Darkvision through a telescope

[Mistwell]

But not being able to see something because it is hidden partially behind something else, such as encounter distance based on terrain, is perfectly in the rules!

It's not "based on terrain". You have repeatedly claimed that is a rule, but it's not. The spot rule says you need a spot check to determine when an encounter begins.

Page 22 of the DMG further states, under "Starting an Encounter" section:

"When you decide that it is possible for either side to become aware of the other, use Spot checks, Listen checks, sight ranges, and so on to determine which of the three above cases (One side becomes aware of the other side and thus can act first; Both sides become aware of each other at the same time; or Some but not all creatures on one or both sides become aware of the other side) comes into play."

See how that works? And see how it's not about hide checks or obstructions? Just like the Spot rule says, you can use a spot check to determine when an encounter begins, and it's not necessarily involving any sort of obstructions or hiding or terrain issues at all.

Reading something at a distance however, is not mentioned. In fact, I quoted a rules bit which says that spot and reading are different things!

If reading at a distance is an encounter, then it's mentioned in the spot rule.

How do you reconcile that??

You know how. You're playing a semantics game right now, but if you answer that question honestly you already know how.

I am a-ok with saying that the rules have holes in them, because they do. But to say that it is a rule because it is not stated seems very bad to me!

Then you should DM more often. Hundreds of things happen in a game that you need to actually interpret the rules to use them. The rules are not going to spoon feed you every single potential type of thing that might come up. You need to be able to view the rules for what they are - basic outlines for the game, and not totally inclusive tomes that cover all situations for the game in exacting detail. If something comes up that requires a character to try and see something at a distance, it's a spot check. Even if the spot check doesn't say "use this rule to be able to see a small bird on a tree branch a mile away", if a character is trying to see a small bird on a tree branch a mile away they need to make a spot check. That's not a house rule - that is the spot rule. ALL the rules require some level of interpretation like that to function fully.

Where does it say the maximum distance a character can see with no obstacles in the way????????

In the spot rule. It's clear to me. It's clear to many others. It also matches logic, that you cannot see around the planet and spot the back of your head if there are no obstructions, or a hundred miles away, for example. You know that's what that rule means, but semantically you are having fun right now with the rule (which is fine, though it will get tiresome after a while).

That no spot check can succeed? We know what the penalties to spot are, but what is the difficulty class that we are trying to hit? Is it set by a hide check?

No, it's set by the DM based on the circumstances. How large is the object, are there obstructions, what is the distance, what is the lighting, and is there anything about the target that would cause it to blend in with the background. A DM has to think about the encounter and come up with a DC for the spot check. That's it, that's all it requires. It's not a house rule, it's just how the rules operate. I'm sorry not every conceivable situation is spelled out to your satisfaction in the rules, but that doesn't mean there are not rules for that kind of situation.

If so, then for a creature who cannot hide because there is nothing nearby then ANY spot check would either be considered to be automatic success or automatic failure since the target number is a -!

Like all checks, it's set by the circumstances.

If we use something else what is it? Where is it defined??

The PHB and DMG give guidelines, and ultimately the DM defines it. Like they define all skill check DCs.

The curvature of the planet, if the world being adventured on was something like a globe, would block line of sight itself because it is a solid object.

So you're characters can see any distance, provided there is no obstruction, even if that distance is a thousand miles, provided the curvature of the planet does not obstruct their vision? You see how silly this is, right. You're instinct tell you that you must be wrong, so why won't you follow those instincts at all?

I am not saying that it makes sense to be able to see something at 50 feet as well as you can see something at 500 feet, I am simply saying that the rules are silent on the issue from what I can tell!

They are not, they just are not as detailed as you would like. I suspect it's because you more often play than DM. We could be having this discussion about ANY skill. Skills are broad categories and not nearly as specific as you seem to think they are. That's why the DM has circumstance modifiers at hand, and a host of other guidelines to help set DCs.

 

[Neverwill]

The same except different...

Darkvision does function like normal vision except for color...and limited range. Since the discussion is about the spyglass affecting the range of vision, let's make darkvision and normal vision more equatable.

A human is surrounded in complete darkness with a torch. His vision is limited to 40' (like darkvision). Give him a spyglass. What is his range of vision now?

 

[Zurai]

Darkvision does function like normal vision except for color...and limited range. Since the discussion is about the spyglass affecting the range of vision, let's make darkvision and normal vision more equatable.

A human is surrounded in complete darkness with a torch. His vision is limited to 40' (like darkvision). Give him a spyglass. What is his range of vision now?

80'. Shadowy Illumination (such as from a torch or, ironically, the Darkness spell) isn't an on/off switch. There's not a line in the sand where you can see objects on one side and everything on the other side is sheer inpenetrable blackness. There's still some light that reaches beyond that 40' radius... not enough to change the concealment of objects to the naked eye, but enough that with a light amplification device such as a spyglass, you can see farther. Otherwise a spyglass is completely useless in many, many classic scenarios.

 

[Jhulae]

Darkvision does function like normal vision except for color...and limited range. Since the discussion is about the spyglass affecting the range of vision, let's make darkvision and normal vision more equatable.

A human is surrounded in complete darkness with a torch. His vision is limited to 40' (like darkvision). Give him a spyglass. What is his range of vision now?

The comparison is flawed. The range of "normal" vision is completely dependent on the light source. The brighter the light, the longer the 'effective' range. Darvision has an absolute cutoff by creature type that possesses it. A Dwarf will *never* see a Drow standing 61' feet away with her darkvision. A human will *never* see a Drow standing 61' away with a torch or even a lantern, but *will* be able to see one 61' away (or up to 120' away) with a Bullseye Lantern (and so can the Dwarf with 'normal' sight).

 

[Elethiomel]

Also, note that the range of Darkvision doesn't say "60 feet, +5 feet for each +5 of the character's spot score". If it had, a spyglass would help. It doesn't. It says 60 feet.

Also, for those of you arguing that since the spyglass doubles the size of things looked at it will double the darkvision range: How come you can't see an ogre at double darkvision distance, a forest giant at triple darkvision distance, and so on? These creatures are about double and more than triple the size of a human, yet you can't see them if they stand outside your basic darkvision range. How would a spyglass help you see a human outside your darkvision range when you can't see something double the size of a human outside your darkvision range in the first place?

 

[Mistwell]

The comparison is flawed. The range of "normal" vision is completely dependent on the light source.

It's not. The spot rules and DMG rules on encounters state that there is a maximum range for normal vision regardless of light source. As your ranks and bonus in spot goes up, your maximum range extends. However, you will always have a maximum range (because there will always be a point where your negative on your spot modifier is so high as to make spotting anything at that distance impossible - hence a maximum range).

Darvision has an absolute cutoff by creature type that possesses it.

And Normal Vision has an absolute cutoff by spot skill modifier.

And both can be extended by a spy glass.

A Dwarf will *never* see a Drow standing 61' feet away with her darkvision.

Unless they use a spy glass.

A human will *never* see a Drow standing 61' away with a torch or even a lantern, but *will* be able to see one 61' away (or up to 120' away) with a Bullseye Lantern (and so can the Dwarf with 'normal' sight).

And if it is bright sunlight out, and there are no obstructions of any sort (including any type of terrain obstruction), a human with a spot modifier of 10 will still never be able to see something 300 feet away (unless they use a spy glass). Their maximum spot check is a 30 (with a roll of a natural 20), and they have a -30 on their check for the distance.

For you guys who think there is no maximum distance for normal vision, and that it is only determined by light source, what exactly is it you think a spy glass does for a character? What effect is the x2 magnification, in terms of game rules, for your game?

 

[chriton227]

And if it is bright sunlight out, and there are no obstructions of any sort (including any type of terrain obstruction), a human with a spot modifier of 10 will still never be able to see something 300 feet away (unless they use a spy glass). Their maximum spot check is a 30 (with a roll of a natural 20), and they have a -30 on their check for the distance.

For you guys who think there is no maximum distance for normal vision, and that it is only determined by light source, what exactly is it you think a spy glass does for a character? What effect is the x2 magnification, in terms of game rules, for your game?

Actually, it is easy to see something beyond 300' with a +10 spot. Creatures larger than Medium have a penalty to hide (up to -16 for colossal creatures) and creatures moving have a penalty to hide (up to -20 for running or attacking). So a Colossal dragon with a 10 dex and no ranks in hide running across the featureless plains would be a DC -35 (assuming a 1 on the hide roll). The Spot +10 character would have a chance to see it as far away as 650'.

By what you are saying, playing american rules football in D&D, the QB standing in one end zone (probably only a spot of +3 or +4 for an amature) would not be able to see the wide receiver (probably a dex of +1 or +2) on the opposite 25 yd line waiting for the hail mary pass. A soccer player probably wouldn't be able to see the soccer ball (tiny or smaller, at least a +8 hide) about 1/2 down the field. An adventurer with a +0 spot would have 50/50 odds be able to spot a meatball (diminuitive, +16 hide, -5 dex, total +11) on the plate in front of them in the tavern. That also means that a character looking up at noon on a clear day couldn't see the sun, as it is so far away that no one could have a spot check high enough. Obviously characters can see the sun regardless of their spot skill, so the spot must not rigidly limit their sight range in all situations.

Your interpretation means that the rule that projectile weapons can shoot at targets up to 10 range increments away is useless, as noone will ever be able to see that far. An archer with Far Shot and a composite longbow has a maximum range of 2400', and can have that at 1st level. I'm not saying that an archer would be able to descern details at that range, but picking out a target that isn't hiding would be possible. If something were to be hiding at that range, it would be pretty much impossible to see them, but then the target is making an active effort to avoid being seen by getting behind something (hiding requires concealment or cover).

If someone were using a spyglass in my game, I would allow it to reduce the spot penalties to -1 per 20'. I would use my descretion as a DM regarding descerning fine details like how far away a character would be able to read 1 inch tall letters on the side of a barn or seeing and identifying a person not trying to hide. For a quick rule of thumb, I would use the size bonus/penalty to spot (+16 for diminuitive) as a rough guideline, then apply a liberal dose of common sense and life experience. In my experience, I can identify specific friends at about 200', and they would have a size bonus of +0. Using the -1 per 10', that would be about 40' to read 1" letters. I can identify that there is a "person" there (as opposed to a gorilla or a pony) roughly 3-4 times farther away than that, say 600'-800' away. Since I could distinguish the actual letters at 40', I would say that you would be able to say that there was writing there (although not what it said) at about 120'-160' feet. If someone were using a spyglass, I would double those distances. IIRC, the 2nd Ed. DM Screen or DMG actually listed distances at which you could descern "something is there", descern "type", and descern "individual identity" in various conditions.

As far as using spot for encounter distance, that works great when following the rules listed in spot. Assuming that there is plenty of illumination and no concealment (a drill field, a recently harvested flat field), neither side would be able to make hide checks, so there is no chance of the hide check being greater than the spot check, regardless of what the results of the spot check are. A roll of -400 beats a roll of "I'm not allowed to do that" in my game. So the parties would become aware of each other as soon as they had a clear line of sight and initiative would be rolled, and the initiative roll would represent who was the quickest to notice and react to the other party. If the situation allowed for both parties to have concealment, opposed spots vs. hides would be appropriate, the party that spots at the longer distance would have surprise. If only one party had concealment, the other party would be able to make spot vs. hide, if the distance was greater or equal to the line of sight distance they would spot each other at the same time, otherwise the concealed party would have surprise. I could also see someone arguing that if there is no hiding/concealment, just make opposed spot checks and the winner gets surprise.

The DMG lists under terrain guidelines for what the maximum spotting distance is for each terrain, beyond that the line of sight is obstructed by the terrain, whether it be due to trees, rocks, sand dunes, heat shimmers, or the contours of the land. Exceptional terrain and situations (like a mirror smooth plane or looking out from the edge of a 1000' mesa) may require exceptions to the normal guidelines, but that is why there is a DM.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, it is easy to see something beyond 300' with a +10 spot. Creatures larger than Medium have a penalty to hide (up to -16 for colossal creatures) and creatures moving have a penalty to hide (up to -20 for running or attacking).

It's not a hide check however. I am referring to the rules for when an encounter starts, and it is based on a spot check (and listen check where appropriate). Hide doesn't come into play.

By what you are saying, playing american rules football in D&D, the QB standing in one end zone (probably only a spot of +3 or +4 for an amature) would not be able to see the wide receiver (probably a dex of +1 or +2) on the opposite 25 yd line waiting for the hail mary pass. A soccer player probably wouldn't be able to see the soccer ball (tiny or smaller, at least a +8 hide) about 1/2 down the field.

They have a higher spot check I assume. Not sure what those comparisons are relevant. Everyone in this thread has been arguing "it's gotta be in the rules or else it doesn't exist".

An adventurer with a +0 spot would have 50/50 odds be able to spot a meatball (diminuitive, +16 hide, -5 dex, total +11) on the plate in front of them in the tavern.

If seeing the meatball is an encounter, then yes. The rule regards encounters.

Your interpretation means that the rule that projectile weapons can shoot at targets up to 10 range increments away is useless, as noone will ever be able to see that far. An archer with Far Shot and a composite longbow has a maximum range of 2400', and can have that at 1st level. I'm not saying that an archer would be able to descern details at that range, but picking out a target that isn't hiding would be possible. If something were to be hiding at that range, it would be pretty much impossible to see them, but then the target is making an active effort to avoid being seen by getting behind something (hiding requires concealment or cover).

There is a reason archers require good sight. Indeed, according to the rules, they need to make a spot check against a creature that far away, and if they fail then they cannot target that specific creature.

If someone were using a spyglass in my game, I would allow it to reduce the spot penalties to -1 per 20'.

After arguing against the spot penalty for virtually all uses, you now would apply a x2 magnification bonus to the spot penalty? For what purpose? Your archer can already see 2400 feet without any problem apparently in your game, so what's the purpose of the spy glass?

I would use my descretion as a DM regarding descerning fine details like how far away a character would be able to read 1 inch tall letters on the side of a barn or seeing and identifying a person not trying to hide. For a quick rule of thumb, I would use the size bonus/penalty to spot (+16 for diminuitive) as a rough guideline, then apply a liberal dose of common sense and life experience. In my experience, I can identify specific friends at about 200', and they would have a size bonus of +0. Using the -1 per 10', that would be about 40' to read 1" letters. I can identify that there is a "person" there (as opposed to a gorilla or a pony) roughly 3-4 times farther away than that, say 600'-800' away. Since I could distinguish the actual letters at 40', I would say that you would be able to say that there was writing there (although not what it said) at about 120'-160' feet. If someone were using a spyglass, I would double those distances. IIRC, the 2nd Ed. DM Screen or DMG actually listed distances at which you could descern "something is there", descern "type", and descern "individual identity" in various conditions.

None of that seems to match the earlier interpretation of not needing to make a spot check unless something is hiding.

As far as using spot for encounter distance, that works great when following the rules listed in spot. Assuming that there is plenty of illumination and no concealment (a drill field, a recently harvested flat field), neither side would be able to make hide checks, so there is no chance of the hide check being greater than the spot check, regardless of what the results of the spot check are.

Not all uses of spot are opposed by a hide check, and the encounter rules specifically are not opposed by a hide check unless someone is trying to hide. You still use the spot encounter rules however.

Seriously, it's time to re-read the spot rule, and the encounter rule in the DMG. It's NOT just about opposed spot vs. hide checks. Sometimes it's about opposed spot checks, and sometimes it's just a set DC based on the circumstances, and sometimes it's against disguise, etc...

A roll of -400 beats a roll of "I'm not allowed to do that" in my game. So the parties would become aware of each other as soon as they had a clear line of sight and initiative would be rolled, and the initiative roll would represent who was the quickest to notice and react to the other party.

Well, I hate to say it, but that is a house rule. The rules are pretty clear on this subject. If the parties are at a decent distance from each other, each side makes a spot check (or listen check where appropriate, all modified by the distance rules in the spot skill description, see DMG page 22), and it isn't versus a hide check. I quoted the rule above, and it's found in the encounters section of the DMG, and in the spot skill rules.

If the situation allowed for both parties to have concealment, opposed spots vs. hides would be appropriate, the party that spots at the longer distance would have surprise. If only one party had concealment, the other party would be able to make spot vs. hide, if the distance was greater or equal to the line of sight distance they would spot each other at the same time, otherwise the concealed party would have surprise. I could also see someone arguing that if there is no hiding/concealment, just make opposed spot checks and the winner gets surprise.

Again, you are overly focused on hide checks concerning spot. They two are sometimes related, but not always.

The DMG lists under terrain guidelines for what the maximum spotting distance is for each terrain, beyond that the line of sight is obstructed by the terrain, whether it be due to trees, rocks, sand dunes, heat shimmers, or the contours of the land. Exceptional terrain and situations (like a mirror smooth plane or looking out from the edge of a 1000' mesa) may require exceptions to the normal guidelines, but that is why there is a DM.

Which is why I quoted the "when an encounter begins" rule instead of the terrain rule. There might be other modifiers for terrain, but there is a rule for when an encounter begins, and it often involves a spot check, and that spot check is not always going to be against a hide check.

 

[werk]

While it is fun to argue real world physics or 'how things really work' the rules are somewhat clear on "Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it."

Spot would only be opposed (and presumably harder to succeed) if the viewed party was attempting to hide. I view spot as a passive skill while hide is the active skill in this scenario.
You have to actively hide, but creatures are always 'on the lookout' with varying modifiers to simulate real world conditions.

"Objects viewed through a spyglass are magnified to twice their size."
Magnifying objects does not make them fall within the range of the darkvision. THis seems to be a description of a magnifying glass, rather than a spyglass...but magifying glasses have a much better description.

If it said, spyglasses double viewing distance, that would be different...I can think of several ad hoc ways to describe a spyglass mechanically that are much better than what we have.

But what the description we have is specifically saying to do is to reduce the penalties to spot DC. You can do that for darkvision, but it simply won't make a difference if the object is outside the darkvision's range.

Really bad wording there, IMHO, which is unfortunate, I'd say it's up to the DM to decide. As a DM, I'd say no.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Really bad wording there, IMHO, which is unfortunate, I'd say it's up to the DM to decide. As a DM, I'd say no.

it would be nice if the spyglass said that it added a set bonus to spot checks, or halved the penalty for distance, or something concrete....

On the other hand, since nothing about the way it is currently written supports it extending the range of darkvision, clearer writing wouldn't actually help the current argument.