Too bad they didn't have glasses back then...

[BryonD]

Well by that rationale a monster can have 40 BAB if I want.. after all it's all guidelines right?

Well, "yes", you can make a monster with a 40 BAB if you want to. "No", that isn't a guideline, it is a rule. Go look again at the perception tables you referenced and you will see the word "guidelines". And "yes" you can ignore the rules any time you want if that improves the games.

Now I could make a house rule here (such as penalty caps at -20 or distance penalty only affects perception vs Stealth checks etc.), but I wondered if there was some other rules I might have missed, or some general consensus of unofficial errata.

Sounds like a bad house rule to me. There are certainly cases where it would not make sense.

Because your "rational intervention" IS house ruling, and what may be rational to one may be insane to another.

Shrug I disagree. I can and do houserule. I've got no issue with that. But not a word I have said in this conversation contradicts RAW. RAW does not require confusing guidelines with mandates.

I recently played a game where crossing a river with some current, with the aid of ropes to pull on, without armor or clothing, turned out to almost kill the entire party. Worst part was when my DC 22 fortitude save was not enough and my character fell to the bottom unconscious. There's your rational intervention right there.

First: huh? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the rational intervention I described.

Second, not enough information, but it sounds like either poor GMing or the characters foolishly did something suicidal.

But regardless, the system isn't for everyone. Maybe it isn't for you.

 

[Friend of the Dork]

One of my regular players has a joke that he likes a bit too much: "How can we see the moon? It's so far away, perception check modifiers would make it invisible!"

While that joke might be funny (at least, the first time it gets made), it highlights something that I feel a lot of gamers forget: common sense. In the real world, if a bear steps out from behind a rock on the next hill over, there's a pretty good chance you'll see it. If the game were being moderated by a computer, we WOULD have to encode rules for "how can you see a bear on the next hill over," but since its being moderated by a human, we can assume that common sense might kick in and the GM would decide that the PCs could see the bear.

Unless the bear was specifically trying to hide, of course. And that's really the only time you should be making Perception checks to see creatures anyway.

There are situations where something is hard to spot even if there is no hiding involved. I would like some good rules on spotting groups of people when moving cross-country, especially when there is no hiding involved. Sure, when you as a gm think it should automatically succeed or fail, it's no problem, but quite often it's not necessarily either/or.

Well, "yes", you can make a monster with a 40 BAB if you want to. "No", that isn't a guideline, it is a rule. Go look again at the perception tables you referenced and you will see the word "guidelines". And "yes" you can ignore the rules any time you want if that improves the games.

Sounds like a bad house rule to me. There are certainly cases where it would not make sense.

Shrug I disagree. I can and do houserule. I've got no issue with that. But not a word I have said in this conversation contradicts RAW. RAW does not require confusing guidelines with mandates.

First: huh? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the rational intervention I described.

Second, not enough information, but it sounds like either poor GMing or the characters foolishly did something suicidal.

But regardless, the system isn't for everyone. Maybe it isn't for you.

When I disregard the guidelines it's a house rule, but when I use them they are not rules? And how is your -1 per 100 feet not a houserule when my -20 cap is?

Now these rules/guidelines work ok in dungeons, but in the wilderness they kinda suck. The moon is an extreme example (and in the line of the earth having an unlimited attack bonus and doing max 20d6 damage).

I've played this system since 3.0 came out... I've used plenty of house rules, but most of it works ok. My biggest gripe with it is the high-level play and the time it takes to create high level PCs and NPCs, but that's a whole other issue.

And why wouldn't the cap work? Or reserving the penalty vs Stealth only?

Anyway, thanks for replies everyone even if they were not what I expected. I think there were rules in 3.0 DMG about DC for spotting other groups in wilderness encounters, but now I only find the same distances in 3.5 DMG as in PF, thus no DC for spotting only a random spotting distance.

I was thinking something based on Tracking:

base DC 20.
Distance based on terrain.

Every 3 in group being spotted: -1 DC
Size of creature(s) being spotted: +0 medium, -1 large, +2 small (double per size category above large and below small). Uses largest in group.

Overcast or Moonless night: +6 DC (+3 DC for lowlight vision)
Moonlight +3 DC (+0 DC for lowlight vision).
Fog or Precipitation: +3 DC
Spotted party hides while moving at half speed: +5 DC

If one group succeeds while the other fails, they can ambush them. At half encounter distance both parties automatically detects one another unless one is hiding, in which case normal stealth rules and penalties for distance is used.

If both parties succeeds, no one is surprised, and initiative may be called if one wants to attack the other.

 

[BryonD]

When I disregard the guidelines it's a house rule, but when I use them they are not rules? And how is your -1 per 100 feet not a houserule when my -20 cap is?

First, you introduced it as a "house rule" so challenging the idea that it is one is a bit odd.

A) The rule is that there is an incremental penalty per distance.
B) The table provides a guideline for what the relationship between increment size and penalty should be.

You changed part A. I used part B to guide an application of following rule A.

Honestly, you don't seem to be following the conversation and you are contradicting yourself to boot. So, best of gaming to you.

 

[IronWolf]

There are situations where something is hard to spot even if there is no hiding involved. I would like some good rules on spotting groups of people when moving cross-country, especially when there is no hiding involved. Sure, when you as a gm think it should automatically succeed or fail, it's no problem, but quite often it's not necessarily either/or.

Agreed. Use the terrain to help shape your modifiers for a perception check to see if anyone happens to notice. If the party isn't really actively looking it is apt to be difficult to see folks at a distance even if they *aren't* trying to hide. Is the party actively looking for someone? Then it is likely going to be easier to see someone in the same situation. Adjust a DC to beat as you feel appropriate.

Pathfinder has provided us guidelines, but every situation that exists cannot be laid out in the rules with exact DCs, there are simply too many variables. Try to picture the scene and determine how hard you think it should be for the party to see the other group.

The moon is an extreme example (and in the line of the earth having an unlimited attack bonus and doing max 20d6 damage).

Is it really an extreme example? I think it just highlights the point that sometimes you need to use the subjective common sense when ruling on things. It is a great example of showing how common sense in rulings at the table sometimes trumps the rules.

Just like it is obvious the moon is visible in the night sky without Perception checks it exemplifies that there are such situations where groups of people can quite likely be visible on the horizon without an astronomical Perception check, or at least an easy Perception check that someone happens to notice them.

I was thinking something based on Tracking:

base DC 20.
Distance based on terrain.

Every 3 in group being spotted: -1 DC
Size of creature(s) being spotted: +0 medium, -1 large, +2 small (double per size category above large and below small). Uses largest in group.

Overcast or Moonless night: +6 DC (+3 DC for lowlight vision)
Moonlight +3 DC (+0 DC for lowlight vision).
Fog or Precipitation: +3 DC
Spotted party hides while moving at half speed: +5 DC

Speaking for myself, I'd never remember this. Plus, how are you accounting for hills? Shoulder high weeds? Dark clothing versus open weapons glinting moonlight? Sparse forests? Dense forests? Canyons? etc., etc.

It seems much easier for me as a GM to think about the terrain and situation as a whole and make a ruling on the difficulty of groups to spot each other. As a GM I can decide when either side starts rolling Perception checks based on terrain.

 

[coyote6]

One of my regular players has a joke that he likes a bit too much: "How can we see the moon? It's so far away, perception check modifiers would make it invisible!"

Yeah, game rules -- especially d20's -- don't make good simulations of reality when taken too far. That said, the rules may have holes...

In the real world, if a bear steps out from behind a rock on the next hill over, there's a pretty good chance you'll see it. [...]
Unless the bear was specifically trying to hide, of course. And that's really the only time you should be making Perception checks to see creatures anyway.

So if Bear On A Hill is trying to hide (faint memories of a previous incarnation as a ninja, perhaps?), do our intrepid adventurers have to oppose his mighty Stealth check with their Perception -20 or -30 (or whatever the range penalty is)? That's pretty close to "auto-success" against PCs at levels where they are worried about most bears. "Spot the scout" or the like is essentially impossible. I'm not sure -1 per 10 ft is a great rule, outside of a dungeon.

We won't think about pirates trying to evade vengeful enemy ships at sea, with ranges in miles rather than squares.

 

[IronWolf]

So if Bear On A Hill is trying to hide (faint memories of a previous incarnation as a ninja, perhaps?), do our intrepid adventurers have to oppose his mighty Stealth check with their Perception -20 or -30 (or whatever the range penalty is)? That's pretty close to "auto-success" against PCs at levels where they are worried about most bears. "Spot the scout" or the like is essentially impossible. I'm not sure -1 per 10 ft is a great rule, outside of a dungeon.

If the bear is hiding on the next hill over? Yeah, I think that is justifiably a difficult Perception check.

Of course if the bear is on the next hill over, unless it is also wielding a longbow it isn't apt to cause my party immediate harm. If that same hiding bear (maybe it isn't a ninja, but just hungry and stalking food?) moves closer, then as it nears the chances of the party seeing it will of course increase as the distance to the bear decreases.

We won't think about pirates trying to evade vengeful enemy ships at sea, with ranges in miles rather than squares.

To me this is a case of common sense - if you are on the wide open sea and folks are going full sail on a bright and sunny day - the GM should adjust the DC accordingly.

The table listed in the SRD and book are guidelines. If common sense trumps the distance increment then it trumps the distance increment and the GM should rule according to the situation at hand taking terrain in account. Sort of like the moon example.

 

[MichaelSomething]

One of my regular players has a joke that he likes a bit too much: "How can we see the moon? It's so far away, perception check modifiers would make it invisible!"

Then you're not using perception check modifiers right. In order to simulate correctly using perception checks to see the Moon, it will require a new rule that lowers the DC to spot something if it has a larger size. Since the Moon is ginormous, I believe this more or less cancels out the distance penalty. You can also grant PCs large circumstance bonus due to the Moon being a light source (since bright things are easier to spot) and for the Moon being easy to spot (since a big glowing rock thing will stick out against a black night sky, assuming few clouds).

Now the question is, how come the Perception DCs to spot something doesn't change based on its size? That shoudl have been a rule

 

[coyote6]

If I was really concerned about it, I'd try to adapt some of GURPS' rules. Between Vehicles, Spaceships, and similar books, I think they had things fairly well worked out. Wouldn't be a perfect fit, since GURPS' success rolls are bell curves while d20's are linear, but close enough for me.

Fortunately for me, though, I'm willing to just make up a number that sounds reasonable and go along.

 

[IronWolf]

Fortunately for me, though, I'm willing to just make up a number that sounds reasonable and go along.

Ah! You were a like-minded individual!

 

[BryonD]

If I was really concerned about it, I'd try to adapt some of GURPS' rules. Between Vehicles, Spaceships, and similar books, I think they had things fairly well worked out. Wouldn't be a perfect fit, since GURPS' success rolls are bell curves while d20's are linear, but close enough for me.

Fortunately for me, though, I'm willing to just make up a number that sounds reasonable and go along.

Yeah, I liked the GURPS system and agree completely, be reasonable and keep going.