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

[BryonD]

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

If a target is not hiding and yet "spotting" it is still sufficiently in question for a roll, then adding the Stealth Penalty to the Perception DC seems reasonable.

So using a -1 per 0.1 mile penalty for open space the check gets a -2,400,000

A colossal creature has a -16 stealth check and a 30 ft face.
The diameter of the moon is a bit over 11 million feet (2 1/4 million squares)
If we extrapolate the -4 per addition 5 foot then the moon has a stealth penalty of -9,119,637 (including a -5 for zero dex).

Obviously the system is broken, because a net bonus of 6.7 million on your perception check is way to much.

Though the moon may be an epic level ninja.... In which case the numbers would be closer to correct.

 

[Friend of the Dork]

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.

What I feel is appropriate. Hmm well if it was that easy I wouldn't need any rules at all. I'm not a militairy man, I don't really know exactly how hard it is to spot a group of soldiers at 100, 300, 1000, or 2000 meters. I only know that each is possible because of reported kills at those ranges.

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.

So you don't remember the rules for tracking in this game? I've basically just used them, removing that which didn't fit and adding the part about low-light vision (which only makes sense also in tracking). And as I said terrain ranges in PF will be used, thus it is already accounted for hills, trees, bush etc.. instead of increasing DCs you just lower the spotting range.

Dark clothing might or might not help. I'd probably allow an equipment bonus on stealth checks with appropriate garments for the appropriate terrain. Maybe +1 or +2 (or in this case increasing the DC).

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.

Incremental penalty is listed under guidelines, as you pointed out yourself. And I would say the same to you that you say to me.

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

That's pretty much my whole point from first post. And i desire to fill that hole.

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.

Outside ninja drop bears... An enemy sniper is a far more likely scenario in this game. When can he detect the party, and can the party detect him before he starts firing? In fact even when fired he will be impossible to see if he's at a certain range... say 400'... not a ridiculous range using a longbow. So yeah the penalty is simply escalating too fast. -1 beyond 10' is by itself a bit harsh... how difficult is it to see someone at that distance? Even if hiding... Now if the penalty increased by doubling the base number the DCs would make a bit more sense. 20 -1, 40 -2, 80 -3, 160 -4 etc. I'm not saying these numbers are good, just that the scaling is better than just every 10'.

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.

Change the bear with an Ogre then.. which can indeed use a longbow. At say 300' feet the PCs gets a -30 penalty to their spot checks to see the Ogre's who also gets 1d20+dex modiifier... DC 20 is a difficult test. DC 41 is closing on impossible. And yes it's quite possible to spot someone 300' away in hills, and the distance DOES make it harder.

Hmm I think large creatures gets a -4 penalty on hide checks as it is... not that it helps much in this case.

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.

Adjust the DC by lowering DC 1500+ (approx. distance to horizon 15,000 feet) to somewhere close to 20-30... hmmm that's quite a change in my book. Problem with common sense is that it's... not. How many people know how far the horizon is when viewing from ca 6'?

Now I don't need anything that excact for a game, but some guidelines that were close to reality would be nice. A max spotting range, a minimum spotting range etc.



Ugh this is my last multiquote post in this thread!

 

[IronWolf]

What I feel is appropriate. Hmm well if it was that easy I wouldn't need any rules at all. I'm not a militairy man, I don't really know exactly how hard it is to spot a group of soldiers at 100, 300, 1000, or 2000 meters. I only know that each is possible because of reported kills at those ranges.

I don't think one needs to be a military man to make a reasonable assumption about how difficult it is to possibly notice someone depending on terrain type. Determine the environment, how are you describing it to the players? Are they in grasslands, flatlands, hills, mountains or what? This seems to be everyday experience to base that on.

So you don't remember the rules for tracking in this game? I've basically just used them, removing that which didn't fit and adding the part about low-light vision (which only makes sense also in tracking). And as I said terrain ranges in PF will be used, thus it is already accounted for hills, trees, bush etc.. instead of increasing DCs you just lower the spotting range.

Off the top of my head? No - I would have to reference the SRD for the specifics of tracking rules.

The ranges are accounted for, but what about modifiers for density of forest and such in regards to the Perception check? How hilly is hilly? Even with ranges as stated in the SRD you would still need to choose a DC for the PC to roll against, right?

Dark clothing might or might not help. I'd probably allow an equipment bonus on stealth checks with appropriate garments for the appropriate terrain. Maybe +1 or +2 (or in this case increasing the DC).

Clothing can certainly have an impact in my opinion. I can more easily spot the hunters in orange walking a fence row from a much greater distance than the local neighbor kid in his brown Carharts walking the fence row back to the woods.

Your idea of +1 or +2 to increase the DC if you feel the clothing helps seems about right to me.

Outside ninja drop bears... An enemy sniper is a far more likely scenario in this game. When can he detect the party, and can the party detect him before he starts firing? In fact even when fired he will be impossible to see if he's at a certain range... say 400'... not a ridiculous range using a longbow. So yeah the penalty is simply escalating too fast. -1 beyond 10' is by itself a bit harsh... how difficult is it to see someone at that distance? Even if hiding...

In this scenario, I would say the "sniper" has a significant advantage. One, he is quite likely looking for the party or at least being more observant as his post is to watch the road/path in. At 400' if he is hiding and made some preparation to hide I would expect him to be extremely difficult to spot.

If the party isn't paying attention when they come into the area, they'd likely never see a sniper laying in wait. If they are watching? It's the Perception vs. Stealth check and I'd likely *still* think the sniper would have significant advantage. He's got distance, he's got advantage of being able to dress for the terrain, or possible partial cover, etc.

In these situations, without doing careful calculation and such - off the cuff I wouldn't consider a DC40 or so unreasonable for a sniper laying in wait against a party.

Now if the penalty increased by doubling the base number the DCs would make a bit more sense. 20 -1, 40 -2, 80 -3, 160 -4 etc. I'm not saying these numbers are good, just that the scaling is better than just every 10'.

This scaling doesn't seem bad for outdoor encounters.

Change the bear with an Ogre then.. which can indeed use a longbow. At say 300' feet the PCs gets a -30 penalty to their spot checks to see the Ogre's who also gets 1d20+dex modiifier... DC 20 is a difficult test. DC 41 is closing on impossible. And yes it's quite possible to spot someone 300' away in hills, and the distance DOES make it harder.

Hmm I think large creatures gets a -4 penalty on hide checks as it is... not that it helps much in this case.

Again - if common sense overrides the +1/per 10' guideline then use the common sense. Keep in mind the modifiers in the table for Perception are guidelines. If the GM, who can fully consider the situation doesn't think the terrain warrants the +1/per 10' penalty then defer to the rational thought. And this deferring to rational though in given situations may very well mean deferring to the scaling you mentioned above.

Adjust the DC by lowering DC 1500+ (approx. distance to horizon 15,000 feet) to somewhere close to 20-30... hmmm that's quite a change in my book. Problem with common sense is that it's... not. How many people know how far the horizon is when viewing from ca 6'?

It's the open sea. This is a case where the guideline of +1/per 10' is trumped by common sense. I don't need to know the exact distance to the horizon (I've already admitted to likely needing to look up tracking rules... ) I can know that on the open sea, there is a good chance I am going to be able to see a ship at full sail off in the distance. DC25 to DC35 depending on conditions (daytime, nighttime, etc. much harder if there is a fog).

A max spotting range, a minimum spotting range etc.

We have a max spotting range listed in the wilderness sections, it seems you are most displeased with the subjectiveness of the DC to actually spot something. As for minimum, when you bump into them - that's the min.

 

[Friend of the Dork]

Ironwolf:

The encounter distance for say, forest already have 3 different values for light, dense and thick forests. There are even modifiers to stealth etc. from different levels of underbrush. Forests have LOTS of rule details... guidelines? Who knows. Hmm actualy it says that "these rules give guidelines"... seems like the book is not as clear cut about the difference of rules and guidelines as some think. Apart from the really hard crunch (character classes, feats etc.), most of the rules seem to guidelines really no matter what they're called.

In any case the debate of guidelines or not is kinda useless. So let's leave it at that.

Back to DC... yes I'm displeased with spotting distances in some of the terrains. Forest is fine (I like these rules alot), but plains and to some degree desert, hills, mountains... not so good. Sure there are places in the latter part where you have little visibility because you're in a small bowl, in a mountain pass, or general dunes and heat reducing visibility in deserts... but still generally a bit low. Mountains do point out that you can see far longer on tops though, kudos for that.

Plains is the worst though as it doesen't take into account that open plains that stretches for miles do exist (called steppe, tundra etc. and not just rolling grassland). Distance is the largest of all terrains, but still falls short of being realistic. Changing the scale to meters helps here.

In any case this discussion has made me think of the matter in detail.. I don't think I would have a problem running such encounters now.

 

[roguerouge]

The POINT of this thread is that the -1/ten feet should not be a general rule because it produces silly results in many circumstances. You can talk about common sense and the GMs and that's all true, but, really, the common sense argument applies to the game designers too.

 

[Cor_Malek]

Rules are there to help out. It is in DM's discretion to decide how and when to apply them. If you can't see anyone past 100 feet, you need to change DM, not system.

Here.

 

[Friend of the Dork]

Looks like I'm not the only one

 

[Jhaelen]

The POINT of this thread is that the -1/ten feet should not be a general rule because it produces silly results in many circumstances. You can talk about common sense and the GMs and that's all true, but, really, the common sense argument applies to the game designers too.

Well, at least since the existence of internet boards we know that there is no such thing as common sense. I guess, game designers should have realized that, too

However, if a rule produces results that seem silly to me, I'm not going to use it, unless one of my players can convince me it isn't silly after all!

So is the thread's point really that the rules are missing a guideline saying: "Don't call for checks if there's no need to?" I'm almost certain that this is spelled out somewhere in the section about gamemastering.

 

[IronWolf]

The POINT of this thread is that the -1/ten feet should not be a general rule because it produces silly results in many circumstances.

The table in question that lists the +1/10 feet modifier to the DCs is preceded by a statement that the table contains guidelines. Guidelines are just that, guidelines to help the DM decide how to adjust for various situations that may come up. It isn't a hard and fast rule that says you *must* increment the DC by 1 for every 10'.

 

[d23]

If a target is not hiding and yet "spotting" it is still sufficiently in question for a roll, then adding the Stealth Penalty to the Perception DC seems reasonable.

So using a -1 per 0.1 mile penalty for open space the check gets a -2,400,000

A colossal creature has a -16 stealth check and a 30 ft face.
The diameter of the moon is a bit over 11 million feet (2 1/4 million squares)
If we extrapolate the -4 per addition 5 foot then the moon has a stealth penalty of -9,119,637 (including a -5 for zero dex).

Obviously the system is broken, because a net bonus of 6.7 million on your perception check is way to much.

Though the moon may be an epic level ninja.... In which case the numbers would be closer to correct.

Hah! I was just waiting for someone to post something like this. For me, I wouldn't even bother to come up with something like that in the middle of a game since it detracts from the game experience to have one person asking a silly question and halting play when nobody else cares. I'd just say, you can see it because I said so, and move the game right along. And since they didn't have wikipedia or calculators back then, I'm pretty sure that their character would have absolutely no knowledge of how big the moon is and how to calculate its Hide/Stealth penalty. You'd probably require 10 ranks in Knowledge: Astronomy for knowing the size of the moon, and if you did actually take that I'd give you information that the moon has a -9million stealth penalty.