D&D 5E How far away can a person make perception checks?

[coolAlias]

Agreed on there not being much of a need to roll Wisdom (Perception) checks at those distances unless a player decision hinges on having that information right now - they'll typically find out soon enough anyway.

I'd also like to point out that DC 20 is not really "tough but a fair amount of people could see it" in 5e - that would be more like DC 15, which a person with 14-16 in the relevant ability score and proficiency will likely only succeed on half the time.

 

[Charlaquin]

An infinite distance away. After all, you can see mountains and the sun from quite a ways away.

I mean, heck, we can see stars from lightyears away. The only reason there even appears to be black space between stars from our perspective is redshift due to the expansion of the universe.

 

[Mistwell]

I think I will try a different tactic here.

Let's say a party of orcs is in the distance, pursuing the party. The party will want to know when they can see them, so they know what direction they're coming from, whether the party has time for a short or long rest, whether setting up an ambush is practical, whether they can outrun them to the next town, time to lay a trap or cast a lengthy spell, etc..

So I guess the real question is for the DM: Do you want the party to be able to see them at that distance so they can do something lengthy in reaction, or not?

I don't think that's a silly question. If you want the party to be able to get in something lengthy before the encounter, then just let them. If you don't then don't. When an encounter "can" start is firmly in the DMs realm of control.

I am not really seeing what anyone gains from making this a random chance issue dependant on a die roll. I'd say just make the call rather than fretting over real-world science simulation issues with this one.

 

[R_J_K75]

I don't think that's a silly question. If you want the party to be able to get in in something lengthy before the encounter, then just let them. If you don't then don't. When an encounter "can" start is firmly in the DMs realm of control.

Thats my opinion as well. Only time I can see this coming up, as yuo outlined above, is in a military setting when a war is being waged over long distances and from multiple directions.

To speed the game along Ive long since took the stance in any wilderness setting (or adventuring scenario for that matter) that my players are somewhat alert and keeping a semblance of a watch just to avoid minutia like this. Since the surprise rules in 5E are kind of arbitrary, unless a threat is taking pains to surprise the party or there are extenuating circumstances I dont feel this is necessary. I believe this was the designers goal of 5E, to not quantify every single possibility with a rule. Besides the rules for vision and light on pg 183 of the PHB only mention of line of sight I cold find with a quick search was the lamp and lantern entry on pg 152 of the PHB which is 20', 30' and 60'.

 

[Oofta]

I think the "what makes sense for the story" is a cop out. That's always going to be the case. To me there are two issues. When can you see a humanoid sized figure, and when can you identify what kind of creature it is.

So there are many, many variables at play. If there's nothing to gauge distance, a giant might appear to be a normal size human. A halfling might appear to be a human much further away than they actually are. What kind of terrain are we talking about? What are the lighting and atmospheric conditions?

Under ideal situation you could see figures more than a mile away (3 miles or further if you have elevation). Having lived in the country I'd say the odds of picking out a lone individual at that range unless it was a dark figure on a snowy plain is nil. I'd personally set the max distance for normal vision somewhere around a mile and a half, but that's just my guesstimate and will vary widely. In many cases it will be less because the figure will blend into the background.

But what if we're talking about recognizing that the humanoid is an orc. After a quick google I found an article here that states "At about 150 feet, accurate face identification for people with normal vision drops to zero."

We aren't trying to identify a specific individual, just whether it's an orc or a person approaching. But unless the orcs are carrying a giant "We're orcs" banner I don't think it's going to increase that much. Let's say you could potentially tell the difference between an orc and a human at 200 feet.

So I'd adjust it from there. At 200 feet, the DC is 25, dropping as you deem appropriate. Maybe 20 at 150 feet, 15 at 125, 10 at 100, automatic after that.

Which of course will all be modified by whether the orcs are carrying that giant banner, have made any effort to disguise themselves with a hooded cloak, light conditions and so on.

 

[aco175]

Was it the old Wilderness Survival Guide that had the picture of a PC standing on the rock outcropping high on the mountain looking out. The next picture was some orcs partway up the mountain pointing at him standing on the rock outcrop. Point being that perspective depends on a lot of things.

I typically let the PCs make a check before something is about to happen. If the PCs are looking for something behind them and they climb a tree or such, I may let them know they see the orcs, or make a roll to see the second group coming and give them the first.

If the PCs are walking along the road and about to walk into a trap I let them roll about 60ft away. This gives them a chance to act before they are in melee range, but not that far away to make the check with a penalty. I would not have them make a check at 1/4 mile away at -10 and another at 1/8th mile at -8 and so on since they are getting closer and the chance is greater to notice. Sooner or later they will just make a high roll and you should just skip rolling if that is what you plan on.

 

[Campbell]

I do not like Perception checks to see what is in front of your face. I only use it to find stuff that has been concealed or people that are hiding from them.

Otherwise if you can see it you can see it.

 

[R_J_K75]

I do not like Perception checks to see what is in front of your face. I only use it to find stuff that has been concealed or people that are hiding from them.

Otherwise if you can see it you can see it.

When 3E first came out I made my players make more than one unnecessary skill check until I realized not everything needs a check.

 

[coolAlias]

I do not like Perception checks to see what is in front of your face. I only use it to find stuff that has been concealed or people that are hiding from them.

Otherwise if you can see it you can see it.

This is one of my biggest points of contention with 5e - I don't know why, but it seems more than one DM is all about having me roll to see what I can see... so I take Observant, thinking that will send the message. Nope, passive of 20+ isn't enough or doesn't apply because reasons, but maybe you'll roll well! Aaaaah, slay me now.

 

[R_J_K75]

This is one of my biggest points of contention with 5e - I don't know why, but it seems more than one DM is all about having me roll to see what I can see... so I take Observant, thinking that will send the message. Nope, passive of 20+ isn't enough or doesn't apply because reasons, but maybe you'll roll well! Aaaaah, slay me now.

Doesnt help that the DC system is pretty arbitrary at best. I still have trouble picking a DCm while improvising.