication, characters should instead consider selling back a Characteristic or ability to represent a physical problem. For example, don’t take Blindness as a Physical Complication — just sell back Normal Sight (6E1 209) for 35 Character Points. Physical Complication is best saved for conditions that you can’t represent by selling something back.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Sight Question

 

That doesn't mean the price wasn't derived from the idea. . .

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sight Question

 

That doesn't mean the price wasn't derived from the idea. . .

 

Er...OK, but how would that make sense? Either it is a complication, or it is a build. The rules seem pretty clear is shouldn't be treated as a complication.

 

I have issues with senses in Hero. Sure it is a better treatment than any other game system, bar none, but there are still issues: why, for example, is 'touch' not targeting?

 

Why do we have that weird 'not quite discriminatory' thing?

 

How are these things actually costed?

[ghost-angel]

Re: Sight Question

 

It's neither a Complication, nor a Build. It's a Default. But people want to get rid of it, so it needs a point cost.

 

I actually say it IS a complication - but for whatever reason a design decision was made that instead of taking a Complication for it, you sell it back. Similar to selling back STR - thus making the system more consistent in the idea that if you don't want what you get by Default you Sell It Back and Get Points for it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sight Question

 

It's neither a Complication, nor a Build. It's a Default. But people want to get rid of it, so it needs a point cost.

 

I actually say it IS a complication - but for whatever reason a design decision was made that instead of taking a Complication for it, you sell it back. Similar to selling back STR - thus making the system more consistent in the idea that if you don't want what you get by Default you Sell It Back and Get Points for it.

 

I prefer this new approach for solving the Daredevil Dilemma - a character who lacks Sight and has compensatory senses should be able to have the same points to spend on other abilities as a character who has the default senses.

 

But it does beg the question whether some other Complications should be converted to sellbacks.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Sight Question

 

I've always been bugged that "Cannot Leap" has been represented as both - it should just be a Sellback. If you're Leaping is 0" it follows. . .

 

Beyond that, I can't really think of any other Default Abilities that are Complications at this point.

[Naanomi]

Re: Sight Question

 

Wheelchair: Sell back running, buy some back with an OIF and limited terrain.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Sight Question

 

I've never seen Wheelchair as a physical complication - merely Social ("Handicapped"). But yeah, that's the way I'd build that one.

[Naanomi]

Re: Sight Question

 

Even though it isn't 'book legal', I'd do the same with senses... sell back sight, buy it again with a Visor... or a hearing aid, or 'costs endurance' or whatever is appropriate

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Sight Question

 

Interestingly,

 

selling back doesn't actually imply an impairment the same way that Disads do....

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sight Question

 

Selling back sight makes sense to me, for the Daredevil Dilemma mentioned above: if you want to replace sight with an equivalent sense then you should be no better or worse off - just different*.

 

Therein is My Dilemma - if buying sight from scratch costs 32 points and selling it back costs 32 points...well you are getting 3 points for replacing Normal Sight with an equivalent sense.

 

For the sake of both consistency and simple sense, I really can not see why we should simply pick a number on this when we have the ability to get it exactly right with little or no effort.

 

 

 

*Although, arguably, an unusual sense makes you better off anyway because it is far less likely to ever be flashed

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Sight Question

 

I've always been bugged that "Cannot Leap" has been represented as both - it should just be a Sellback. If you're Leaping is 0" it follows. . .

 

This especially bugs me when we look to the bestiary and see the "disadvantage" equals the inches of leaping the creature otherwise would have had. That seems the fair pricing, so just let him sell it back.

 

Can't swim? Sell back your swimming. Can't walk? Sell back your running. Makes sense to me. Either that, or there should be no sellbacks at all - everything should be a Complication. Physically Weak (-5 STR; 5 points). I think this is a major improverment in 6e, although I would like to see it go one step further and allow partial sellbacks (impaired hearing, sight, etc.), removing these from Complications as well.

 

Even though it isn't 'book legal'' date=' I'd do the same with senses... sell back sight, buy it again with a Visor... or a hearing aid, or 'costs endurance' or whatever is appropriate[/quote']

 

I'd take the same approach.

[Naanomi]

Re: Sight Question

 

Therein is My Dilemma - if buying sight from scratch costs 32 points and selling it back costs 32 points...well you are getting 3 points for replacing Normal Sight with an equivalent sense.

 

Daredevil lives in a world with writing, signs, and other visual phenomenon. He lives with a species dominated by those symbols, that he cannot perceive. If he lived on a world where Sonar Writing was common, he wouldn't save 3 points. Losing a common sense, a common frame of reference, for most settings is probably worth the 3 points.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sight Question

 

Daredevil lives in a world with writing' date=' signs, and other visual phenomenon. He lives with a species dominated by those symbols, that he cannot perceive. If he lived on a world where Sonar Writing was common, he wouldn't save 3 points. Losing a common sense, a common frame of reference, for most settings is probably worth the 3 points.[/quote']

 

Granted, but there is nothing to stop another character buying a detect, that picks up all the same stuff as sight does, but doesn't use the sight group: that means you get all the advantages of sight but none of the drawbacks (like the incredibly common flashes).

 

Another thing occurs, something of an aside: if you sell back normal sight, well there are certain elements of the sight group which come free: Discriminatory, Range, Sense, Targeting. Together they are worth 22 points, so arguably selling back sight should only garner 10 points (32-22).

 

Also, if Discriminatory is free with the sight group, how come normal sight still has that 'partially discriminatory' thing going for it?

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Sight Question

 

Another thing occurs, something of an aside: if you sell back normal sight, well there are certain elements of the sight group which come free: Discriminatory, Range, Sense, Targeting. Together they are worth 22 points, so arguably selling back sight should only garner 10 points (32-22).

Err, what? You don't have sight, so you don't have a Discriminatory, Ranged, Targeting Sense, hense you don't have access to the 22 "free" points. Or are you saying you would drop Normal Sight but stick other Perception Powers in the Sight Group?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sight Question

 

Err' date=' what? You don't have sight, so you don't have a Discriminatory, Ranged, Targeting Sense, hense you don't have access to the 22 "free" points. Or are you saying you would drop Normal Sight but stick other Perception Powers in the Sight Group?[/quote']

 

I'm saying the powers are in the sight group: if you buy another sense that uses the simulated sense rule based on sight, you get those elements for free.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Sight Question

 

I'm saying the powers are in the sight group: if you buy another sense that uses the simulated sense rule based on sight' date=' you get those elements for free.[/quote']

 

Maybe they shouldn't be for free if you've sold back the entire value of Sight. Or, alternately, maybe that should change the "sell back" to be less valuable.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Sight Question

 

If you sell back Sight I guess I just kind of assumed you were selling back all sight, the "Sight Group" as it were. It never even crossed my mind that someone would try to sell their Normal Sight and then put detects that do the exact same thing in the Site Group. That's just silly. It's obvious Metagaming and the GM's responsible to stop such tom foolery. If they have a legitimate concept that does something similar than it's the GM's job to see it is balanced and costed correctly. Why would that require changing the base price that is appropriate to the majority of the people selling back sight?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Sight Question

 

If we did not have questionable freebies with sense groups then this would not be a problem. I agree it would be sharp practice but the rules allow it - I'd argue even encourage sense tom-foolery with the value of sight sell back being higher than the cost of buying it.