Archery in this game kind of sucks.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by brianfb

I dont think so, it says -2 if you aim, that implies attack rolls. You dont Aim when just looking around.

Focusing your telescope eyes on one target isn't "looking around".

Originally Posted by brianfb

(or a device such as a camera or telescope).

Like your ocular implants/freaky hawk eyes/elven FA eyes?

Telescopic vision works like a telescopic sight (without the Acc cap; but this is probably an oversight).

[Refplace]

Seems to me its one or the other.
Note the first sentence is describing AIM for vision not an attack. Then after you get past that, you get to the part about using it with a weapon.
"This
ability can also function as a telescop-
ic sight, giving up to +1 Accuracy per
level with ranged attacks provided you
take an Aim maneuver for seconds
equal to the bonus (see Scopes under
Firearm Accessories, p. 411)."

The reference is to telescopic sights so I would use those rules which mean its +1 ACC (up to the ACC of the weapon) and not an additional -2 to range penalties.

[brianfb]

If you read telescopic vision it specifically says that it does not work in conjuctions with scopes, binoculars, etc. So clearly the notion that it means you reduce range penalties when using such devices is not correct.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by brianfb

If you read telescopic vision it specifically says that it does not work in conjuctions with scopes, binoculars, etc. .

This just means you can't "stack" the advantage with optics. Which is just how optics work, due to focal length. You can't "stack" by looking through two pairs of binoculars either.

So clearly the notion that it means you reduce range penalties when using such devices is not correct

Originally Posted by GURPS High-Tech p.47

The most common feature of passive sensors is telescopic magnification. Each doubling of magnification lets the
user ignore -1 in range penalties on Vision rolls while using the sensor. The user can also “zoom in” on a particular target by taking an Aim maneuver, which is useful for making a more precise identification. While doing so, each doubling of magnification cancels -2 in range penalties to see that one target, but the sensor provides no bonus to spot other targets.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by brianfb

If you read telescopic vision it specifically says that it does not work in conjuctions with scopes, binoculars, etc. So clearly the notion that it means you reduce range penalties when using such devices is not correct.

Nobody said that.

Telescopic vision is such a device, either literally or slightly figuratively.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by brianfb

Not meaning to be argumentative, but I want to be sure I have this correct. This from the basic book

AIM
This is a full-turn maneuver used
to aim a ranged weapon (or a device
such as a camera or telescope).

It doesnt say anything about taking an aim maneuver when just making a vision roll. After reading the text of this and the telescopic vision rule, I am even more convinced this applies to attacks.

Got love when they word things so clearly that two people can read the same sentence and reach two very different conclusions.

When you read the full description of the advantage, it becomes clear that the bonuses that offset range penalties only apply to Vision checks. After this is mentioned (with no mention of using to for attacks), the text goes on to mention how the advantage works for attacks. That makes it clear that the first use case (Vision checks) does not include the second.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by brianfb

Not meaning to be argumentative, but I want to be sure I have this correct. This from the basic book

AIM
This is a full-turn maneuver used
to aim a ranged weapon (or a device
such as a camera or telescope).

It doesnt say anything about taking an aim maneuver when just making a vision roll. After reading the text of this and the telescopic vision rule, I am even more convinced this applies to attacks.

Got love when they word things so clearly that two people can read the same sentence and reach two very different conclusions.

Vision checks only. It would be a 15-point advantage if it worked the way you seem to think.

[brianfb]

Ok I’m convinced. My group has been doing that wrong for ten years, bow guy is gonna be sad. That really is worded terribly lol

A person is squinting to read a far away sign.
“What are you doing?”
“Aiming.”

That’s just special.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by brianfb

Ok I’m convinced. My group has been doing that wrong for ten years, bow guy is gonna be sad.

Eh, if your group has treated the Advantage this way for a decade and haven't run into problems with it, continuing to treat it this way is probably fine. The RAWPD aren't going to send ISWAT to break down your door for it or anything.

As for the wording, I think the intent is clear in casual English, but it does fall a bit short if you're expecting something more formal - or is pretty terrible if expecting legalese. For the Maneuver, spotting stuff is typically a Concentrate (or simply a freebie, although Concentrate either gives a bonus or negates the relevant penalty), and that's what I'd use for a normal human squinting at something. However, focusing on something through a scope or other device is going to be very similar to doing so with such mounted to a weapon, so Aim seems appropriate. As Telescopic Vision mimics having a scope, using Aim for it keeps things consistent.

[brianfb]

Originally Posted by Varyon

As for the wording, I think the intent is clear in casual English, but it does fall a bit short if you're expecting something more formal - or is pretty terrible if expecting legalese.

Yeah it is one of my beefs with the core books in general, the crunchy rules bits should have been written by a technical writer, every sentence must be clear and meaningful, the fluff part can be in casual English. This isn't the only rule we have found maddeningly unclear.