Crossing a Plain
- Thread starter Stormborn
- Start date
prospero63
First Post
Yes and no. As I mentioned, that doesn't include any other conditional modifiers that the DM might apply, such as totally flat, no obstructions, walking in the same direction, etc. etc. etc. Even then though, the DC is going to still be relatively high I would think.
IMO the -1 for every 10feet is something that breaks over distance. Consequently, me personally, I use it more as a guideline as opposed to an absolute. I do the same thing for listen checks and distance.
Imho, the rules show again why the game is called Dungeons & Dragons. The rules work best when encounters happen in enclosed spaces where long, unbroken lines of sight aren't possible.
Recently, when using wilderness encounters I simply ruled that monsters that aren't trying to hide are automatically spotted at the rolled encounter distance. For monsters that are hiding and/or trying to ambush travellers, encounter distances are irrelevant; in these cases the spot rules actually work. I've either used pre-rolled spot checks from the party's scouts or assume they take 10.
aboyd
Explorer
Animal has already taken a swipe at the 164 DC, but I'd actually say that the DC at 100 feet is worse. I mean, I can spot just about anything at 100 feet on a plain, and I'm nearsighted and not an adventurer/hero. But our PCs have to make a DC 30 check to spot minotaurs at 100 feet on open land? That's preposterous.
(Note that I'm not calling you or any member preposterous. I'm calling the rule preposterous if it is in fact in RAW.)
(Note also that the rolls are just to notice the other party, so it's not like the DC 30 is to spot them in hiding or something. This is a "Nobody is aware of anyone else around, so they're just going about their business" scenario. And it takes a 30 to see that at 100 feet? Bizarre.)
prospero63
First Post
Per the rules for spot checks, yes. That said, I don't think there's any problem with spotting someone or something, without need of a spot check at all. IOW, I don't think there is anything wrong with saying "100 feet (or 1000 feet), open field, no spot check is necessary to see them". Similarly, I know in our games we frequently set the base DC for things well below the book when it doesn't make sense. For example, the base DC to see something out in the open might well be a DC0, assuming you need a spot check in that situation at all. IMHO sometimes I think folks place too much emphasis on skill checks for every last little thing. Still... I don't think I want to mess with who/whatever can make a DC164 any check...
Oh, and it is the rule of the game:
In 3.5 I can't find the "base DC 20" rule, but it's clearly in the 3.0 DMG. Heck, maybe they removed it since 20 seems an awful arbitrary DC anyway and the intent for 3.5 was for the DM to determine the base DC on their own (so if they wanted to make it a DC0, they can).
Last edited:
The initial spot check from the point where either party could potentially spot one another is not modified by distance, ie no -1 per 10 feet.
Can't remember where it says that, but I believe that there was a Rules of the Game article than covered it more in depth. Or maybe a Sage Advice reply. I'm not a huge fan of either source taken as verbatim, but it is there somewhere.
Can't remember where it says that, but I believe that there was a Rules of the Game article than covered it more in depth. Or maybe a Sage Advice reply. I'm not a huge fan of either source taken as verbatim, but it is there somewhere.
prospero63
First Post
That sounds like a much better way to handle it.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I agree. I believe the 3.0 rules were quite superior to 3.5 in this regard.
When I was a kid I lived on the high plains in CO. From the hill our house was on I could see someone on horse back from several miles. If it was dry you could see dust from riders much further away than that. At least 10 miles...
