Questions about outdoor encounter distance

[BogusMagus]

Can someone please explain to me how to determine the encounter distance in 3.5?
After all this time, I still don't get it.

AND if I'm doing it even half-way right,
isn't -1 per 10ft penalty to spot a little too harsh?
Does anyone know a more decent rule?
Or even a House Rule if it must be.

How about -1 per 10 ft to 50ft(?), varying by light condition and such?

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Yeah, the -1 per 10 feet is a ridiculous assumption in any sort of open country. In daylight, in an open, flat field, even -1 per football field (what's that, around 300 feet?) is pushing it. Of course, it DOES help to simplify it in many situations when the campaign uses minis & a battleboard. I'm lucky in that the table we play on is literally about 14 feet long, and has a 3/4" grid on it's entirety - we can set up extreme-range encounters if the DM chooses to. Really it all depends on light conditions, terrain, cover, concealment, and whether or not the party and the encounter creatures are trying to hide.

 

[Pinotage]

Yeah, the -1 per 10 feet is a ridiculous assumption in any sort of open country. In daylight, in an open, flat field, even -1 per football field (what's that, around 300 feet?) is pushing it.

Like you say, I think you need to maintain a certain amount of latitude with regard to the -1 per 10 ft distance. In open country I always allow players to take 10 on Spot checks, thereby allowing them to almost automatically see anything within 100 ft. If they're deliberately walking slower then I'll allow then to take 20 on the spot, but at normal walking speeds mind's tend to drift etc. I really only use the -1 per 10 ft if something is hiding, or you have to spot over great distances. Spotting something 400 ft away is not easy, particularly if it's hiding or crouched down or even lying down. As with all things, common sense prevails.

By the encounter rules, spot checks should be made every round until one party of the other spots each other. But I think you need to determine the terrain factor - in a jungle I'll certainly implement this, but not in open spaces at short range.

Pinotage

 

[ThirdWizard]

Since you can't hide without cover or concealment, I would say that you don't have to make Spot checks against anyone who doesn't have one of those two things. If they're in an open field, they probably won't have enough concealment to not be spotted unless they're actively hiding (or a halfing in really tall grass )

 

[BogusMagus]

Thank you for your input, guys.

So which would you suggest?

A) Make the range adjustment -1 per (10 to 100ft), dependent on lighting, etc.
Max. distance would be as in DMG p87-93.

B) Do not require Spot check unless the target has cover or concealment. Encounter distance would just be as in DMG p87-93.

Does anyone know why "the encounter distance rule" in the DMG has changed between revisions?

 

[Pinotage]

Thank you for your input, guys.

So which would you suggest?

A) Make the range adjustment -1 per (10 to 100ft), dependent on lighting, etc.
Max. distance would be as in DMG p87-93.

B) Do not require Spot check unless the target has cover or concealment. Encounter distance would just be as in DMG p87-93.

Does anyone know why "the encounter distance rule" in the DMG has changed between revisions?

Sounds reasonable. I would still require spot checks if the distance is say, more than 200 ft, since you might not spot somebody walking behind you or backward to the side. I know there are no facing considerations, but you have to be realistic. -1 per 10 ft is usable, but I'd allow taking 10 and taking 20 of spot checks in open terrain.

Pinotage