I dont get spot.

[Stalker0]

I use the 3.0 encounter rules, which I never understand why they took out. Its a DC 20 spot check, modified by things like concealment, size, number of people, etc. The distance you make the check at is determined by the terrain. If you pass you see them at that distance. If you fail, you see them at half that distance. Made it nice and easy.l

 

[Quasqueton]

Yes, you can see the sun from very far away - but can you see the Mars Rover on Mars from such a distance?

No, you cannot see the Mars Rover on Mars from the Earth. And I don’t need a written game mechanic to rule that in a D&D game.

If it really bugs you, you can just assign such bodies (assuming they exist in your campaign) +5000 size modifiers to be seen. More importantly, you are making the assumption that things should work in DnD as they do in real life.

First off, it does not bug me at all.

Second, a +5000 size modifier won’t even come close to overcoming the -1 per 10’ modifier – that modifier is inconsequential before 20 miles away (much less millions of miles).

Third, I’ve made no assumption, and I’ve not suggested “things should work in DnD as they do in real life.”

The rules can’t have a written mechanic for everything. And the written mechanics won’t work for every conceivable scenario. Sometimes a DM just has to say such-and-such happens – “You see a man walking across the field about 300 feet away from you.”

If seeing the creature doesn’t matter, then the DM doesn’t need to mention it.

If seeing the creature matters, then the DM can just tell the Players.

If seeing the creature first matters, then the DM can call for opposed spot checks to determine who sees who first.

For instance,

What about checks to see objects, such as a town?

Why in the world would a DM call for a Spot check to see a town?

What’s next? Skill checks for breathing? Holding a cup?

Quasqueton

 

[Question]

The way i picture it is, the PCs may see something in the distance.......the spot check is simply to see whether the PCs are keen-eyed enough to see that it is a town.

 

[Bagpuss]

The DMG gives minimum Spot distances for various terrain, beginning on page 87. For example, in sparse forest, the farthest distance at which you can possibly Spot someone is [3d6 x 10] feet.

You know all that information was in a nice table instead of spread out among the paragraphs of text in the original 3.0 DMG (Page 60). Also gave the DC for spotting someone who wasn't hidding, based on size and activity. I'll post it below.

Spotting Distance
Smoke or Heavy Fog 2d4 x 5ft (avg 25ft)
Jungle or Dense Forest 2d4 x 10ft (avg 50ft)
Light Forest 3d6 x 10ft (avg 105ft)
Scrub, brush or bush 6d6 x 10ft (avg 210ft)
Grassland, little cover 6d6 x 20ft (420 ft)

Spotting Difficulty
Base DC 20
Size +/-4 per size category (from medium)
Contrast +/-5 or more
Stillness (not moving) +5
Six or more creatures -2
Moonlight* +5
Starlight** +10
Total darkness impossible***

*+5 bonus on Spot check if the spotter has low-light vision or darkvision that extends far enough.
** +5 bonus on Spot check if the spotter has low-light vision or +10 if he has darkvision that extends far enough.
*** Unless the spotter has darkvision that extends far enough.

Steps
1. Determine vision conditions and terrain. See table above.
2. If line of sight or illumination defines the distance at which the encounter occurs (as often happens indoors) start the encounter there. Otherwise roll for spotting distance.
3. All creatures make spot checks. Success means that the creature sees the other creature or group.
4. If neither group succeeds, all creatures spot each other at one-half the rolled range.

Hiding and spotting.
If you are attempting to move and hide as you move across terrain, you move at half speed, and suffer -2 penalty to your spot checks to notice other creatures as you are staying low and using cover. Instead of the Base DC 20 for other to spot you the DC is 25 + the hider's Hide skill modifier. If the hider's Hide skill modifier is -6 or lower treat them as if they weren't hiding. Also creatures do not automatically spot hiding creatures at one-half range instead that is the distance at which the other creatures can make spot checks to notice the hiding creatures. These are normal spot checks opposed by Hide checks.

 

[Question]

What is contrast? So if moonlight gives +5 if you have lowlight or darkvision, what does plain daylight give? No bonus?

 

[Taraxia]

What is contrast? So if moonlight gives +5 if you have lowlight or darkvision, what does plain daylight give? No bonus?

Contrast is how much you stand out against your surroundings -- i.e. it accounts for the use of camouflage. Someone wearing ordinary, bright-colored clothing standing against a dark background will get a -5 to the Spot DC, while someone wearing ordinary, dark-colored clothing against a dark background will get a +5, and vice versa. It has an "or more" so you can rule for special circumstances, like someone who's wearing a fluorescent orange rescue vest, or someone who's wearing carefully crafted, expensive camo gear.

And yeah, there's no bonus for sunlight, because the way low-light and darkvision are described they have no advantage in full ambient light, any more than nightvision goggles benefit you while walking down the street in them.

 

[Bagpuss]

Say your wearing dark colours in a snow field or walking along a ridge with the sun behind you, etc. That's contrast.

The +5 for moonlight is to the Spot check DC, low light gives you a +5 to your Spot Check roll so they effectively cancel out.

 

[moritheil]

No, you cannot see the Mars Rover on Mars from the Earth. And I don’t need a written game mechanic to rule that in a D&D game.

That may not be disputed, but you do need a game mechanic to resolve things that are less obvious, and this mechanic should work with things that are obvious. The very habit of not using rules to decide things when rules already exist is dangerous - if you arbitrarily throw a system out on a whim when it doesn't feel right for spotting, how do your players know that you won't arbitrarily throw the system out when the rules don't feel right in combat? How does a player with +60 to Spot know that you aren't omitting things in the distance, beyond what normal vision would allow, that he might want to know about? Without the rules, how do you judge the difference between, say, two characters with +80 and +90 to Spot? Such a situation is beyond normal experience, and going with what "just feels right" is likely to introduce large errors.

Your statement that you can see the sun just fine despite its distance is what implies that you think that things should work in DnD just because they work in real life. I'm glad for your clarification, however.

First off, it does not bug me at all.

Yet you posted it, not I.

Second, a +5000 size modifier won’t even come close to overcoming the -1 per 10’ modifier – that modifier is inconsequential before 20 miles away (much less millions of miles).

You have me there; five thousand was an arbitrary number that I typed without stopping to consider the magnitude of the distance involved. Want to make it one quadrillion google-plex? The point is that you can assign some sufficiently large number and make things work within the framework of a rules system.

The rules can’t have a written mechanic for everything. And the written mechanics won’t work for every conceivable scenario. Sometimes a DM just has to say such-and-such happens – “You see a man walking across the field about 300 feet away from you.”

And sometimes the DM has no idea if the party should be able to see someone or something. That's why we have the rules in the first place. If I wanted to play a game where I just said, "I think this should happen," I wouldn't play DnD. DnD's strength lies in its rules. There are plenty of other systems - In Nomine, Mage, etc. - where the DM can just say "This is what happens; don't bother rolling those dice."

This is the DnD rules forum, where we ask for clarifications on what the DnD rules say, right?

 

[Quasqueton]

moritheil, it seems that you are attributing thoughts and statements to me that I have not had or said. You are arguing against points I have not made or even considered.

you do need a game mechanic to resolve things that are less obvious, and this mechanic should work with things that are obvious.

If something is "obvious", it doesn't need a Spot check. If a rule covers spotting the non-obvious, the rule will fail when applied to the obvious. Like a rule for balancing will fail for walking across a normal, wide, level floor.

Yet you posted it, not I.

What post are you referring to? Are you confusing my post with someone else's?

The point is that you can assign some sufficiently large number and make things work within the framework of a rules system.

Or you can recognize that not everything can be modeled in a game rule mechanic.

And sometimes the DM has no idea if the party should be able to see someone or something. That's why we have the rules in the first place. If I wanted to play a game where I just said, "I think this should happen," I wouldn't play DnD. DnD's strength lies in its rules. There are plenty of other systems - In Nomine, Mage, etc. - where the DM can just say "This is what happens; don't bother rolling those dice."

You are just making stuff up now to argue against. I'm all about using the game rules for the game situations they are designed to cover, and I've never suggested otherwise.

This is the DnD rules forum, where we ask for clarifications on what the DnD rules say, right?

Yep. And my comment is basically that there is no rule for spotting the obvious. Do you disagree?

You are trying real hard (too hard) to argue with me.

Quasqueton

 

[Dross]

Moritheil,

there are two people here with similar names,

Question: the OP

and

Quasqueton:

(I am SOOOO CONFUSED!!!!! )