Too bad they didn't have glasses back then...

[Friend of the Dork]

Hey despite the steamlining of the D&D system, there are still some quirks that have not been fixed.

One of them is the fact that creatures in this game has a hard time seeing anything past 100 feet. Actually spotting something kilometers away is simply impossible using the Perception rules, even for spotting a man standing in clear sight.

Now, using the -1 per 10 feet rule against people hiding within 100' of you it sorta makes sense, and it also makes Sniping possible even for those of low level. But there seem to be no cap on the penalty. How are outdoors encounters meant to be handled? Sure in a thick forest not being able to spot someone until they are 200' or less isn't bad, but on an open plain, in a desert or on top of a hill it becomes silly.

 

[Jhaelen]

Why do you think a perception/spot check is required to spot someone who isn't trying to hide?

The 3.5 rules suggest encounter distances based on terrain. Using these you get your spot range for cases when opponents don't try to hide.

 

[pawsplay]

By similar logic, bathubs can be very dangerous places in Pathfinder to the untrained in swim.

 

[Friend of the Dork]

Why do you think a perception/spot check is required to spot someone who isn't trying to hide?

The 3.5 rules suggest encounter distances based on terrain. Using these you get your spot range for cases when opponents don't try to hide.

Perception, pg 102 PFCR: Notice a visible creature Perception DC 0.

Also, hear the sounds of battle, DC -10.

Hear sound of creature walking DC 10.

Why I think it is required? Because it is not an automatic success. Seeing people walking at a long distance can be difficult (but far from impossible), and requires a certain level of awareness and perception.

I thought the PF rules supersedes the 3.5 rules?

I found a max detection distance in forest: 180 feet. That would basically be a DC 18 spot check to see a single person walking though, or a DC 46 to hear a single man walking (penalties to listen in forest is -2 per 10 feet). In gentle hills it's 200 feet, mountains 400', desert ca 700 feet, plains 1440. But this is max distance for some reason, and there are no rules here on DC cap for distance.

So the only sane way to do this is to handwave the distance penalty on perception checks and just set a base DC (like 20) to see if one party is aware of the other or not, like in 3rd edition D&D.

I would like to see a good way to keep the distance penalties and either change them so they scale on an increasing variable rather than a set number, or simply cap it at -10 or -20.

 

[Friend of the Dork]

By similar logic, bathubs can be very dangerous places in Pathfinder to the untrained in swim.

Alot of people die in bathtubs every year....

Also, it's not a fair comparison in the ludicrous, since you can't go underwater if there is something else blocking you (bathtub). Being able to move through solid material is a special ability only incorporeal creatures and some elementals have

 

[BryonD]

It may seem like handwaving, but the presumption of GM rational intervention is an important part of the games very foundation.

And within a game based on the presumption of GM rational intervention, the modifiers you have referenced as "rules" are in fact specifically described as guidelines.

To me, it would be a shame to waste page space trying to describe every particular scenario. -1/10 foot is a perfectly fine guideline for an "all things being equal" scenario. On a bright day in an open plain with low grass and a non-hiding target, using that guideline as a basis an adjusting to -1/100 feet under the circumstances seems quite reasonable. Certainly good enough.

And, bottom line, if the GM thinks the characters must not have glasses they need if they can't see XYZ, then the GM shouldn't be calling for a roll anyway. A whatever point the GM sees noticing to be expected, a DC0 or 5 or so should set there and skipped, OR reasonable modifiers may be applied from that point to provide a chance of better than normal detection.

 

[IronWolf]

It may seem like handwaving, but the presumption of GM rational intervention is an important part of the games very foundation.

And within a game based on the presumption of GM rational intervention, the modifiers you have referenced as "rules" are in fact specifically described as guidelines.

To me, it would be a shame to waste page space trying to describe every particular scenario. -1/10 foot is a perfectly fine guideline for an "all things being equal" scenario. On a bright day in an open plain with low grass and a non-hiding target, using that guideline as a basis an adjusting to -1/100 feet under the circumstances seems quite reasonable. Certainly good enough.

This echos my thoughts as well. The GM is a thinking being and the modifiers are guidelines. If the terrain in question allows one to see for a long distance and the thing you are trying to see is making no effort to hide or be stealthy, then adjust the DC as you feel appropriate.

As BryonD said, there are way too many scenarios to possibly cover every situation that one might try to make a perception check to see someone in the wilderness. Sparse trees, dense trees, tall grass, low grass, patchy grass, rolling hills, ditches, mountains, slopes, boulder field, white snow with people in white winter gear or a forest with dense underbrush and people in green/brown garb. Only the GM is aware of these situational modifiers and must modify the DC to what he or she feels appropriate for the given terrain.

 

[BryonD]

Ththere are way too many scenarios to possibly cover every situation that one might try to make a perception check to see someone in the wilderness.

Even moreso if you consider that the guidelines are supposed to apply not just to spotting the guy in the woods, but also to smelling him...

 

[Friend of the Dork]

Well by that rationale a monster can have 40 BAB if I want.. after all it's all guidelines right?

Maybe I'm accustomed to another playing style, but when I GM i try to follow the rules as closely as possible, make Ad-Hoc rulings when needed (no rules exist), or make house rules when I think the rules are lacking.

Now I could make a house rule here (such as penalty caps at -20 or distance penalty only affects perception vs Stealth checks etc.), but I wondered if there was some other rules I might have missed, or some general consensus of unofficial errata.

Because your "rational intervention" IS house ruling, and what may be rational to one may be insane to another.

I recently played a game where crossing a river with some current, with the aid of ropes to pull on, without armor or clothing, turned out to almost kill the entire party. Worst part was when my DC 22 fortitude save was not enough and my character fell to the bottom unconscious. There's your rational intervention right there.

 

[James Jacobs]

One of my regular players has a joke that he likes a bit too much: "How can we see the moon? It's so far away, perception check modifiers would make it invisible!"

While that joke might be funny (at least, the first time it gets made), it highlights something that I feel a lot of gamers forget: common sense. In the real world, if a bear steps out from behind a rock on the next hill over, there's a pretty good chance you'll see it. If the game were being moderated by a computer, we WOULD have to encode rules for "how can you see a bear on the next hill over," but since its being moderated by a human, we can assume that common sense might kick in and the GM would decide that the PCs could see the bear.

Unless the bear was specifically trying to hide, of course. And that's really the only time you should be making Perception checks to see creatures anyway.