I don't think a linear penalty works. Perhaps something like -1 at 10', -2 at 20', -3 at 40 ', -4 at 80' and so on would be better. Frankly, the difference between someone at 10 and 20 feet away is a lot bigger than the difference between 100' and 110' away.Steverooo said:-1/10' is awfully high, IMO. I've always though it should be 30 feet...
Read the skill description. The Spot skill isn't used unless the target is hiding or obscured.buzzard said:Is there a rule which changes this idiotic state of affairs?
I don't think a linear penalty works. Perhaps something like -1 at 10', -2 at 20', -3 at 40 ', -4 at 80' and so on would be better.
Yes, actually, a character with 10 ranks in spot SHOULD be able to see a medium creature at 16 miles while taking 10. This is not, however, as atrocious as it sounds: If both creatures are on the ground, the horizon distance will be less than his maximum spot distance, so the creature will gain 100% cover due to the curvature of the planet, and thus cannot be spotted at all. However, the spotter would easily be able to detect any medium creature approaching on the horizon. If, on the other hand, the spotter, or the creature being spotted, is airborne or on top of a tall mountain, and visibility is completely clear, with no clouds or fog intervening, then there is no reason why somebody with 10 ranks in spot, the equivalent of eyes like a hawk, should not be able to spot a medium sized creature. Keep in mind that a spy satellite can pick a man-sized target out from 40 kilometers overhead.Gizzard said:Should a character with 10 Ranks in Spot be able to see a medium creature at 16 miles while Taking 10? He will if you use an table that doesn't grow linearly.
I suppose this is why the -1/10' penalty is the way it is; you have to keep the growth linear in order to keep the Spot skill from going nuts.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.