Unrealistic Realistic Peripheral Vision point costs?

[Calvin]

The box on page 16 of Powers - Enhanced Senses describes the following two limitations on Peripheral Vision that are meant to make it more realistic.

1. No Increase in Vertical Arc for -10%, which does what it sounds like.

2. A Nuisance Effect for -5% that gives you a -2 to defend against attacks from outside your front 60 degrees. In effect, you have only one front hex, and the other two are turned into side hexes.

My problem is that these modifiers make no sense to me.

The first limitation is sensible enough. I'd never really given much thought to the vertical arc any given vision type might have, but -10% seems fair for removing any vertical increase in vision.

The second limitation, or at least the price for it, makes no sense. You're effectively combining Peripheral Vision with Tunnel Vision, leaving you with a single front hex, and five side hexes. Now the effect of this limitation makes sense. Other options for realistic peripheral vision involve making the eyes larger or otherwise easier to target. If you want realistic peripheral vision, you need to move the eyes apart, reducing the field of binocular vision in exchange for the wider field of view. Most herbivores, such as cows and horses, are a good example of this.

But the price seems nonsensical. Being at -2 to defences outside of the front 60 degrees is a lot more than a nuisance, and it's a far greater hindrance than 'No Increase in Vertical Arc' has the potential to be. In most sessions, No Increase in Vertical Arc won't even be relevant. A character might go a whole campaign without it ever making a difference either way. But this alleged nuisance effect is likely to come up in every single combat. Unless you (somehow, on what's meant to be a realistic version of Peripheral Vision) have No Signature, your foes are going to notice the placement of your eyes. Particularly in my case where this is meant to be a racial trait for one of the species in the campaign.

And at -5% on a 15 point advantage, it doesn't even save you any points. To be fair, sometimes -5% is the right price for a limitation, and on an advantage that costs less than 20 points, that limitation might be middling enough not to make a big difference to the character. But converting two of your front hexes into side hexes is far from middling.

Tunnel Vision is -30 points, and Peripheral Vision +15. Now trying to combine the two into some sort of meta-trait doesn't exactly work, as the cost of Tunnel Vision involves more than just fliping two of your front hexes to side hexes. But it gives one an idea of where to work from when trying to sort out the price.

Honestly I'd be inclined to make Peripheral Vision with this 'Nuisance Effect' a 0 point feature, much in the same way having only Infravision or only Ultravision is worth 0. It's not a better option, just a different one.

Consider the effect that Peripheral Vision has when modified with this 'Nuisance Effect'. By default, you have three front hexes where you defend and attack with no penalties. Then there are two side hexes where you can still see what's going on, but are at -2 to defences and cannot attack without using Wild Swing. Finally there's the rear hex where you can't defend, and can only attack with a Wild Swing, that's at an even greater penalty for not actually seeing the target.

With Peripheral Vision modified in this way, you're turning two front hexes into side hexes, in exchange for also turning the rear hex into a side hex.

The final case I'd make for making this a 0 point feature is the following: If, for zero points, you had the opportunity to take this feature, would you? It works for some characters for thematic reasons, sentient horses for example. And I suppose there'd be some builds where it would be helpful mechanically. But I think it's fair to say that in most cases it's more trouble than it's worth.

[Sam Baughn]

To me, it seems like a more balanced build would be something like:

Tunnel Vision [-30]
No Tunnel Vision (Temporary Disadvantage, No Depth Perception, -15%) [26]
Peripheral Vision (Temporary Disadvantage, No Depth Perception, -15%) [13]

for a total value of [9], which would be equivalent to a -40% limitation on Peripheral Vision.

Having full-blown No Depth Perception all the time shouldn't be a limitation as suggested for Extreme Peripheral Vision; you should get the full value of the disadvantage if it always affects you.

(Some species with eyes on the side of their heads do have depth perception thanks to flexible necks and frequent rapid shifts in viewpoint; this is why many birds 'bob' their heads when walking. That could be No Peripheral Vision plus No No Peripheral Vision with a limitation of 'not when completely still'.)

[Anthony]

I would just ignore that limitation. Yes, a lot of animals with wide set eyes can only see with one eye outside of a relatively narrow arc, but there's no evidence that it affects their ability to defend (it should be treated as No Depth Perception outside of your frontal arc, which functions as -1 DX, but typically such modifiers don't affect secondary stats so it doesn't affect dodge).