Adjacent Sense Modifier

[Christopher R Taylor]

I like the "adjacent" sense modifier introduced in 6th edition, as it has some curious minor effects that it allows for design.  But its so limited in range it almost has to be just something like a periscope or an eyestalk as the description says:

 

 

This Sense Modifier allows a character to perceive not from where he’s standing, but a point up to 2m away from himself. (For longer ranges, characters should buy Clairsentience.)

 

I think it would be a more valuable and useful sense adder if it had just a bit more range, maybe 5m.  You don't want to give it more than that, but at least then you have some flexibility and value, whereas right now its a bit too hindered.  Clairsentience starts out at 200m range, so 5m is hardly conflicting with that power.

 

Should Adjacent have a slightly longer range?

[Surrealone]

I feel that Adjacent should only have a longer range if that longer range is consistent with what is considered 'adjacent' for use in HTH range determinations, the start location of No Range powers (like an AoE Cone that has No Range ... which can start in an adjacent 'hex'), etc.

 

Want HTH people to get 5m of free reach?  Well, then make Adjacent mean 5m in your game.  Want No Range powers to start 5m away instead of 1m away? Then make Adjacent be 5m in your game.  Just make sure that when you define the meaning of adjacency you're consistent about it for all things where adjacency matters ... so that there's not one meaning for adjacency for one set of things ... and another meaning for another set.  (That's just unnecessary clutter/confusion, IMHO.)

[Christopher R Taylor]

No, you're misunderstanding.  Adjacent is a sense modifier.  Its for enhanced senses:

 

 

This Sense Modifier allows a character to perceive not from where he’s standing, but a point up to 2m away from himself. (For longer ranges, characters should buy Clairsentience.) It’s primarily used to create devices like periscopes and borescopes, but might also represent a character with eyestalks or the like. Unless the GM rules otherwise, the character’s perception point is

Obvious (though which Senses he’s using through it aren’t necessarily apparent).

 

 

 

Its an enhanced sense modifier that lets you put the sense point at a short distance away, remote from yourself.  But the 2m limitation is a bit restrictive and greatly limits some concepts and use.  Just a bit more range would expand the possibilities considerably.

[Lucius]

Long Eyestalks: (Total: 5 Active Cost, 4 Real Cost) Adjacent with Normal Sight (Real Cost: 3) <b>plus</b> Stretching 2m, Costs Endurance Only To Activate (+1/4) (2 Active Points); Cannot Do Damage (-1/2), Limited Body Parts (Eyestalks; -1/4) (Real Cost: 1)

 

Lucius Alexander

 

and a far sighted palindromedary

[Surrealone]

 

No, you're misunderstanding.  Adjacent is a sense modifier.  Its for enhanced senses:

 

 

Its an enhanced sense modifier that lets you put the sense point at a short distance away, remote from yourself.  But the 2m limitation is a bit restrictive and greatly limits some concepts and use.  Just a bit more range would expand the possibilities considerably.

 

No, I'm not misunderstanding.  I'm saying that 'adjacent' should consistently mean the same thing whether it's a modifier for an enhanced sense, used for determining HTH combat range, or used for determining where No Range powers, start, and/or the like.  The implication, of course, is that I do not feel you should introduce any inconsistency in the meaning of a particular word ... to the game ... regardless of whether that word happens to be the name of a Power or modifier.

 

As it stands in RAW, today, the various uses of the word 'adjacent' appear to have congruent meanings ... and it should likely remain that way.  Thus, I feel if you modify the meaning for one a la a house rule, you should do it for all ... to maintain congruency of meaning.  Any other approach is non-congruent/unharmonious ... with potential for confusion.  Frankly, I feel very strongly that if you wouldn't change the meaning of 'adjacent' for determining HTH combat range and/or where No Range powers commence, you likely shouldn't touch its meaning anywhere else, either... because doing so entails clear application of a double-standard to things in RAW ... something I feel strongly a GM should always avoid.

 

I believe Lucius has the correct idea -- which is to apply an appropriate, already-existing mechanic to get the distance/range you want out of the sensory organ in question.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Anyone else think that moving 2m to 5m is too much to ask and should never be done?

[Ockham's Spoon]

I would have to agree that 2m seems pretty small and that 5m might more accurately reflect a number of situations.  That said, if you want a version that isn't a house rule I would go with the Increased Range advantage.  Because it doesn't affect the range of the Enhanced Sense itself, only the range of the Adjacent modifier, it would only be applied to the Adjacent cost and so be pretty cheap (just 1 pt for 8m range on a single sense).  

[Surrealone]

That's another good suggestion that leverages an existing mechanic without introducing inconsistencies or double-standards.

[Christopher R Taylor]

According to the rules, you can't use range modifiers on enhanced senses, so that would have to be allowed by the GM. It seems to make more sense to me to just redefine the power to be slightly longer.
 

without introducing inconsistencies or double-standards.

 

 

I cannot comprehend where you are getting this from.  If you define the game rule of Adjacent as being up to 5m, what on earth is causing inconsistencies or double standards??

[dsatow]

Wouldn't it be easier to buy a naked advantage on the sense using the base value + adders (like normal sight and IR) of the sense per 6e1p209.  You could then buy indirect on the sense.

[Christopher R Taylor]

How would that be easier than simply redefining the power to have a slightly longer range?  Instead of "but a point up to 2m away from himself." say "but a point up to 5m away from himself."

 

That seems pretty simple to me.  Am I missing something here?

[Cantriped]

I don't think it will break the game to redefine the maximum range of the Sense Modifier via GM Fiat, nor do you need our approval to do so (which seems to be your goal for some reason). However what I think you missing is that the other posters do not believe (for one reason or another) that the change you've suggested should be given out for free. All of the constructive suggestion given have revolved around ascertaining the appropriate cost for extending the maximum range of Adjacent Sense without redefining the Sense Modifier itself.

 

Regarding 'simplicity':

Allowing a character to take Ranged (or Limited Range) as an advantage on the Adjacent Sense Modifier is just as simple as allowing a character to define their Adjacent sense as a range greater than 2m. Both require a similar level of GM fiat, and are in keeping with the Core Concept of "You Can Change Anything". However the former is more in keeping with the Core Concept of "You Get What You Pay For", making it the preferable option to me.

Regarding Legality:

Lucius' example is the most legal presented so far, and really the character doesn't even need to buy Adjacent in that case, since they can just limit the Stretching to only apply to their eyes or head and get much the same result mechanically.

[Christopher R Taylor]

which seems to be your goal for some reason

 

 

I don't seek approval, I just am baffled by the almost violent reaction to what seemed to me a simple and modest proposal.  How about we move it out a couple feet NOOOOOOOOOO HERESY!!!! BURN THE WITCH!

[dsatow]

 NOOOOOOOOOO HERESY!!!! BURN THE WITCH!

 

We are enlightened.  We don't burn witches on no proof.  Do you weigh as much as a duck?

 

[Cantriped]

I don't seek approval, I just am baffled by the almost violent reaction to what seemed to me a simple and modest proposal.  How about we move it out a couple feet NOOOOOOOOOO HERESY!!!! BURN THE WITCH!

I generally choose my words very carefully, and I'm quite certain I put in all the appropriate qualifiers.

I never said you were seeking approval, I said that you seemed​ to be seeking approval. Which is to say that was the impression your responses gave, I cannot speak to your actual motivations because I am not you. Nor was I not attempting to condone the less than constructive responses of they who shall not be named. Which is why I said "All of the constructive suggestion given" (stupid typo... should have pluralized suggestions... but I digress). By which I was referring mostly to Ockham's Spoon and Lucius' excellent responses, neither of which bore a hint of violence.

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

We are enlightened.  We don't burn witches on no proof.  Do you weigh as much as a duck?

 

 

I weigh as much as a small bit of wood

 

Cantriped, my apparently failed attempt at humor was goofing on how I just suggested a minor change, to a minor rule and I got back bizarre rejections, strangely complex builds to do the same thing as adjacent but with a block of text, etc.  Seriously?  I mean really I can't figure out how people build games if this is the kind of feedback they get.

 

I mean, another strange thing in the rules I noticed is how Area Effect Surface is built.  Its a small area for the advantage, very small.  Why?  It seems like its even worse than AE: Any in terms of size.  is that heresy?  Is there some bizarre 3-paragraph build we should use to simulate fixing the cost for that, too?  Or maybe, you know, the rules could be changed...

[Ninja-Bear]

I think adjacent was added because of the removal of hexes and the smallest unit is now 1m not 2m (hex).

[Surrealone]

I mean, another strange thing in the rules I noticed is how Area Effect Surface is built.  Its a small area for the advantage, very small.  Why?  It seems like its even worse than AE: Any in terms of size.  is that heresy?  Is there some bizarre 3-paragraph build we should use to simulate fixing the cost for that, too?  Or maybe, you know, the rules could be changed...

I believe Area of Effect: Surface exists largely for use in the construction of damage shields.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I believe Area of Effect: Surface exists largely for use in the construction of damage shields.

 

I think you're right, and that probably led to it not being costed very carefully.  It is useful for other effects like walls of fire etc.

 

[Cantriped]

IIRC There was also a clause somewhere about how the minimum size AoE (Surface) should be considered sufficient to coat the user of the power, regardless of their size. I assume it was so that you weren't punished for having Growth (or just being larger than normal) and having a Damage Shield.

 

I mean really I can't figure out how people build games if this is the kind of feedback they get.

They grow really thick skins, or else they stop asking for feedback. I think there are actually a surprising number of game designers who just don't give a single spoon what their peers (or even their consumers) think about their work. As a general rule, the consumer base tends to have more bad opinions than good about the products they buy because nobody notices when everything goes right, they only notice what they dislike. From the perspective of an 'expert', this makes everyone else look like a fool.

[Lucius]

I don't seek approval, I just am baffled by the almost violent reaction to what seemed to me a simple and modest proposal.  How about we move it out a couple feet NOOOOOOOOOO HERESY!!!! BURN THE WITCH!

And I admit, I'm a little baffled by your response to the feedback, which seems to me a little disproportionate.

 

What you propose to do is not going to break the game and I don't think anyone is saying it will. As you put it yourself, "A mnor change to a minor rule" and I don't think anyone really cares. If you are so convinced that the benefit for the Adjacent Sense Modifier is too little for the cost of it, go ahead and adjust it upwards.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says it's just not important enough to get worked up about.

[Ninja-Bear]

Lucius you are wrong! We must quibble over 1 point! It's a mandatory psy. lim. all Hero players take!

[Surrealone]

It's part of the rule monger template/package deal.

[Christopher R Taylor]

One feature of the AE Surface advantage is that its by default mobile: its attached to something, so it moves with that thing rather than just in the environment.  So that would drive the price up.  Still expensive: its the cost of AE radius, with Mobile (+1) added.  But Radius hits a 3d area, so its a much larger effect which usually is an advantage over smaller areas.

[Cantriped]

One of the fun advantages of using AoE (Surface) over other types of AoE is that you can punish enemies for using equipment, without damaging the equipment itself. For example, you can cast Heat Metal​ on an enemy's sword (Built as a Constant, AoE (Surface) Blast) so that they'll take damage as long as they hold it. Potentially depriving them of the foci without having to destroy it. Similarly you can use it to create electrified floors and fences and such.

 

In CC, the cost of Mobile is only +1/2 for AoE and powers that inherent affect an area (such as Darkness), or +1/4 for Barriers; plus +1/4 for each doubling of its movement beyond 12m. So an AoE (Surface) of equivalent size to an AoE (Radius), such as 8m diameter area for example, is paying +1/2 more (the same cost as making AoE (Radius) Mobile), but in exchange for being a two-dimensional area of effect it has no limit on its movement per phase (beyond the circumstantial limit inherent to being attached to an object that may or may not be moving).