Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5864221" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ok, so I think I can see where you are going with this and why, because it seems you are in your own way trying to address the linearity problem.However, your rules are just way too complex in my opinion, and I'm not sure that they actually fix the versimilitude problem.He can hear as far as his sight or hearing would allow.&nbsp; In particular, he can't ever spot anything that would require him to roll better than a 20.&nbsp;&nbsp; So, if you can imagine that there is something out there fairly obvious that requires a 0 to spot at close range, then by the rules he can't spot it at 210' away.&nbsp;&nbsp; If he was walking slowly towards it, it would get progressively easier to notice and at some random point he'd go, &quot;Aha, there is a red cloak lying atop the grass there.&quot;We can kind of extend this concept out.&nbsp;&nbsp; If the thing is Colossal then we know that it has a -16 penalty to hide, so we'd expect that compared to the ordinary easy to spot thing that you'd see it further away.&nbsp;&nbsp; In this case, according to the rules as written our ordinary fellow couldn't see it more than 370' away.&nbsp; And at some point while strolling towards it, he'd go, &quot;Aha, there is a colossal red dragon lying on the grassy knoll yonder!&quot;&nbsp; The basic problem with this though is that as things get linearly further away that they don't in fact get linearly more difficult to see.&nbsp;&nbsp; In point of fact, whenever something gets twice as far away, it has 1/4th the apparant size.&nbsp; So the relationship here is roughly when something gets 1.4 times as far away, it's half as easy to notice.&nbsp;&nbsp; From the fact that the penalty for being a larger size class to hide is -4, we can assume that half as easy to notice equates roughly to a -4 penalty.&nbsp; In fact, this is probably too high.&nbsp; If we were to use such a large penalty, we'd need to not start our table of penalties at 0, but make +0 equate to some fairly far distance away and apply bonuses for trying to spot things closer than that.&nbsp;Getting an exact table of penalties to spot and listen for distance that involves easy computation and reasonable results is hard, but the important take away from this is that a good table requires a greater and greater interval between each successive penalty.&nbsp; For small distances, it's going to be approximately linear, but as you get further and further out the gaps between penalties get further and further away.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not really that much harder to spot something at 210' than it is at 200'.&nbsp; The difference this extra 10' causes in apparant size is small.I'm using something like following currently.&nbsp; I'd welcome refinements that made sense.+0&nbsp; &nbsp; Up to 5’ away+1&nbsp; &nbsp; Up to 10’ away+2&nbsp; &nbsp; Up to 20’ away+3&nbsp; &nbsp; Up to 30’ away+4&nbsp; &nbsp; Up to 45’ away+5&nbsp; &nbsp; Up to 70’ away+6&nbsp; &nbsp; Up to 100’ away+7&nbsp; &nbsp; Up to 150’ away+8&nbsp; &nbsp; Up to 225’ away+9&nbsp; &nbsp; Up to 350’ away+10&nbsp; &nbsp; Up to 500’ away+11&nbsp; &nbsp; Up to 750’ away+12&nbsp; &nbsp; Up to 1100’ away</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 5864221, member: 4937"] Ok, so I think I can see where you are going with this and why, because it seems you are in your own way trying to address the linearity problem. However, your rules are just way too complex in my opinion, and I'm not sure that they actually fix the versimilitude problem. He can hear as far as his sight or hearing would allow. In particular, he can't ever spot anything that would require him to roll better than a 20. So, if you can imagine that there is something out there fairly obvious that requires a 0 to spot at close range, then by the rules he can't spot it at 210' away. If he was walking slowly towards it, it would get progressively easier to notice and at some random point he'd go, "Aha, there is a red cloak lying atop the grass there." We can kind of extend this concept out. If the thing is Colossal then we know that it has a -16 penalty to hide, so we'd expect that compared to the ordinary easy to spot thing that you'd see it further away. In this case, according to the rules as written our ordinary fellow couldn't see it more than 370' away. And at some point while strolling towards it, he'd go, "Aha, there is a colossal red dragon lying on the grassy knoll yonder!" The basic problem with this though is that as things get linearly further away that they don't in fact get linearly more difficult to see. In point of fact, whenever something gets twice as far away, it has 1/4th the apparant size. So the relationship here is roughly when something gets 1.4 times as far away, it's half as easy to notice. From the fact that the penalty for being a larger size class to hide is -4, we can assume that half as easy to notice equates roughly to a -4 penalty. In fact, this is probably too high. If we were to use such a large penalty, we'd need to not start our table of penalties at 0, but make +0 equate to some fairly far distance away and apply bonuses for trying to spot things closer than that. Getting an exact table of penalties to spot and listen for distance that involves easy computation and reasonable results is hard, but the important take away from this is that a good table requires a greater and greater interval between each successive penalty. For small distances, it's going to be approximately linear, but as you get further and further out the gaps between penalties get further and further away. It's not really that much harder to spot something at 210' than it is at 200'. The difference this extra 10' causes in apparant size is small. I'm using something like following currently. I'd welcome refinements that made sense. +0 Up to 5’ away +1 Up to 10’ away +2 Up to 20’ away +3 Up to 30’ away +4 Up to 45’ away +5 Up to 70’ away +6 Up to 100’ away +7 Up to 150’ away +8 Up to 225’ away +9 Up to 350’ away +10 Up to 500’ away +11 Up to 750’ away +12 Up to 1100’ away [/QUOTE]

Verification