These are small, those are far away...

[Sean Waters]

I was looking at the modifiers for sight the other day as Christopher had directed me to to them as part of a discussion we were engaged in. Anyway, here's the thing. The sight modifier for a 'Miniscule' person (i.e. one who is about 1/16 human height, 4 or 5 inches tall) is -8.

 

That got me thinking: no wonder I can never find my keys or wallet: with my 11- PER, I only have one chance in 216 of seeing them, even at 'touch' range.

 

That does not seem right somehow.

 

I'm thinking that the size modifiers are a bit off, and should be -1 per halving of size to be more realistic.

 

Now range modifiers for senses are the same as as 'To Hit' modifiers for range and that is a problem too.

 

If you double the distance to a target it becomes, effectively, half the size, but increased range also multiplies small aiming errors, so the range modifiers at -2 per doubling of range are about right BUT the difference between a 'To Hit' modifier and a Sight Perception modifier is that the former JUST deals with increased distance, whereas the latter (if you are just looking FOR something not AT something) actually deals with an increased search area (or even volume in certain environments), so I am thinking that the range modifiers for sight perception should be greater than -2 per doubling, perhaps -3.

 

I know this adds a layer of complication, but it also adds quite a lot of realism and might make an interesting optional rule.

 

Thoughts?

 

SUMMARY:

Size PER modifiers change at plus or minus one per doubling or halving of height

Range modifiers to hit change at -2 per doubling of distance past 8m

Range modifiers for Sight searches change at -3 per doubling of distance past 8m

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

I was looking at the modifiers for sight the other day as Christopher had directed me to to them as part of a discussion we were engaged in. Anyway, here's the thing. The sight modifier for a 'Miniscule' person (i.e. one who is about 1/16 human height, 4 or 5 inches tall) is -8.

 

That got me thinking: no wonder I can never find my keys or wallet: with my 11- PER, I only have one chance in 216 of seeing them, even at 'touch' range.

You didn't read the ful rules:

"The PER Roll penalty for perceiving a Shrunk character doesn’t make a character difficult to perceive all the time — it’s not a limited form of Invisibility. Unless the character deliberately tries to be difficult to perceive, others can perceive him normally regardless of his size." 6E1 282, Percieving Shrunk Characters.

Also see the Small Size templates (6E1 444) where it is correctly given as a bonus to Stealth (2 character points per +1).

[Markdoc]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Yeah, we've had this discussion before and the answer is the same as last time. The rules are quite explicit that you only need to make a skill roll or a perception roll where appropriate and never for routine tasks. The -8 for perception thus only applies when the miniscule person is trying to hide (and has something to hide in or behind: he can try and hide all he likes, but if he's standing on top of a table-tennis table in good lighting, it's not going to help). Likewise, you don't need to roll to find your car keys when they are in your pocket, but if you drop them somewhere when out for a walk in the forest ... well, that PER Mod is going to make them almost impossible to find.

 

If only all rules questions were as easy to answer as this one!

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Regarding Range and Size modifiers:

I think they scale exactly the same.

For every doubling of the distance, the percieved size rouhgly halves.

For every halving of the size, the perceived size halves.

 

Hitting someone at Range Zone 4(RZ 4, 17-32) is the same as trying to hit someone who is Diminiutive. Or someone who is Small at RZ 3.

 

That the margin of error increases the smaler the size gets, is already figured into that. The penalty for smallness and range add, making it much harder to hit a small target RZ 4 than a normal target at RZ 4.

Every +1 or -1 equals + or - 10% chancce of Success. When after all modifiers (OCV modifiers, OCV bought beyond 3; DCV modifiers; DCV bought beyond 3) you get something around +5 or -5, the results is basically a sure thing. Sure win or sure loss, depening on the sign before that 5.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

And even assuming the keys are "hiding" (i.e., they're lost), that 1-in-216 chance of finding them with their -8 PER modifier sounds about right. At SPD 2, and with PER Rolls using a Half Phase each, you can search 4 times per Turn. So 216 searches would take 54 Turns, which translates to 10.8 minutes. Haven't you ever hunted for lost keys for 10 minutes? I certainly have.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Also consider that if the object is stationary/helpless, the modifier should likely be halved. My reasoning is that if a target is Surprised and out of combat (which, arguably the keys are) not only is their DCV halved, but so to are their Hit Location penalties. IMO Hit Location - Size - Range are all the same Targeting penalty as the profile of the target changes relative to your position.

 

If you apply a halving of these modifiers whenever the Hit Locations are halved (6E2 37) you actually get a pretty good match. Also, your keys are very big at 5". -10 might be better, but even then that would be a -5. So, if the keys were right at your feet then you would need a 6- (9%). If they had slipped under the edge of the couch and had 50% cover you are down to a 4-. If the tip of the key is just barely showing (-8) you will need a 3- to find them and this is where the 10 minutes of looking happens (and even then you may still fail).

 

This interpretation of the rules has always worked well for me and my players.

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

And even assuming the keys are "hiding" (i.e.' date=' they're lost), that 1-in-216 chance of finding them with their -8 PER modifier sounds about right. At SPD 2, and with PER Rolls using a Half Phase each, you can search 4 times per Turn. So 216 searches would take 54 Turns, which translates to 10.8 minutes. Haven't you ever hunted for lost keys for 10 minutes? I certainly have. [/quote']

Actually, even just actively spending phases searchign gives you a bonus:

+1 when you spend a half phase Percieving, +2 for a Full Phase. And from there you go up the time chart:

1 Roll/Turn: +3

1 Roll/Minute: +4

1 Roll/5 Minute: +5

[Sean Waters]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

What the rules say:

 

6.2.12

Object Size modifiers to Sight PER Rolls most often apply when someone’s trying

to hide the object, it’s a long way away, or the like. A small object isn’t inherently

hard to see when it’s in plain sight; it’s simply more likely to be hidden by

something or the like.

 

Which is the footnote, which I am aware of: the previous page does not mention that the modifiers only apply when someone is being 'stealthy' they say that the modifier also applies to a stealth roll. My keys (which are on a carrabiner, which also holds a small LED torch, two memory sticks and a bottle opener - always be prepared - are 4 1/2 inches long 'squished up'. Note 'not inherently difficult to see: not the same as 'not inherently difficult to find if you do not know where to look'

 

This is what the previous page actually says about sense modifiers:

 

6.2.11

The accompanying Perception Modifier tables

show modifiers for specific objects or conditions

which affect those Senses. The GM should add up

all of the modifiers; if the total is positive, then

the character can probably perceive the object,

substance, or phenomena without making a PER

Roll. If the total is zero or negative, the character

has to make a PER Roll with that modifier to

perceive the subject.

 

Now we do, as Christopher points out, use the time chart for extended actions, and that suggests that to have a 50/50 chance of finding my keys I need to move 7 moves up the time chart: that is a full day, and it is rare indeed that it takes that long to find my stuff.

 

As a point of comparison, look at the hearing modifiers in the next column: the hearing modifier for 'a spaceship taking off' (and bear in mind this is assuming you are within 8 metres so we do not fall foul of range modifiers) is +5.

 

I assume the retort will be that is just silly: you would never miss a spaceship taking off 8 metres away from you, clearly the intention is only to use that when the thing is a good distance away. -6 (at which point you are in negative mods and therefore need to roll) is 64 metres away. I think you are probably still within the exhaust wash at that point.

 

I'm not suggesting that if something is small it keeps fading out of view - I am just talking about things that you have to look for i.e. things for which you do not know where to look. that is when you need to actually use these modifiers: there is a room and in it is a small notebook not in plain sight, not in an obvious 'high contrast' place (although even then you only get +1 on your PER roll), not where you know where to look. Is that really worth a -8? That is just assuming it is lost and not obvious - if someone had deliberately concealed it, you are even worse off.

 

Sure looking for my keys is a routine task, but searching for the notebook could be an important part of the story, requiring dramatic rolls.

 

As to halving the modifier because the thing in question is not moving, well, not moving is often a pre-requisite of successfully hiding.

 

Do range and size scale the same? I do not think so because we are not talking about the same thing. When you are looking for a thing in space (by which I mean a space, not the cold place where no one can hear you scream), you are not searching a distance, you are searching an area. That is not the same as looking at a specific target and trying to hit it. there is a real difference between trying to point a gun at a target when you can see the target, even if it is small and far away, and looking for a target in the first place.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Do range and size scale the same? I do not think so because we are not talking about the same thing. When you are looking for a thing in space (by which I mean a space, not the cold place where no one can hear you scream), you are not searching a distance, you are searching an area. That is not the same as looking at a specific target and trying to hit it. there is a real difference between trying to point a gun at a target when you can see the target, even if it is small and far away, and looking for a target in the first place.

 

I disagree. Size - Hit Locations - Range all reflect a change in the visible surface area of the target's profile. Hero already establishes the fact that each doubling is a modifier of 2. This follows with the Inverse-Square Law very well. So a target with a -4 penalty is either adjacent to you and small or 4x the base distance. That base distance in Hero is 8m, so at 16m it is -2, and 32m it is -4.

 

I acknowledge that this does nothing to account for a bullet's trajectory or the like but that isn't account for in the rules. PER modifiers for Range are the same as OCV modifiers for Range - it is the visibility of the target that matters, and the Inverse-Square Law is appropriate.

 

The rules also assume a base level of movement in all PER targeting, which is why DCV halved or 0 and Hit Locations modifiers are halved when a target is static or immobilized.

[Sean Waters]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Yes, I agree that size and range are intimately linked when you are looking AT something, but not so much when you are looking FOR something because if you double the range then you quadruple the area over which you have to look.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Yes' date=' I agree that size and range are intimately linked when you are looking AT something, but not so much when you are looking FOR something because if you double the range then you quadruple the area over which you have to look.[/quote']

 

I disagree again. Searching for something is a function of Concealment skill vs. Time. The search area is defined by the time spent.

 

If I perceive into a room I make PER roll and the result will determine what I can see in my field of vision. That is the PER Mod/Size Mod/Range Mod.

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Yes' date=' I agree that size and range are intimately linked when you are looking AT something, but not so much when you are looking FOR something because if you double the range then you quadruple the area over which you have to look.[/quote']

You also incur a -2 penalty for. The same as if you had shrunk the target another step.

[Sean Waters]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Not the same thing though. If you have a 1 metre tall object in a 100 square metre space, then you shrink it to half a metre (the functional equivalent of moving it twice as far away) then you get the penalty of -2 to account for the apparent change in size.

 

What you are doing here though is halving the size AND quadrupling the search area, which should incur a greater penalty. You are looking for a 1/2 metre tall object in a 400 square metre area, not a 100 square metre area.

[Markdoc]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Not the same thing though. If you have a 1 metre tall object in a 100 square metre space, then you shrink it to half a metre (the functional equivalent of moving it twice as far away) then you get the penalty of -2 to account for the apparent change in size.

 

What you are doing here though is halving the size AND quadrupling the search area, which should incur a greater penalty. You are looking for a 1/2 metre tall object in a 400 square metre area, not a 100 square metre area.

 

In real life though, unless the area is extremely cluttered (and thus inflicting a PER penalty of its own), that's likely to make a pretty minor difference.

 

cheers, Mark

[Legendsmiths]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Not the same thing though. If you have a 1 metre tall object in a 100 square metre space, then you shrink it to half a metre (the functional equivalent of moving it twice as far away) then you get the penalty of -2 to account for the apparent change in size.

 

What you are doing here though is halving the size AND quadrupling the search area, which should incur a greater penalty. You are looking for a 1/2 metre tall object in a 400 square metre area, not a 100 square metre area.

 

By that logic, attacking a target in an open field would be nearly impossible.

 

Searching a large area relative to the size of the target does not change the visibility of the target. It does change how long it takes to find the object in the search area but your ability to see the object is the same.

 

So an object that is half sized and twice as far would be a -4 not a -2, which is how the rules work, which is the same penalty as a normal sized object 4x as far.

 

I don't understand your logic of equating search area to range.

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

At tops, increasing the search area would increase the time you need to actively sarch it.

 

For perception only one thing matters: Do you see it now, as a Free Action? If yes, you can react to it. If no, you are suprised. And keep in mind that those things where suprise matters are usually those that do something to "stick out": Using a Obvious Power while using Stealth.

[Sean Waters]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

I feel we may be going round in circles. I am talking about two different uses of modifiers here, which are patently not the same.

 

1. You are a sniper. You have a target. You can see the target. You know where the target is. The target moves twice as far away, but you still know where it is because you have been watching it all the time: according to Hero you take a -2 to hit roll. Fine. The point is that you are not having any problem seeing the target at all. It has not vanished, You know where it is at all times. Functionally the target seems to have become half the height (and, incidentally, 1/4 of the surface area, which is actually probably more important). You have 1/4 as much to aim at. That is your -2 modifier.

 

2. You are LOOKING for a target. You are still a sniper, but now you are in a field, a bit of rolling country, with some bushes and a couple of trees and a few patches of waist high grass. This time you do not know where your target is, so the first trick is to spot it. Once you have that down, you try the same thing again but in a field that is not just twice as long, but twice as wide as well: there are four times as many bits of potential cover. Even if the target is exactly the same distance away (but, not being completely stupid, behind a different bush), it is still going to be harder to spot the target, isn't it, even if the target is exactly as visible as it was in the smaller field? Because there are more places to look.

 

In the second scenario, you are confronted with a bigger area because when you look for something you do not look in a specific place, if you have no idea where it is, you look in an area, and if the thing you are trying to spot is twice as far away then the area you have to look in is four times as big. Even removing distance as a factor, it is STILL harder i.e. there should be a bigger penalty on your chance of success.

 

That's what I'm talking about.

 

I'm suggesting that, assuming the modifiers accurately portray the concept of increasing range as it interacts with the PER roll (and my view is that the modifiers are probably a bit steep) then it should still be harder to find something that is further away but where you have no idea in which direction.

 

Let the disagreement commence!

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

What you talk about is discussed with the Telescopic Sense Modifier (6E1 214) and the Spy Sattelite example.

 

For your example:

There is a reason real sniper teams consist of one Sniper and one Spotter and the reason is waht you said: With most zooms that are dedicated to aiming (sniper Rilfe Sight), it is hard to search an area. That is what you use Binoculars for.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

I think that the difference is that your field of vision doesn't change size. Unless you're looking through a telescope or something, and zooming.

 

If someone moves twice the distance away, the apparent area to you won't change. Maybe there's four times as much area to look in, but he also has to move twice as far to be out of your field of vision.

 

This was one of the things I complained bitterly about during the 3rd-4th edition transition, and the rationale I was given was the same (half size is equivalent to twice the distance). It made sense to me then, and I was kind of actively fighting against the notion.

 

Remember: despite its appearance, the HERO System is not a pair of physics textbooks.

[Lucius]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Now range modifiers for senses are the same as as 'To Hit' modifiers for range and that is a problem too.

 

If you double the distance to a target it becomes, effectively, half the size, but increased range also multiplies small aiming errors, so the range modifiers at -2 per doubling of range are about right BUT the difference between a 'To Hit' modifier and a Sight Perception modifier is that the former JUST deals with increased distance, whereas the latter (if you are just looking FOR something not AT something) actually deals with an increased search area (or even volume in certain environments), so I am thinking that the range modifiers for sight perception should be greater than -2 per doubling, perhaps -3.

 

I know this adds a layer of complication,

 

YOU again?

 

Hey everybody! THAT's the guy who keeps making each edition of the rules longer and more complicated! Get 'im! It's all his fault!

 

Also see the Small Size templates (6E1 444) where it is correctly given as a bonus to Stealth (2 character points per +1).

 

Correct in the sense that that is what is in the book, perhaps, but not correct in the sense of how it should be.

 

A smaller object is harder to percieve than a larger one.

 

Period. Not "harder to percieve if it's trying to hide or someone's trying to hide it." I'm sure Sean Waters' wallet isn't really deliberately trying to evade him, nor is mine. Nonetheless, if my wallet drops out of my pocket I a sure it will make less noise than my briefcase slipping from my hand when either hits the floor. If I have mislaid both in my (very cluttered) back room, I will surely have an easier time finding the briefcase.

 

A smaller object presents a smaller cross section to sight, radar, and sonar. It is more likely to be occluded by another object it may happen to be behind from the perciever's point of view. It will make less noise than an otherwise identical object of larger size, whether falling, stepping, being struck, or crying out. If it has an odor, it has less surface area from which to emit volatile molecules detectable by smell. Even when it comes to touch, I bet a fly colliding with you from behind is less likely to be noticed than a bird, and I doubt you'd miss it if another person ran into you.

 

In fact, size modifiers to perception should apply even if a character WANTS to be found or noticed. If one player is running an Ogre and another is playing a Gnome, which do you think has an easier time getting a teammate's attention across a crowded and noisy battlefield?

 

And even assuming the keys are "hiding" (i.e.' date=' they're lost), that 1-in-216 chance of finding them with their -8 PER modifier sounds about right. At SPD 2, and with PER Rolls using a Half Phase each, you can search 4 times per Turn. So 216 searches would take 54 Turns, which translates to 10.8 minutes. Haven't you ever hunted for lost keys for 10 minutes? I certainly have. [/quote']

 

A good argument for keeping the modifiers as they are. Sure, I can usually find my keys - after searching for a few minutes, not instantly with a half phase perception roll.

 

Also consider that if the object is stationary/helpless' date=' the modifier should likely be halved.[/quote']

 

Let me make sure I understand you.

 

Are you trying to say that you think an object in motion is HARDER to notice than an object at rest? Because that is what it sounds like, but I have a hard time believing anyone would really say that.

 

On the other hand, it occurs to me that you may mean that it is harder to percieve or recognize details about a moving object. That would make sense.

 

Now we do' date=' as Christopher points out, use the time chart for extended actions, and that suggests that to have a 50/50 chance of finding my keys I need to move 7 moves up the time chart: that is a full day, and it is rare indeed that it takes that long to find my stuff.[/quote']

 

Or you can find them in 10 minutes by, as Derek Heimforth suggested, making rolls every half phase for that long.

 

Or take my advice, roll every 12 seconds to get a significant bonus as when you are trying to raise a chance from 3 or less those first few plusses help a lot.

 

Yes' date=' I agree that size and range are intimately linked when you are looking AT something, but not so much when you are looking FOR something because if you double the range then you quadruple the area over which you have to look.[/quote']

 

Well put.

 

Still not sure it's worth added complexity.

 

By that logic' date=' attacking a target in an open field would be nearly impossible.[/quote']

 

Nothing Sean Waters has said implies that it would be nearly impossible to attack a target in an open field. In fact, he hasn't said much about attacking at all; mostly he's talking about perception. You're confusing me.

 

Searching a large area relative to the size of the target does not change the visibility of the target. It does change how long it takes to find the object in the search area.

 

That is his point. The perception penalty is a measure of "how long it takes to find the object in the search area." A bigger penalty means you will usually have to make more rolls, or take extra time to get a better roll, either way taking longer to find the object - which is what you just conceded should be the case.

 

At tops' date=' increasing the search area would increase the time you need to actively sarch it.[/quote']

 

See above.

 

For perception only one thing matters: Do you see it now' date=' as a Free Action? [/quote']

 

It may also matter if you can see it in a half phase if you're deliberately looking around. Or find it in a turn if you're searching the room. Or in any number of other circumstances where a perception is made, not as a free action.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I'm not hiding behind the palindromedary. I just happen to be standing on the far side of it.

[Markdoc]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Part of this discussion seems to be driven by a misunderstanding of how senses (especially sight) work. A larger area does not necessarily take longer to search. I can look out into the hall from my office. In terms of area, it's perhaps 128X the size of my desk, but it takes no longer to scan than the desk does, because it is all in my unobstructed arc of view. I can scan the entire thing in one action, and anything larger than a pair of keys (unless it's a dull greenish-grey colour) is going to be blindingly obvious regardless of whether it's on my desk or lying in the much larger area of the hall. It might be somewhat harder to notice something small at the far end of the hall than in the foreground, though. In contrast, you could stealthily put a menhir directly behind me, and I wouldn't easily notice it, even though it fills most of the available space.

 

However, a gunshot is going to be equally audible, whether it is in front, to the sides or behind me: the only modifiers in that case is how loud it is and how far away it is.

 

From this we can draw some simple conclusions.

 

1. Distance appears to play a role in how hard something is to perceive.

2. Area scanned - in itself - is largely irrelevant.

3. Quantity of the object (whether size and colour for sight, or volume for sound) affects perception

4. Other factors (such as "obviousness") play a role at least as important and probably more important and whether a sense is 360 degrees (hearing) or 120 degrees (sight) will affect obviousness

 

Thus a bright orange pen is easily perceptible on my desk, on my office floor, or at the end of the hall and takes almost the same amount of time to find. Six seconds (1 phase) is more than adequate to all cases. In this case, "obviousness" appears to over-ride any penalties from size and distance. There is a limit to this though - move it a kilometer away and even if you blew a whole in the end wall so I had a straight line of sight, I could not see the pen, no matter how long I looked.

 

In contrast, the menhir will still be visible even at a kilometer (as long as the wall wasn't in the way) - but it would be "hard to detect" as long as it was behind me.

 

Thus:

1. Obvious objects do not need to be searched for: and "in unobstructed line and arc of sensing" is the primary determinant of "obviousness".

2. Distance is the primary modifier. Even obvious objects can be hard to see at larger distances

3. Size is a secondary modifier, in that it can modify the effect of distance, but it appears to have only minor effects on obviousness.

 

Now, clearly this is a rough guide: if I asked you to find the higgs boson, it'd be hard to find, even if one went zipping right through your face because it is very, very small indeed. So these are "newtonian" PER rolls, dealing with a distinct range of quanta. The system breaks down for very small or very large objects (the earth is easy to locate, but hard for us to get any sense of, because of its size.)

 

To go back to the missing keys analogy, it only takes Sean a few minutes to find them - despite their size modifier - because there is also an obviousness modifier. When people can't find their keys (and my wife loses hers a lot) they don't start by searching the apartment at one end and methodically working their way through until they find the keys. Instead they start by searching "the obvious places" - pockets, bags, shelves, key-racks, etc. I almost never lose my keys or even spend more than 3 seconds searching for them because I always keep them in the same place: the fob-pocket of my pants. In this case, obviousness is the only determining factor: no roll is needed, regardless of the key's size modifier, because unlike Chad, I already know where my pants are.

 

On the other hand, if Sean is searching someone else's apartment for their keys, obviousness is lower, unless he knows where she keeps her keys so it will probably take longer. If he's searching the same apartment for some keys she has hidden, then it will take much longer again.

 

Thus:

Keys in pocket? Obvious, no roll needed.

Keys somewhere in own apartment? Roll needed but situational modifier applies for obviousness/familiarity (+3? ?5?). Keys found in a few minutes.

Keys somewhere in an unfamiliar apartment? Roll needed but situational modifier not applied or is small (+1?). Keys found in a few minutes to an hour or so.

Keys hidden in an apartment. Roll needed. Not only is "obviousness" modifier not applied, but PER roll is potentially modified by the Concealment skill of the person doing the hiding. Other skills (Deduction, for example: "Where would she hide my keys?") can act as modifiers.

 

All pretty simple and all well covered by the existing rules.

 

cheers, Mark

[Legendsmiths]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

Rereading the original post I see where the disconnect is.

 

Sean's fundamental assumption is the modifiers looking for something. The size and range modifiers are appropriate for looking at something.

 

Looking for something means you move to an area and take time to survey everything you can see. Rinse/Repeat. As you move through a field you will have multiple attempts to see the same small object over and over again, but with different range modifiers.

 

I don't think the modifiers should change at all, because the relationship between size and range is so strong (halving/doubling is a -2). The fact that you are looking for something in a large area is purely a function of time.

 

Whether or not multiple rolls to find a clue that is essential to moving the story could be considered dramatic is another question entirely. If the rolls are to determine WHO finds it or HOW it is found, that's one thing, but a groups collective failure to find a clue after each of 5 characters makes 3 search rolls doesn't seem all that dramatic.

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

It will make less noise than an otherwise identical object of larger size' date=' whether falling, stepping, being struck, or crying out. If it has an odor, it has less surface area from which to emit volatile molecules detectable by smell. Even when it comes to touch, I bet a fly colliding with you from behind is less likely to be noticed than a bird, and I doubt you'd miss it if another person ran into you.[/quote']

That is a function of it's mass and the "contrast" of it's impact noise compared to the background noise.

 

Part of this discussion seems to be driven by a misunderstanding of how senses (especially sight) work. A larger area does not necessarily take longer to search. I can look out into the hall from my office. In terms of area' date=' it's perhaps 128X the size of my desk, but it takes no longer to scan than the desk does, because it is all in my [b']unobstructed arc of view[/b].

I think this is also a part of the missunderstanding. The Telscopic adder does obstruct your field of view, in a certain way. I think one way to picture it is that your point of perception (and thus the 120° cone that is your viewfield) get's thrown into the the seached area.

 

I try it with an example:

Picture trying to search a 400m Line, when you stand in front of it (RZ 1) at a right angle (90°). Your Arc of view does not cover a lot of this line at once so you need time to scan the entire line (while you move sideways along it).

Now picture you stand a lot farther away in the same angle. Propably your field of view now covers the entire line at once. But you also have a problem seeing a small details becaue of the Range Modifier.

Telescopic now puts your starting point of vision towards teh line. The close you get the easier the detail are to see, but the less of the line you see (and can scan) at once.

 

The exampel with the satelite:

When using it's full telescopic adder, it's point of perception literally is above the commuter whose newspaper it reads. Like as small, invisible, disembodied eye just floating there (it's in fact very similar to how Clairsentience works).

[bigbywolfe]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

I don't think Telescopic has anything to do with the "misunderstanding" since the person complaining never mentioned it or complained about it. It may be worth mentioning since it is related to senses and distance but it has nothing to do with Sean's complaint about the distance modifiers.

[Christopher]

Re: These are small, those are far away...

 

I don't think Telescopic has anything to do with the "misunderstanding" since the person complaining never mentioned it or complained about it. It may be worth mentioning since it is related to senses and distance but it has nothing to do with Sean's complaint about the distance modifiers.

Sean explicitly mentioned the difficulty of "Scanning an area" for the target and noted the Sniper problem.