Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Friend of the Dork" data-source="post: 5229725" data-attributes="member: 91954">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.</blockquote>

Verification