Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Shapeshift has to be independent of the senses of the person with the ability: I mean' date=' it would make a great deal of sense for someone who could not see colour to screw up colours when shapeshifting, but you HAVE to do that by a limitation, or some sort of activation roll (you are not NECESSARILY going to get that wrong): anything else and you are tying one ability's functionality to another's. Bad thing.[/quote']

Quoted for truth. I mean, we are working with the Edition that finally de-coupled characteristics. It seems an illogical step backwards to base the function of one Power on the Modifiers, Limitations, (or lack there of) of a serperate, completely unrelated power, (except when SFX says otherwise apparently giving certain SFX a huge bonus for free.

[phoenix240]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Why does the Imitation Adder automatically defeat the Analytical sense?

 

 

Conceptually the Imitation Adder grants the Power the ability to somehow impart information that the character has no way to otherwise access and flawlessly so that seemed a reasonable counter.

 

 

"Can't shapeshift vs senses that the character does not have; -1/2"

 

 

Lovely.

 

 

If the character automatically fails in every situation where it comes up yes, that works fine but that isn't what I've said would happen.

[phoenix240]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Quoted for truth. I mean' date=' we are working with the Edition that finally de-coupled characteristics. .[/quote']

 

I'm not fond of decoupling characteristics. It's one of the reason I don't use 6th. Modifiers on a Sense don't seem completely unrelated for judgement calls on the function of a Power that affects senses or that the possibility of a contested roll is giving a huge situational bonus. I assign bonuses and penalties based the situation, sfx and what strikes me as reasonable all the time. It's my gming style and I've found it be very successful in producing exciting games. I'm not trying to convince anyone its the One True Way though.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Conceptually the Imitation Adder grants the Power the ability to somehow impart information that the character has no way to otherwise access and flawlessly so that seemed a reasonable counter.

It is still explicitly limited by what the character can observe as I noted in my last post as well. All the Imitation Adder does is remove the need for Disguise or other such skills to copy someone. It removes the skill vs skill contest (PER bs Disguise) which is only applicable if the other person would recognize the fake in the first place (it's someone über famous or someone they know). You are making the Imitation Adder do a lot more than I does by RAW, mainly because you are attributing to it things the base Power does.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

If the character automatically fails in every situation where it comes up yes, that works fine but that isn't what I've said would happen.

 

Apologies: RSR: 11- (only for senses/sense modifiers the character does not have) -1/2*.

 

 

 

*Or whatever you feel is appropriate/how often you intend to bring the problem up as GM.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

I'm not fond of decoupling characteristics. It's one of the reason I don't use 6th. Modifiers on a Sense don't seem completely unrelated for judgement calls on the function of a Power that affects senses or that the possibility of a contested roll is giving a huge situational bonus. I assign bonuses and penalties based the situation' date=' sfx and what strikes me as reasonable all the time. It's my gming style and I've found it be very successful in producing exciting games. I'm not trying to convince anyone its the One True Way though.[/quote']

 

Decoupling is a thorny issue, but I think 6e is moving the right direction. If one power's functionality is based on another, then utility is far more a function of overall build. This makes it far harder to attribute a point value to any given power as it may be more useful (and thus, theoretically more expensive) if coupled with a synergistic power.

 

Whilst you can never entirely negate this consideration, minimising it is a good place to aim for.

[phoenix240]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

So getting more back to the actual topic of the thread: assuming equal Perception scores with the same margin of success (and assuming no relevant skills)

 

 

Character A:normal unmodified senses

 

 

Character B With full Discriminatory on all their senses

 

 

Character C with Analyze on all their senses

 

 

What information would they get in these examples including any mechanical bonuses:

 

 

Examining another human being for clues to their origin and background

 

 

Looking over a bloody crime scene

 

 

Eating a several course gourmet meal (one dish has been altered with a faint drug)

 

 

Searching for concealed passages and rooms in a house riddled with them

 

 

Looking for a infiltrator concealing themselves with mundane skills

 

 

Trying to find an invisible target via their effect on the environment

 

 

Interrogating a human subject

[Sean Waters]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Well, looking at a bloody crime scene, the person with normal sight can tell there is a lot of blood. The person with discriminatory sight can tell that it is not all human blood, and the person with analytical sight can tell that it is a mixture of blood from at least two different animals and at least two different humans, neither of which is missing woman, Katerine Delorso.

 

The way I see Discriminatory is that you can do things with it equivalent to scientific field tests and Analyse allows the equivalent of a full lab work up, using the relevant enhanced sense.

 

Of course there is then a lot of overlap: sight and smell/taste can probably extract similar sorts of information in come cases (like chemical composition), but have their own unique aspects. Sound allows you to, perhaps, realise that a recording of something in fact has been put together from at least two sources, or that the very faint scream in the background almost certainly came from Katherine Delorso.

 

Certainly the way I look at it is that you have got to be looking for something, generally - in the same way you probably would not notice that there is a secret panel behind the east wall, just because you have microscopic vision and there are tiny scratches on the floor: you are CAPABLE of detecting that information but, most of the time, you are going to have to at least point your senses in the right direction.

 

Also the fact that you have unusual senses does not mean they can not be fooled. I was playing a telepathic character once who got a telepathic impression from the mind of an assault victim of a man with claws leaping toward her. This was actually what had happened, but he was in fact a vigilante leaping at her attacker - who she had not seen - although it took a little while to confirm that, and some wild goose chasing.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

...if you want to 'just notice' things, buy up the skill roll so you can make a casual detect, and have some chance of success.

[psyber624]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Unfortunately without skills enhanced senses are rather limited.

 

Giving your examples (not listing A as it should be obvious):

Examining another human being for clues to their origin and background

Not a lot that I can see. Assuming general info (no skills) B/C could tell apart ethnic backgrounds more accurately than someone without those skills (although that has a lot to do with observation and less to do with your "quality of sight"). Other than that you really need Deduction or KS: Ethnicities of some sort (where you would give bonuses for B/C). If you allow Everyman Deduction in your campaigns B and C have a much better chance of getting a roll than A would (and C might actually get bonuses to the roll)

Looking over a bloody crime scene

Without skills B/C can see more, but have no way of knowing what is important and what isn't. Similar to above Everyman Deduction could come into play. If they have someone with the appropriate skills with them they could answer specific questions (how much blood, what quantities, etc.) however I disagree with Sean, they couldn't tell how many different blood types there were (that requires microscopic sight) and DEFINITELY couldn't tell animal blood from human blood (that requires Paramedics or SS:Medicine or something of the sort.)

 

Eating a several course gourmet meal (one dish has been altered with a faint drug)

B can tell that the taste is off, and even what it would taste like on its own, but unless they have been exposed to the drug in the past or have an appropriate KS/SS they don't know its a drug. C could tell you exactly how much of the drug was added to the meal, but would still need prior knowledge/skills to identify it.

 

Searching for concealed passages and rooms in a house riddled with them

If actively searching B would get bonuses depending on how the passages were constructed, C would probably be able to spot them, but appropriate skills would definitely help.

 

 

Looking for a infiltrator concealing themselves with mundane skills

If you are talking about disguise it varies. If the person with disguise was using prosthetics in a "standard tech world" (fake skin for instance) even B would have a good chance to tell that his skin looked "off". However if the infiltrator is just using dyes, change of hairstyle, glasses, etc. then unless B/C have prior knowledge of what he looked like their extra senses wouldn't help much. If he was disguising himself as someone they knew, however, they both have an excellent chance to tell the difference (bonuses to their PER rolls in a PER vs Disguise Roll contest.)

 

Trying to find an invisible target via their effect on the environment

Depends on the environment. They could see "smaller" imprints in soil (B could see smaller impressions than A, C could see even smaller) but there would have to be SOME impression (your average person would leave no discernable impression on concrete, tile, etc.) They could also possibly detect traces left behind easier (wet foot prints would be visible to B after A quit being able to see them, and to C after B quit being able to see them.)

 

Interrogating a human subject

None whatsoever. Now, if they had Interrogation, qualifies for bonuses to the Interrogation rolls. If they were watching they could tell another interrogator things like "he is sweating more, his heart rate sped up, etc" but without the appropriate skills they don't know what to do with that information.

 

D/A on normal senses simply increases the amount of information you can gather with your senses. However it in no way imparts any ability to USE that information. Someone with normal sight walking into a crime scene has no clue what to do there. If you gave them every sense in the book they still wouldn't know what to do with it. Someone with skills in forensics/deduction with normal sight could walk in and quickly put together a highly plausible reconstruction of events. Heightened senses would be of great benefit to them, as they know what to do with all the extra information they have received.

[Tasha]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

That's RAW which I don't agree with so I was discussing how I would House Rule.

 

Yeah, I used to house rule stuff that I didn't like. I eventually got over it. I take the rules as written pretty much verbatim now. It defuses any potential bad feelings on the part of the players.

 

The only time that Shapeshift can be percieved as being "wrong" by the use of a perception roll is when the Shifter is trying to impersonate a specific person (ie if the Shapeshifter takes the form of the Mayor of the Hero's city or the Heroine's DNPC). In that circumstance the person meeting the Shifter can make a perception roll vs their Disguise roll and vs their Acting roll. That just percieves whether the Shifter has made a mistake in their appearance and or the way they are acting as the person.

 

If you don't care for Shapeshift being absolute you COULD require anyone taking the power take a limitation similar to Invis. Flawed Shapeshift -1/4 Shapeshift can be percieved by making a -5 Per Roll. By requiring the limitation you are compensating the character for the GM wanting to nerf the power. It also defines for the player what the power can't do.

[psyber624]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Honestly that is what I was always trying to argue (that D/A would allow you to see through an imitation shapeshift easier, not that it would allow you to see through any shapeshift). I think I did get sidetracked at some point in the debate and said something to the effect that it could, but that was not what I was meaning to say. And after reading the FULL rules for shapeshift 6e1 even provides modifiers for detecting an imitation WITHOUT D/A if you are familiar with the target (its under the Imitation Adder section). It does in an earlier section mention that that modifier applies to a roll ONLY if the GM chooses to allow one in the first place. With that I would say that D/A should be allowed to provide a modifier to detecting "errors" in a shapeshift. It will not allow you to see through one, but will allow you to detect mistakes that someone might have made in their Shapeshift imitation attempt.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Honestly that is what I was always trying to argue (that D/A would allow you to see through an imitation shapeshift easier' date=' not that it would allow you to see through any shapeshift). I think I did get sidetracked at some point in the debate and said something to the effect that it could, but that was not what I was meaning to say. And after reading the FULL rules for shapeshift 6e1 even provides modifiers for detecting an imitation WITHOUT D/A [b']if you are familiar with the target[/b] (its under the Imitation Adder section). It does in an earlier section mention that that modifier applies to a roll ONLY if the GM chooses to allow one in the first place. With that I would say that D/A should be allowed to provide a modifier to detecting "errors" in a shapeshift. It will not allow you to see through one, but will allow you to detect mistakes that someone might have made in their Shapeshift imitation attempt.

^The bold part was the sticking point. You are allowing that same chance even if the person is not known and thus there is nothing to spot. You keep using color as an example with someone having Analyze being able to see more shades, bur you ignored my question regarding someone who doesn't change colors. If a shapeshifter changes his hoody into a trench coat and gives himself a bigger nose, smaller chin, longer hair, and changes his cheek bones enough that not even facial recognition software can identify him, and he is not imitating someone else, or using the dreaded color change which is apparently a dead giveaway, then what is he doing wrong that someone with Analyze can spot?

 

If you think Invkisibility to the Sight Group shouldn't work against IR because even though in game terms IR is usually bought under Sight in the real world IR goggles are not really using Sight but other detection methods altogether and then making an image, do you change how the base Power works or do you give that type of Invisibility a Limitation? Most of us go the Limitation route. What you are doing with Shape Shift is the equivalent of declaring that Invisibility doesn't work against IR Vision unless you have the No Fringe Adder even though that Adder has nothing to do with the reason given for changing the functionality of the base Power.

[psyber624]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

^The bold part was the sticking point. You are allowing that same chance even if the person is not known and thus there is nothing to spot. You keep using color as an example with someone having Analyze being able to see more shades, bur you ignored my question regarding someone who doesn't change colors. If a shapeshifter changes his hoody into a trench coat and gives himself a bigger nose, smaller chin, longer hair, and changes his cheek bones enough that not even facial recognition software can identify him, and he is not imitating someone else, or using the dreaded color change which is apparently a dead giveaway, then what is he doing wrong that someone with Analyze can spot?

 

If you think Invkisibility to the Sight Group shouldn't work against IR because even though in game terms IR is usually bought under Sight in the real world IR goggles are not really using Sight but other detection methods altogether and then making an image, do you change how the base Power works or do you give that type of Invisibility a Limitation? Most of us go the Limitation route. What you are doing with Shape Shift is the equivalent of declaring that Invisibility doesn't work against IR Vision unless you have the No Fringe Adder even though that Adder has nothing to do with the reason given for changing the functionality of the base Power.

 

In your example, he is not, and D/A wont help. I guess I failed to clarify earlier (or like I said I got caught up in the argument and made an erroneous statement). This would only apply if you are familiar with someone he is trying to imitate. I use color as an example because it is the easiest thing for us to "visualize" when talking about D/A on sight. And matching human skin tone with any degree of success is INCREDIBLY difficult. Even professional artists and special effects workers have an exceedingly difficult time doing so in the real world (there was a Mythbusters episode that went into this in some detail.) If someone is just trying to change their appearance then D/A wont help normally. It's only when a shapeshifter is trying to imitate someone the D/A character is very familiar with that I would rule they got a PER roll (possibly with bonuses). If I stated otherwise previously I apologize because I agree it would not. I believe at one point I was saying that it could give them one based on SFX but after further consideration I agree that should probably be a limitation on the Shapeshift not something done by default for the SFX in most situations, at least RAW. (I personally tend to allow SFX to have a bit more role in game mechanics than this, but that is definitely not RAW.)

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

In your example' date=' he is not, and D/A wont help. I guess I failed to clarify earlier (or like I said I got caught up in the argument and made an erroneous statement). This would only apply if you are familiar with someone he is trying to imitate. I use color as an example because it is the easiest thing for us to "visualize" when talking about D/A on sight. And matching human skin tone with any degree of success is INCREDIBLY difficult. Even professional artists and special effects workers have an exceedingly difficult time doing so in the real world (there was a Mythbusters episode that went into this in some detail.) If someone is just trying to change their appearance then D/A wont help normally. It's only when a shapeshifter is trying to imitate someone the D/A character is very familiar with that I would rule they got a PER roll (possibly with bonuses). If I stated otherwise previously I apologize because I agree it would not. I believe at one point I was saying that it could give them one based on SFX but after further consideration I agree that should probably be a limitation on the Shapeshift not something done by default for the SFX in most situations, at least RAW. (I personally tend to allow SFX to have a bit more role in game mechanics than this, but that is definitely not RAW.)[/quote']

I probably mixed up one of phoenix's posts for one of yours as you both responded to my posts several times. I think you may have agreed with some of his points without realizing what he was actually proposing.

 

By RAW if the Shape Shifter doesn't have the Imitation adder and they mimic someone you know then you get a chance to spot it. The Imitation Adder eliminates any PER check for the Sense Group being Shifted. So now I'm not sure what you do that is any different than RAW, if anything.

 

EDIT: As I think I mixed you two up I apologize if I put words in your mouth.

[psyber624]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

NP man. And FYI Imitation adder does allow for a sense check (its listed in an odd place tho. )

 

The resemblance

is extremely accurate; even those who know the

imitated character well are unlikely to detect

the deception (minimum of -3 to PER Rolls to

determine that the character is not who he appears

to be).

6e1 279, under the imitation Adder header

 

However this:

The PER Roll

modifier discussed for Imitation (see below) is

an option, but if the GM allows it, all it does is

tell the onlooker (who by definition has to know

what the person being imitated “looks” like) that

something’s not quite right. It doesn’t reveal the

character’s true appearance or the like

 

from the same page but on the other column states that the roll is entirely GM option so would not be considered part of the "standard" rule set. Also, this immediately follows a sentence

 

A character could Limit his

Shape Shift so that observers get a PER Roll to

“see through” his change in form, if desired (for

example, see Perceivable, below).

 

so the previous comment may only be applicable to a Limited form of Shapeshift, but it is not exactly clear. Of course a GM can ALWAYS (at his option) allow a PER roll (or really anything else) so its sort of a moot point.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Sorry, you are right. I should have said "it get's rid of the need for the Disguise Skill and the automatic chance to spot it via a Skill vs Skill Contest (PER vs Disguise). My bad.

[phoenix240]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Yeah' date=' I used to house rule stuff that I didn't like. I eventually got over it. I take the rules as written pretty much verbatim now. It defuses any potential bad feelings on the part of the players [/quote']

 

Our group sees nothing wrong with House rules (particularly if RAW is broken or nonfunctional, not the case here but it comes up). If someone strongly disagrees with a House Rule they opt out of the game in question. It's not a big deal or something to be avoided. YMMV

[phoenix240]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Well, looking at a bloody crime scene, the person with normal sight can tell there is a lot of blood. The person with discriminatory sight can tell that it is not all human blood, and the person with analytical sight can tell that it is a mixture of blood from at least two different animals and at least two different humans, neither of which is missing woman, Katerine Delorso.

 

The way I see Discriminatory is that you can do things with it equivalent to scientific field tests and Analyse allows the equivalent of a full lab work up, using the relevant enhanced sense.

 

Of course there is then a lot of overlap: sight and smell/taste can probably extract similar sorts of information in come cases (like chemical composition), but have their own unique aspects. Sound allows you to, perhaps, realise that a recording of something in fact has been put together from at least two sources, or that the very faint scream in the background almost certainly came from Katherine Delorso.

 

Certainly the way I look at it is that you have got to be looking for something, generally - in the same way you probably would not notice that there is a secret panel behind the east wall, just because you have microscopic vision and there are tiny scratches on the floor: you are CAPABLE of detecting that information but, most of the time, you are going to have to at least point your senses in the right direction.

 

Also the fact that you have unusual senses does not mean they can not be fooled. I was playing a telepathic character once who got a telepathic impression from the mind of an assault victim of a man with claws leaping toward her. This was actually what had happened, but he was in fact a vigilante leaping at her attacker - who she had not seen - although it took a little while to confirm that, and some wild goose chasing.

 

Thanks, that's the sort of thing I was looking for.

[phoenix240]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Unfortunately without skills enhanced senses are rather limited.

 

Giving your examples (not listing A as it should be obvious):

Examining another human being for clues to their origin and background

Not a lot that I can see. Assuming general info (no skills) B/C could tell apart ethnic backgrounds more accurately than someone without those skills (although that has a lot to do with observation and less to do with your "quality of sight"). Other than that you really need Deduction or KS: Ethnicities of some sort (where you would give bonuses for B/C). If you allow Everyman Deduction in your campaigns B and C have a much better chance of getting a roll than A would (and C might actually get bonuses to the roll)

Looking over a bloody crime scene

Without skills B/C can see more, but have no way of knowing what is important and what isn't. Similar to above Everyman Deduction could come into play. If they have someone with the appropriate skills with them they could answer specific questions (how much blood, what quantities, etc.) however I disagree with Sean, they couldn't tell how many different blood types there were (that requires microscopic sight) and DEFINITELY couldn't tell animal blood from human blood (that requires Paramedics or SS:Medicine or something of the sort.)

 

Eating a several course gourmet meal (one dish has been altered with a faint drug)

B can tell that the taste is off, and even what it would taste like on its own, but unless they have been exposed to the drug in the past or have an appropriate KS/SS they don't know its a drug. C could tell you exactly how much of the drug was added to the meal, but would still need prior knowledge/skills to identify it.

 

Searching for concealed passages and rooms in a house riddled with them

If actively searching B would get bonuses depending on how the passages were constructed, C would probably be able to spot them, but appropriate skills would definitely help.

 

 

Looking for a infiltrator concealing themselves with mundane skills

If you are talking about disguise it varies. If the person with disguise was using prosthetics in a "standard tech world" (fake skin for instance) even B would have a good chance to tell that his skin looked "off". However if the infiltrator is just using dyes, change of hairstyle, glasses, etc. then unless B/C have prior knowledge of what he looked like their extra senses wouldn't help much. If he was disguising himself as someone they knew, however, they both have an excellent chance to tell the difference (bonuses to their PER rolls in a PER vs Disguise Roll contest.)

 

Trying to find an invisible target via their effect on the environment

Depends on the environment. They could see "smaller" imprints in soil (B could see smaller impressions than A, C could see even smaller) but there would have to be SOME impression (your average person would leave no discernable impression on concrete, tile, etc.) They could also possibly detect traces left behind easier (wet foot prints would be visible to B after A quit being able to see them, and to C after B quit being able to see them.)

 

Interrogating a human subject

None whatsoever. Now, if they had Interrogation, qualifies for bonuses to the Interrogation rolls. If they were watching they could tell another interrogator things like "he is sweating more, his heart rate sped up, etc" but without the appropriate skills they don't know what to do with that information.

 

D/A on normal senses simply increases the amount of information you can gather with your senses. However it in no way imparts any ability to USE that information. Someone with normal sight walking into a crime scene has no clue what to do there. If you gave them every sense in the book they still wouldn't know what to do with it. Someone with skills in forensics/deduction with normal sight could walk in and quickly put together a highly plausible reconstruction of events. Heightened senses would be of great benefit to them, as they know what to do with all the extra information they have received.

 

Doesn't this make D/A practically useless on their own without buying a ton of skills to go with them? (And the modifiers themselves can be a pricey investment).

[Sean Waters]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Unfortunately without skills enhanced senses are rather limited.

 

...

 

I agree: I have long argued that we should not link perception to Intelligence for this very reason, and that Perception should be a separate skill, possibly even a separate skill for each sense group you have.

 

This is an old argument, and I will paraphrase myself: Holmes senses are no sharper than Watson's, but Holmes analyses the same information through a filter of vast knowledge and logical rigour, and so is able to draw conclusions that anyone could have come to, applying the same principles, but no one else does, because they do not use the same process.

 

Arguably Holmes IS better at sensing things, because he knows where to look, and that is not always in the obvious places - buy and 'Observation' skill and make it complementary to your Perception Roll.

 

However, if Holmes did not know what a Chinese Tong mark looked like, all he would be seeing is an intricate tattoo, which is what Watson sees.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Thanks' date=' that's the sort of thing I was looking for.[/quote']

 

Pleasure

[psyber624]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Doesn't this make D/A practically useless on their own without buying a ton of skills to go with them? (And the modifiers themselves can be a pricey investment).

In a word, yes. Although "useless" might be going a bit to far the simple fact is that D/A doesn't do much on its own without some reason to use them. But that can be said for many senses/sense modifiers. Unless you are buying them for a particular reason (like enhancing a skill, allowing you to fight while blind, knowing what is behind a closed door, etc.). So buying D/A for your standard senses is not an "efficient" use of points unless you buy something else to go with them. Of course, the simple fact is that your not going to buy those modifiers on a character unless you plan to use them in some way in the first place so that's not really an issues.

[phoenix240]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

In a word' date=' yes. Although "useless" might be going a bit to far the simple fact is that D/A doesn't do much on its own without some reason to use them. But that can be said for many senses/sense modifiers. Unless you are buying them for a particular reason (like enhancing a skill, allowing you to fight while blind, knowing what is behind a closed door, etc.). So buying D/A for your standard senses is not an "efficient" use of points unless you buy something else to go with them. Of course, the simple fact is that your not going to buy those modifiers on a character unless you plan to use them in some way in the first place so that's not really an issues.[/quote']

 

Fair enough though I can't say I agree with that view point.

[psyber624]

Re: Advice sought: Uncommon Sense(s)

 

Well, what do you want them to do? D/A does quite a bit on a number of Detects, and most normal senses include a "crude" Discriminatory right now. There is just a limited number of ways to allow D/A to benefit a player who doesn't have skills to go with them that don't wind up crossing over territory covered by another modifier. I would love to be able to tell you that they do provide some tangible benefit, but you really cant allow 5/10 points of modifiers to give you tons of skills for free, or to replace other modifiers. (I guess you can but I wouldn't recommend it.)