Clairsentience No Range to begin with but a mobile Per Point that can move to normal range over time

[Grailknight]

6 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

He can move it to his max range, yes.  But doing so takes a very long time.  So I don't treat this as a range limit...which is weird when he's buying increased max range...but an extra time limitation, as you noted later.  

And out to his max range took, IIRC, quite a while...even when he sank in *substantial* points into the movement speed.  Gotta take off here so I don't want to look it up but it was more than 5 minutes, IIRC.

 

 

 

It takes a very long time in combat, but this is a power that will be set up in non-combat time. Any engagement where he uses this power will only begin when he wants it to.

[unclevlad]

So how is that different from, say, 1 turn to activate a long-lasting defense power?

 

Remember too that he's paying END for the power *throughout* the movement stage.

[Sean Waters]

On 11/26/2021 at 1:14 AM, Grailknight said:

 

It's not No Range, it's No Initial Range. He can move his perception point after he starts it.

 

Is 'no initial range' an actual thing I've missed or are we're just making stuff up?

 

Ultimately I'm not sure if makes a lot of difference. You aren't going to be using this in combat at anything other than short range anyway. It's great for scouting an entire enemy base, which could take any hour, or taking a peek round the next corner. It's worth whatever the GM thinks it's worth.

 

Incidentally, I wonder whether the perception point is obvious, like a floating eye or something? Powers are normally visible through their entire range. If you shoot off a Blast is obvious where it came from and where it hits and all along the path.

 

EDIT: The Perception Point is not visible as Clairsentience is a Standard Power (for some reason probably to do with Frameworks) and a Sensory Power.  Sensory Powers are not visible.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Sean Waters
Looking stuff up after shooting my mouth off.

[Grailknight]

29 minutes ago, Sean Waters said:

 

Is 'no initial range' an actual thing I've missed or are we're just making stuff up?

 

Ultimately I'm not sure if makes a lot of difference. You aren't going to be using this in combat at anything other than short range anyway. It's great for scouting an entire enemy base, which could take any hour, or taking a peek round the next corner. It's worth whatever the GM thinks it's worth.

 

Incidentally, I wonder whether the perception point is obvious, like a floating eye or something? Powers are normally visible through their entire range. If you shoot off a Blast is obvious where it came from and where it hits and all along the path.

 

It's not an actual thing it's a Custom Limitation we're making for Clairsentience for this one off NPC villain..

[Hugh Neilson]

21 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

It's not No Range, it's No Initial Range. He can move his perception point after he starts it.

 

So it has less than the full advantages of Range, and it is not No Range.  That sounds a lot like Limited Range, somewhere between no limitation and no range, which is a -1/4 limitation.

[Grailknight]

7 hours ago, unclevlad said:

So how is that different from, say, 1 turn to activate a long-lasting defense power?

 

Remember too that he's paying END for the power *throughout* the movement stage.

 

It's not except for maybe not being a precise cost match.

 

Fixed by lowering SPD or not costing more END than covered by Post-Segment 12 or Costs END to Activate. 

[unclevlad]

Lowering SPD will increase the time requirement.  

 

As written, IIRC, the power cost 7 END.  At even a 4 SPD, that's calling for a very high REC.

 

Costs END to activate is likely the way to go, sure, but it's still *expensive* because of all the adders...the extended max range, the mobile perception point. 

 

So yes...it's workable...but everything you're saying is describing a power that's *hard to use*.  And can't be used in many situations.  In other words, a heavily limited power.

[Derek Hiemforth]

I kind of feel like we might be overthinking the plumbing, here.  This just sounds to me like a slightly unusual version of Limited Range (-¼).

 

It's not as bad as No Range; it's not as good as standard range. To me, that sounds like Limited Range.  Granted, it's limited in a different way than the typical application of Limited Range, but the fact that it can (eventually) get out to standard range is offset by the fact that it starts out at No Range, and has to take time (and the cost of Mobile Perception Point) to get out to the full range.

 

So I dunno... I think I'd just build a Clairsentience with Mobile Perception Point, slap Limited Range on it, and call it good.   

[Sean Waters]

11 hours ago, Derek Hiemforth said:

...

 

So I dunno... I think I'd just build a Clairsentience with Mobile Perception Point, slap Limited Range on it, and call it good.   

 

That had the enormous advantage of working, but so would leaving it at -1/2 or not giving a limitation at all.

 

My view, for what it is worth, is that it is 'no range' at full value, and the Mobile Perception Point description just didn't contemplate this situation and do impressed an unnecessary injunction. The reason I say this is that the power had no range then you are paying extra to add a version of range.

 

If there is any sort of limitation it should not apply to the Adders for Extra Range and Mobile Perception Point because it doesn't limit those bits i.e. it should be built as a partially limited power.

[Derek Hiemforth]

7 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

If there is any sort of limitation it should not apply to the Adders for Extra Range and Mobile Perception Point because it doesn't limit those bits i.e. it should be built as a partially limited power.

 

It's really a question of how far you think it's worth getting into the weeds.  I guess I don't see the value in it for this application. 

[Sean Waters]

1 hour ago, Derek Hiemforth said:

 

It's really a question of how far you think it's worth getting into the weeds.  I guess I don't see the value in it for this application. 

 

 

And yet we are arguing over the precise value of the applicable limitation...

 

We can just make this stuff up and, so long as everyone is happy, it's fine. The fact we're discussing it here makes us very special people.

 

[schir1964]

And the peanut gallery watches, eating popcorn, with bated breath. (8^D)

[Derek Hiemforth]

1 hour ago, Sean Waters said:

And yet we are arguing over the precise value of the applicable limitation...

 

We can just make this stuff up and, so long as everyone is happy, it's fine. The fact we're discussing it here makes us very special people.

 

Most folks seemed to be settling on -¼ anyway.  That's another part of why I suggested just having this be an application of Limited Range: because it's already the right value.  

[Sean Waters]

14 hours ago, Derek Hiemforth said:

 

Most folks seemed to be settling on -¼ anyway.  That's another part of why I suggested just having this be an application of Limited Range: because it's already the right value.  

 

Agree to disagree, but fairy nuff.  I would drag this out further, and may do that later (  ) but I've just thought of something else.

[Hugh Neilson]

22 hours ago, Sean Waters said:

And yet we are arguing over the precise value of the applicable limitation...

 

As I see it, we are arguing over the precise value of a limitation which is significantly more limiting than normal range (so should not be -0), yet less limiting than having no range at all (so should not be -1/2).  What is left besides -1/4, which is where "Limited Range" evolved from in the first place?

 

That leaves me feeling like Derek - why are we overthinking this when we have an existing mechanic for "not full range but not no range either".  I'd also allow Extra Time to be used, but that's tougher as it applies mainly to extended ranges, and is Only to Activate.  Will the end result be markedly different than "limited range; longer range takes more time to set up"?

[Sean Waters]

On 11/28/2021 at 4:22 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

As I see it, we are arguing over the precise value of a limitation which is significantly more limiting than normal range (so should not be -0), yet less limiting than having no range at all (so should not be -1/2).  What is left besides -1/4, which is where "Limited Range" evolved from in the first place?

 

That leaves me feeling like Derek - why are we overthinking this when we have an existing mechanic for "not full range but not no range either".  I'd also allow Extra Time to be used, but that's tougher as it applies mainly to extended ranges, and is Only to Activate.  Will the end result be markedly different than "limited range; longer range takes more time to set up"?

 

When I am running games I ad lib, when I am posting here I nit pick.  I really believe that, especially with something like Hero which does sell on the mathematical precision of its character creation, you need a consistent and repeatable approach and shouldn't just have a stab at something that is about right if there is a more, well, consistent and repeatable way of doing it.

 

The thing is that, here, it probably doesn't that make too much difference.  Hmm. Let's check that:

 

Clairsentience to Sight Group plus normal hearing and smell is 30 points.  I could have added the Single Sense (-1/4) in but you are not supposed to do that if you are including multiple senses.

Plus 45 points from the increased range and the fast mobile perception point..

Case 1: Allow the full 'no range' modifier at -1/2.  Cost is 50

Case 2: Allow the full 'limited range' modifier at -1/4.  Cost is 60.

Case 3: Apply no range to the base power then add in increased range and mobile perception point without limitation.  Cost is 65 points.

 

My 'logic' is that you are taking away the range (hence the -1/2 no range on the base power) then adding something like range back in (which does not get a limitation because that bit is not limited).  The full no range (Case 1) is clearly a non-starter because then you'd have no range for any of it, so the extra range and mobile perception point would just have no effect.

 

Adding in Limited Range to the whole thing (Case 2) means that the increased range and mobile perception point also get the advantage of the limitation (if you see what I mean) whereas they probably shouldn't because the lack of range is not actually limiting them it is limiting just the base power, so you have to create the perception point at no range but can then move it freely within a large area...

 

...which is how I get to Case 3.

 

I don't see that as overthinking.  it is not even complicated, it is just how the game is supposed to work, at least in my tiny, weird mind.

 

I started by saying that 'here' it did not make much difference, but it might if you had spent a lot more on the base power, by adding in sense groups and more of them.  Say you had sense groups for Sight Hearing, Hearing, Taste/Smell and Mental, and you can perceive into a limited group of other dimensions, the base cost increases to 105 points.

 

Case 1 would then cost 70,

Case 2 would cost 92 and

Case 3 would cost 92 as well.

 

If you add even more stuff in to the base power then case 2 becomes more expensive than case 3 and that would have happened at lower cost levels if there had not been so much extra range and a slower MPP i.e., if the base Clairsentience had been a more significant contributor to comparative cost.

 

It's only a few points but if you are saving or spending a few more points on every power it makes a real difference.

[Sean Waters]

Here's a fascinating exercise in mental gymnastics for you, if I have not wearied you enough already...

 

What if a villain had 'Detect when I'm being watched' as a power?  Or if that is too broad for you, 'Detect Clairsentience'.

 

Whenever you look at them using your powers they know and don't do anything incriminating, so you never suspect them.

 

This could be particularly confusing with Postcognition: there's been a murder, you go to the scene and view what happened.  Two people approach each other then one stops, looks around and walks away and the murder does not happen.  Either the victim never died or they are murdered at another time and place (unless you take a look to see what happened...).

 

I mean, this is a perfect Schrodinger situation: the observer changes the thing observed.  Make for a pretty interesting scenario if you slanted it just right.  Excuse me.  I may be some time...