Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="IronWolf" data-source="post: 5229461" data-attributes="member: 21076">If the bear is hiding on the next hill over? Yeah, I think that is justifiably a difficult Perception check.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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. 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Sort of like the moon example.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="IronWolf, post: 5229461, member: 21076"] 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification