Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

[randian]

Enhanced Perception is priced thus:

 

1/+1 one sense

2/+1 one sense group

3/+1 all sense groups

 

Telescopic is priced thus:

 

1/+2 one sense

3/+2 one sense group

 

You can easily see that Telescopic for 2 sense groups is just as expensive as Enhanced Perception (6/+2) while being strictly inferior, and you'd be crazy to buy Telescopic for 3 or more sense groups. Both that and the conspicuous pricing gap in Telescopic makes me think it should have been:

 

1/+2 one sense

2/+2 one sense group

3/+2 all sense groups

 

What say you?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

I think the setup is like that to encourage specialization to some degree.

 

A GM not worried about that could just allow characters to just buy Limited Enhanced Perception instead of Telescopic.

 

3 +2 PER with Sight Group (4 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about a fourth of its effectiveness, Only to offset Range Modifier Penalties(-1/4)

equal to the current cost of Telescopic for 1 Sense Group

3 +2 versus Range Modifier for Sight Group

 

This would put the pricing for All Sense Groups as follows:

5 +2 PER with all Sense Groups (6 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about a fourth of its effectiveness (-1/4)

 

And if you think -1/4 is too small -1/2 only saves 1 real point:

4 +2 PER with all Sense Groups (6 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (-1/2)

 

Anything more that -1/2 reduces the cost of converting a single Sense Group to 2 points (less than the current Telescopic).

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

Probably if you have Telescopic for more than one Sense Group, you might as well just go with the increased Perception roll anyway. I don't know. I'd be okay with the proposed cost change, but I'm also okay with it like it is I think. Eh.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

I don’t recall how it’s laid out in the RAW, but I’ve often seen the modifiers played in very different ways. Much like no amount of Enhanced Perception will allow you to see microscopic, or smaller, items, you need Microscopic for that, no amount of Enhanced PER will allow you to see something 100 miles away, but enough Telescopic will.

[randian]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

Much like no amount of Enhanced Perception will allow you to see microscopic' date=' or smaller, items, you need Microscopic for that[/quote']

That's because Microscopic is like Infrared Perception: it's not a question of bonuses or penalties, you can't see the item in question at all without a power. Telescopic is nothing like Microscopic. It's a pure bonus/penalty play.

no amount of Enhanced PER will allow you to see something 100 miles away' date=' but enough Telescopic will.[/quote']

That's not true. Hero makes no distinction between types of bonuses and penalties. Add applicable bonuses, subtract applicable penalties, make roll.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

You neglected to quote the part where I said I wasn't refering to RAW (that's rules as written) but to how I've seen it played. Also, there's the whole thing of Common and Dramatic Sense. Common Sense says no human can see 100s of miles away no matter how Perceptive they are. Telescopic is a Power that directly relates to distance. It makes sense even if the system itself doesn't make that distinction...

 

EDIT: Plus, as Hyper-Man already pointed out, the pricing isn't off anyway.

[dmjalund]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

every day I see something 93 million miles a way. Most nights I can see things much much further away than that

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

Obviously the size modifier makes up for the distance modifier.

 

Should Enhanced Perception let you be able to tell that blob of movement 2 miles away is actually Bob and that he has a five o'clock shadow? Maybe it should, but that's not how I've personally seen it played. Either way, the pricing isn't off so it's a null point.

 

EDIT: I don't mind snarky remarks, but you could actually take time to weigh in your opinion on the actual topic. Or should I assume you agree that the pricing isn't off as H-M pointed out?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

Another hidden balance factor with senses is their role in targeting.

Building a power with Megascale Range and No Range Penalty is relatively easy via Advantages

Actually perceiving the target with a Targeting Sense can get expensive via Telescopic.

Part of what makes building Superman so difficult on a 350-400 budget is the amount of points that must be dedicated to all those super-senses he has (like Telescopic). By RAW its not legal to put such abilities in a framework. This actually works out for as building Captain Marvel (basically a version of Superman without super-senses) because those extra points can then go towards building a proper 'magic lightning' that can be used as an attack instead.

[randian]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

You neglected to quote the part where I said I wasn't refering to RAW (that's rules as written) but to how I've seen it played.

Equally, that's not how I've seen it played.

Also, there's the whole thing of Common and Dramatic Sense. Common Sense says no human can see 100s of miles away no matter how Perceptive they are.

"Common sense" says that you should be able to demolish buildings with Tunneling, because that's what real-world tunneling would do. I am extremely wary of arguments applying any variant of "common sense" to RPG rules. "You can't see far away with a high PER roll" as a matter of "common sense" is a very, very arguable point. Plus it is, as you note, not consonant with RAW.

 

By the way, do you make the same "common sense" ruling for PSLs vs CSLs? Because if Enhanced Perception doesn't apply to distance vision, CSLs on OCV shouldn't apply to long-range attacks.

EDIT: Plus, as Hyper-Man already pointed out, the pricing isn't off anyway.

Hyper-Man said he thinks it may have been done to encourage specialization. That hardly implies he thinks the pricing isn't off. He may in fact believe that, but I get no sense one way or the other from what he said.

 

If "you should only have one Telescopic sense group" was an intentional part of the pricing model, then yes the pricing isn't off. From the perspective that PSLs (or their equivalent) should always be less expensive than CSLs, the pricing is way off.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

You neglected to quote the part where I said I wasn't refering to RAW (that's rules as written) but to how I've seen it played. Also' date=' there's the whole thing of [b']Common and Dramatic Sense[/b]. Common Sense says no human can see 100s of miles away no matter how Perceptive they are. Telescopic is a Power that directly relates to distance. It makes sense even if the system itself doesn't make that distinction...

 

EDIT: Plus, as Hyper-Man already pointed out, the pricing isn't off anyway.

That's a good point. There's the question of what a successful Perception Roll gives you. Certainly it allows you to notice something, and for a Targeting Sense to know precisely where it is and at least roughly what it is doing. But no, other than that I wouldn't say all successful Perception Rolls are created equal. Just because you are incredibly alert and perceptive doesn't mean you can see a flea on a dog's nose at 2km. I would play a Telescopic Sense differently. Just like I don't even allow a Normal Sight Perception Roll in total darkness (very dark conditions, sure, but not pitch black), even at the supposed -4 penalty, unless a character has Nightvision (note I said Normal Sight; I'm not including other Sight Group senses like Infrared Sight).

[randian]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

Just because you are incredibly alert and perceptive doesn't mean you can see a flea on a dog's nose at 2km.

From the perspective of figuring out your final PER roll at the target, it means exactly that. If "make a PER roll at -10" isn't the correct method of seeing said flea, then what is?

Just like I don't even allow a Normal Sight Perception Roll in total darkness (very dark conditions, sure, but not pitch black), even at the supposed -4 penalty, unless a character has Nightvision (note I said Normal Sight; I'm not including other Sight Group senses like Infrared Sight).

This confusion wouldn't have happened if Nightvision had been (properly IMO) modeled as a Detect, like Infrared. That aside, you aren't comparing like with like. Nightvision and Infrared are all or nothing, so you can't make up for their lack by rolling better. That's not so for Enhanced and Telescopic.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

From the perspective of figuring out your final PER roll at the target' date=' it means exactly that. If "make a PER roll at -10" isn't the correct method of seeing said flea, then what is?[/quote']

Okay. Maybe a bad example. The Per roll was to notice the dog. You'd know the dog was there, but you wouldn't be able to tell what color its nose was or whether it had a flea on it. Without the Telescopic, I wouldn't even allow a roll to spot the flea itself. With Telescopic, you'd want to have the dog there to catch your attention (know where to aim your binoculars), and you might be able to see the flea. You might also be able to spot the flea itself if it just happened to be in the direction you were pointing your binoculars. With both Telescopic and Rapid, you might be able to notice a flea at 2km no matter where it is IF you're spending some time scanning around (the amount of time depending on how much Rapid you have).

 

This confusion wouldn't have happened if Nightvision had been (properly IMO) modeled as a Detect' date=' like Infrared. That aside, you aren't comparing like with like. Nightvision and Infrared are all or nothing, so you can't make up for their lack by rolling better. That's not so for Enhanced and Telescopic.[/quote']

The point was that I have Nightvision do a little more than simply give you +4 to overcome darkness penalties; in some cases you can make a roll even if I wouldn't allow you to normally. Or you might notice something without a roll, even if I might require people without Nightvision to roll. I suppose you could model this using some quantitative method, like: 1.) if you have a net -4 penalty you can't roll at all, 2.) if you don't have a net penalty, you don't need to roll at all. But I prefer to use common sense in a more subjective fashion than that, I guess. You aren't going to spot a giant with your Normal Sight in pitch blackness, and I don't care how damn big he is. With a tiny bit of light and him moving, you've got a pretty good chance.

[randian]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

You'd know the dog was there' date=' but you wouldn't be able to tell what color its nose was or whether it had a flea on it. Without the Telescopic, I wouldn't even allow a roll to spot the flea itself. With Telescopic, you'd want to have the dog there to catch your attention (know where to aim your binoculars), and you might be able to see the flea.[/quote']

I am looking for fleas on a dog. They are -10 to PER, divided -6 for range and -4 to size. I have a total visual perception bonus of +10. Can I see that flea with less than +6 of that bonus in Telescopic?

You aren't going to spot a giant with your Normal Sight in pitch blackness' date=' and I don't care how damn big he is.[/quote']

I'm not sure why you think we disagree on this point. That's why I called Nightvision "all or nothing".

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

I'm pretty sure the 2km he listed in his example more than a -6 range modifier.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

I'm pretty sure the 2km he listed in his example more than a -6 range modifier.

 

Based on the table in 6e2 page 38 2km translates to a -16 Range Modifier.

[randian]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

I'm pretty sure the 2km he listed in his example more than a -6 range modifier.

I'm trying to illuminate the underlying principle, which doesn't require an exact match of numbers.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

What underlying principle? We've already conceded that there is no mechanical difference.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

I think that one of the unspoken points others were trying to make was that in the case of PERception rolls at least, a natural roll of "3" still has some maximum effect limit that cannot be exceeded unless the character has actually purchased some levels of enhanced perception or telescopic (similar in some ways to the absolute effects of IR and Nightvision). I personally disagree that Telescopic is necessary from the mechanical side of things but as a sfx ruling within a particular campaign I see no problem as long as the rule is applied fairly and consistently.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

I am looking for fleas on a dog. They are -10 to PER' date=' divided -6 for range and -4 to size. I have a total visual perception bonus of +10. Can I see that flea with less than +6 of that bonus in Telescopic?[/quote']

I'd approach it by thinking about whether it's reasonable for you to be able to see the object (flea, or whatever) at 8m range. If so, Telescopic of +6 should allow you to see it out to 64m. Is it reasonable for you to be able to see the object at 16m? If so, Telescopic of +4 might allow you to see it out to 64m. "Reasonable" means I'll probably give you a Perception Roll. "Unreasonable" means I may not even let you try. "Easy"/"obvious" means I'll probably let you notice it without even making a roll. I hope that makes sense. I apply the same sort of reasoning for things like Microscopic (if the flea were 4 times its normal length, would it be reasonable to see it...?) and Rapid (would it be reasonable to see the flea at 2m if you had to scan a 45 degree arc in a Phase? now at 2km, assuming you have the sufficient amount of Telescopic...).

 

I'm not sure why you think we disagree on this point. That's why I called Nightvision "all or nothing".

Oh. Well, according to the rules Nightvision is simply +4 to Normal Sight to overcome penalties due to darkness. I'm saying I treat it slightly different from that, but many might not. That's all.

[randian]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

I'd approach it by thinking about whether it's reasonable for you to be able to see the object (flea' date=' or whatever) at 8m range.[/quote']

Assuming you have deemed it unreasonable to see the flea unaided, what in your mind would let me see it? Fleas are small. Microscopic? It's not mechanically limited to 0m range like a real microscope is. Since you'd probably let me see that flea at 1m range unaided (otherwise it would be impossible to inspect a pet for fleas), might I might be suffering an extra-harsh range mod penalty (-1/1m?) to which Telescopic applies? If I had +4 Telescopic I could then see the flea out to 5m.

Well' date=' according to the rules Nightvision is simply +4 to Normal Sight to overcome penalties due to darkness.[/quote']

Even if that's how you treat it mechanically, there's still an inconsistency. The rules text for Nightvision says "see in total darkness", while 6E2 12 equates a -4 penalty to "dark night". Total darkness, as you might experience in a cave or closed room, is not the same thing as "dark night". I would thread this needle by saying that a person with +4 Enhanced could see on a dark night as well as a normal person in full daylight, but you need actual Nightvision to see when there is no light at all.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

I think the issue is more one of mechanics. Range applies penalties, but does not make something impossible (outside "no, you need to roll a 1, so even if you roll a 3, I am ruling it is impossible"). So, if I can see the flea if examining the animal close up, perhaps that is because I took enough Extra Time to get, say, a +6 PER roll modifier which gives me, for the sake of illustration, a 13- roll. So we have established I need 7- to see the flea at no range modifier with no extra time or other bonuses. I'd call that a significant size modifier (since I would not have made you roll to perceive the dog at all). Let's call it a -8 size modifier.

 

If I add in +8 PER rolls, I need 15- to see the flea. Enhanced PER improves my PER rolls, so if I needed 7- before, my +8 bonus means it is very easy for me to notice the flea on a casual glance at the dog at close range. If the dog is so far away that I have a -8 range penalty, then I need a 7- to see the flea, but my enhanced PER means it is still trivially easy to see the dog.

 

If, instead, I have +8 PER from microscopic vision, I still see the flea at 15-. It's no easier for me to see the dog when he moves out to -8 penalty range, but if I do successfully see the dog at that range, I should also see the flea. My Microscopic Vision makes it no harder to see the flea than to see the dog.

 

If I have +8 PER from telescopic vision, I still need 7- to see the flea with the dog up close. But I need the same 7- to see the flea anywhere up to a -8 range modifier distance (and have no trouble seeing the dog at that range).

 

That does make Telescopic seem expensive, in large part because starting with 5 points for +1 to all INT-based rolls limits the granularity available for +1 to a subset of INT-based rolls. I don't see a problem making Telescopic apply to a full sense group at a 2 point level, or even making that the base for a 1 point level.

 

Mechanically, I would say that Enhanced Senses provide a bonus under all circumstances, while Telescopic provides bonuses only to the extent there are range penalties. Mechanically, there is nothing Telescopic can do that Enhanced PER cannot.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

Assuming you have deemed it unreasonable to see the flea unaided' date=' what in your mind would let me see it? Fleas are small. Microscopic? It's not mechanically limited to 0m range like a real microscope is. Since you'd probably let me see that flea at 1m range unaided (otherwise it would be impossible to inspect a pet for fleas), might I might be suffering an extra-harsh range mod penalty (-1/1m?) to which Telescopic applies? If I had +4 Telescopic I could then see the flea out to 5m.[/quote']

If it were reasonable for a normal person to see a flea at 1m, I'd say +4 Telescopic would allow you to see it at 4m, yes (each +2 doubles the distance). Not because the Range Modifier is -1 per 1m, but because a +4 is x4 distance magnification. If it were reasonable to see the flea at 3m, +4 Telescopic would allow you to see it at 12m. If it were reasonable to be able to see it at 10m, +4 Telescopic would allow you to see it at 40m.

 

Would Microscopic make any difference in that scenario? Probably not, since you can see a flea with the naked eye at close range. Unless maybe this were a flea on a dog again and you wanted to zoom in and scan sections of the dog carefully from head to tail (again Rapid might be a good help there).

[prestidigitator]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

Mechanically' date=' I would say that Enhanced Senses provide a bonus under all circumstances, while Telescopic provides bonuses only to the extent there are range penalties. Mechanically, there is nothing Telescopic can do that Enhanced PER cannot.[/quote']

Well, that's where we differ. To me, being more perceptive and alert does not give your eyes better resolution. Yeah, you might be more likely to notice something at range that would be very difficult for a normal person to see, but it's not going to change things from the realm of totally unreasonable/impossible to likely. So I don't care if you have a 120 Int (33- Per roll): seeing that flea on the dog's nose at 2km is going to require some Telescopic. Likewise, that Int alone isn't going to allow you to examine the structure of a virus; it's going to require some Microscopic.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is the pricing for Telescopic Sense wrong?

 

Well' date=' that's where we differ. To me, being more perceptive and alert does not give your eyes better resolution. Yeah, you might be more likely to notice something at range that would be very [i']difficult[/i] for a normal person to see, but it's not going to change things from the realm of totally unreasonable/impossible to likely. So I don't care if you have a 120 Int (33- Per roll): seeing that flea on the dog's nose at 2km is going to require some Telescopic. Likewise, that Int alone isn't going to allow you to examine the structure of a virus; it's going to require some Microscopic.

 

By linking INT directly to PER rolls, the Hero System mechanically causes a high intelligence person to be able to see better at range and close up. A normal person does not have 120 intelligence, so addressing what a normal person could or could not perceive and comparing that to a person with a 120 intelligence is irrelevant. If he paid for a 120 INT, then at enough range to impose a -18 to his PER roll, he can still perceive better than Joe Average, with his 10 INT, can in close proximity.

 

Can I imagine being sufficiently perceptive to be able to see/hear/smell that well, over that kind of distance? No. But that's because 120 INT, and the PER roll that goes with it, is so far out of my realm of experience that I can't even relate to someone or something that smart and perceptive. I can't imagine being perceiptive enought to perceive anything that would impose a -18 penalty on PER rolls.

 

If my SuperScientist should have a 120 INT, but should not be that perceptive, he should either be taking less INT and more skill levels, or he should limit some of his INT to not enhance his perception rolls.

 

Part of the benefit of high INT in the Hero system is the enhancement of PER rolls. If the character will not get the benefits of those PER rolls - all of the benefits - then he should not be paying full price for INT.

 

To say "at some distance, I will allow the guy with the more limited perception abilities granted by the less expensive Telescopic Vision to perceive things a character with an equal PER roll, whether through Enhanced PER, or raw INT" denies INT also creates the question of just when telescopic is and is not required. How many meters out before you must have telescopic to see the flea? How many more before Telescopic is required to see the dog? How much further before you need Telescopic to see the pickup truck the dog is moving away in?

 

If the character pays for the perceiption abilities to perceive the flea on the dog's nose, he should be able to perceive the flea on the dog's nose. If I as GM can't imagine that being possible, then I as GM should have prohibited the purchase that made such incredible perception rolls possible.

 

As to the virus, I don't believe that sizes small enough to need microscopic vision simply impose PER penalties - "cannot be seen by the naked eye" now becomes the issue. But if we're only dealing with PER penalties, then the system indicates that high enough INT or enhanced PER can grant the ability to overcome those penalties just as effectively as "penalty PER levels" which only offfset the relevant penalty.

 

Thinking on it, if we simply accepted that Enhanced PER is another form of skill level, the penalty skill level model would seem an excellent approach to model enhanced perception that only affects some of those penalties.