Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Karey 05-02-07, 01:00 PM	Do the penalties for distance described in the PHB apply to all situations or only if the target is "difficult to see" i.e. hiding or in cover. Would there be a Spot check made if the target was say, standing in the middle of the road a quarter mile away. If so and you go by the distance penalties the spotter would have a -132 to his spot check. This seems excessive to me, and I would like to get the boards input on this. My motive for this is I have a PC that has a +55 to his spot and I am trying to figure out how far away he can actually see things well enough to shoot at them. He has the Epic feat Distant Shot so how do you determine actual line of sight for say outside in broad daylight?
ScipioX 05-02-07, 01:16 PM	Do the penalties for distance described in the PHB apply to all situations or only if the target is "difficult to see" i.e. hiding or in cover. Only if the target is difficult to see. Just as you don't have to make a balance check to stay standing on a flat surface, you don't have to make a spot check to see something in plain sight.
Rhuxley 05-02-07, 01:31 PM	Only if the target is difficult to see. Just as you don't have to make a balance check to stay standing on a flat surface, you don't have to make a spot check to see something in plain sight. You do too have to make balance checks, but luckily the DC is 5, and you get a -5 for moving full speed, making the DC 10. Luckily you can take a 10, and negate the need to make balance checks. Why do you think drunk people fall over on flat surfaces? Its cuz their dex is lowered by their failed fort saves vs alcohol and they fail their balance checks. Its why one would describe a person with a lower than 10 dex as someone who trips and is generaly clumsy. So yes, you do have to make checks to see someone a quarter mile away. And while i agree that -132 is rather rediculous, it makes a little bit of sense. Imagine there is a person 1/4 mile away from you, and you are not looking at them, do you think you would notice them? I would give the chances of you looking in their exact direction and realizing its a person are maybe 5%. So on a Nat 20, he luckily looks up and notices this person. A quarter mile is quite a distance after all.
tarkin 05-02-07, 01:48 PM	Rhuxley, you are wrong. You definitely do not need to make a balance check when standing on a flat surface. Why am I so sure? Being Attacked while Balancing You are considered flat-footed while balancing, since you can’t move to avoid a blow, and thus you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). If you have 5 or more ranks in Balance, you aren’t considered flat-footed while balancing. If you take damage while balancing, you must make another Balance check against the same DC to remain standing. If you were balancing on a flat surface, then you would be flat-footed all the time (unless you took 5 ranks in Balance). As we are not flat-footed all the time, we are NOT balancing when standing on a flat surface.
Rhuxley 05-02-07, 01:51 PM	Rhuxley, you are wrong. Then why do drunks fall over?
ShinAkuma2 05-02-07, 05:28 PM	They only think they failed their Balance checks.
tarkin 05-02-07, 05:39 PM	The act of being drunk does more than simply provide a penalty, it forces them to make a balance check. Which means that if they are that drunk, then they are always flat-footed.
BW0222 05-03-07, 02:30 AM	Karey Do the penalties for distance described in the PHB apply to all situations or only if the target is "difficult to see" i.e. hiding or in cover. Actually, there are no penalties for distance for spot checks. The conditions (-1 per 10' distance, and spotter distracted) apply only under the paragraph beginning... PHB, p83, "The Dungeon Master may call for Spot checks to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. ..." In other words, if you have one group moving towards another and both are unaware of the other, and the DM wants to know at what distance one group spots the other, then the DM can use spot checks. In any other cases (spotting hidden creatures or seeing through disquises) this penalty does not apply. If the case where the DM already knows the encounter distance, this check is not needed. Would there be a Spot check made if the target was say, standing in the middle of the road a quarter mile away. If so and you go by the distance penalties the spotter would have a -132 to his spot check. No. The DM already knows the distance, a quarter mile. No spot check is necessary. If the person is no trying (or able) to hide, then anyone looking at the road would spot him. Some DMs might require a spot check against a really low DC (say DC 5 adjusted by size), but honestly given that you could be making a spot check every 6 seconds, you are almost assured to see someone walking down a road at almost any distance. If they are hiding (and there was some concealment), then it is a hide vs. spot check. In partical terms... you can see a person in a field or a dragon in the sky miles away. Distance is irrelavent. As soon as you are talking forest, grass, etc. a few hundred feet of such terrain will likely block line of sight anyway. Again, distances does not really matter. If they were both walking towards each other in a field, and neither was aware of each other or hiding, then it the DM could spot checks and work backwards to figure out at what distance the (higher) sees the the group, and the encounter begins. They might choose to hide, pre-buff, etc.
wolf_man007 05-03-07, 02:00 PM	So yes, you do have to make checks to see someone a quarter mile away. And while i agree that -132 is rather ridiculous, it makes a little bit of sense ... So on a Nat 20, he luckily looks up and notices this person. As far as I know, one cannot have a critical success or failure with a skill check. Unless of course you mean to say that your spot modifier is +112, in which case I am interested to know how you achieved such a number.
Dheran 05-03-07, 05:08 PM	Actually, there are no penalties for distance for spot checks. The conditions (-1 per 10' distance, and spotter distracted) apply only under the paragraph beginning... PHB, p83, "The Dungeon Master may call for Spot checks to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. ..." That's a creative way of reading the text, but it ignores the table that states there's a flat -1 penalty for each 10' of distance. This is also the way Skip Williams explains the rules in The Rules of the Game: There, Not There (Part Two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040921a):According to the rules, any time you make a Spot check you take a -1 penalty on the check for every 10 feet of distance between you and what you're spotting. Your creative reading doesn't jibe with the popular consensus.
BW0222 05-03-07, 07:26 PM	Dheran, According to the rules, any time you make a Spot check you take a -1 penalty on the check for every 10 feet of distance between you and what you're spotting. I'll remember that the next time I look at the moon. Funny, last football game I was at, I could clearly see the players on the field 100 yards away. At 300' that is -30 to spot checks? Must have been 20,000 20th-level rangers in the stands! Honestly, by your logic I can't see beyond 33 yards. (-10 to spot checks) Sorry, I can see a human in a field at over a mile, a tree on a mountain top ten miles away, smoke dozens of miles away, the moon a hundreds of thousands of miles away, and stars light years away. -1 per 10 can't apply to any of these or everyone would be near sited. The rule can not apply when creatures/objects are not attempting to hide or it is too absurd to function.
Clearly_Toughpick 05-04-07, 11:16 AM	Dheran & BW0222 I agree with both of you: Dehran, I agree with your reading of the rules; BW0222, I agree that the rules are a nonsense in terms of realistic distances to see other creatures. I'd house-rule it like this: Apply the -1 penalty to the spot check for every 10 feet of distance rule only to checks against creatures that are actively hiding or otherwise concealed. Otherwise use a new scale for determining encounter distance, assuming conditions of perfect visibility. Each step along the line is another -1 to the spot check: 10', -1 20', -2 50', -3 100', -4 200', -5 400', -6 800', -7 1500' (equals 500yds, or metres if you prefer), -8 1000 yds, -9 2000 yds, -10 4000yds, -11 8000 yds (roughly 5 miles), -12 10 miles, -13 20 miles, -14 infinity, -15 Then apply the size modifiers from the hide skill to give you a total modifier to spot a creature at a distance and so determine encounter distance. So my modifier to spot a medium sized creature 500 yds away is -8, to spot a small creature 2000 yds away is -14, and to spot a large creature 400 feet away is -2. Of course this would all be further modified by light, environment, noise, intervening cover/ concealment etc. How do you guys actually translate all this into the actual encounter distance?
Ferrety 05-04-07, 12:14 PM	That's a creative way of reading the text, but it ignores the table that states there's a flat -1 penalty for each 10' of distance. This is also the way Skip Williams explains the rules in The Rules of the Game: There, Not There (Part Two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040921a): Your creative reading doesn't jibe with the popular consensus. Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant). Nothing creative about reading the text as it is written, and text trumps tables. I think most people do use distance penalties for spotting. In the terrain descriptions (DMG p86) you can find random maximum spot distances for detecting nearby presence with spot, which you could use also to determine if the target can be seen at all. So if the target is closer than the random distance per terrain, it can be targeted. If the target is hiding, ask for opposed skill checks. If you think that the encounter distance should be shorter than the one given by terrain, you can ask for a spot check, and use the result to determine the distance. (20 is 200 ft and so on). You can modify the result by the targets size, etc, but I would not bother. I use distance penalties for making spot checks with distances greater than around 30 feet, but if you wish to use the rules as written, well it's up to you. As for the Rules of the Games article, it is dealing with invisibility. The DMG is pretty clear that it is DC 20 spot check to notice if there are active invisible creatures within a 30 feet, without any penalties. In the article Williams adds a maximum penalty of -3 for the spot checks against invisible creatures, and I really don't see point in using that ruling.
BW0222 05-05-07, 01:52 AM	Clearly_Toughpick, How do you guys actually translate all this into the actual encounter distance? If something is not trying to hide, any distance chart becomes meaningless. Exactly what DC are you trying to make? DC 0.. I assume? Doesn't it depend on what you are looking at? Are you adding size modifiers? You then apply some type of penalty for distance. However, these penalties are minor when one considers even things like racial bonuses, wisdom, etc. not to mention ranks. A human taking a 10, could see a ghoul at 2000 yards (just over a mile). An elven cleric taking a 10 could see the same ghoul at over 20 miles? A difference of 4 points in spot = x20 spotting distance? A ranger with 10 ranks could easily see a cat at 20 miles. You then have to deal with what you are looking at? What the background is, lighting, the spotter's relative height, movement, the number of creatures moving in a group, etc.? Is the spotter looking in a set area are are they scanning hundreds of miles of terrain? etc., etc. I think the easiest way if for the DM to look at the situation as a whole and just assign a DC. They can factor in numbers, sizes, lighting, background, light sources, Spotting a torch light 20 miles away in the dark? DC 5. Smoke from a camp fire two miles away. DC 0. A person in platemail at a mile. DC 10. A cat ten miles away. DC 50. A green dragon sitting near some trees several miles away DC 15. A green dragon flying across the twilight sky. DC 5. Folks in red cloaks quickly moving across a road six miles away. DC 15. Same, except the spotters are in trees and actively looking for folks coming down the road. DC 5. etc., etc.
Clearly_Toughpick 05-08-07, 10:34 AM	Clearly_Toughpick, If something is not trying to hide, any distance chart becomes meaningless. Exactly what DC are you trying to make? DC 0.. I assume? Doesn't it depend on what you are looking at? Are you adding size modifiers? Even if something is not trying to hide, distance is not meaningless: an eagle can see a rabbit from 2 miles, but a human can't. Likewise, a watcher in a watchtower can see people a long way in the distance, but how far exactly? To answer your questions though, yes, I'd say it's a Spot check vs. DC 0, and yes, I'm adding size modifiers. You then apply some type of penalty for distance. And yes I apply a penalty for distance. And it's what that penalty should be, that I'm wondering about. What you have said has made me realise that the chart I posted before is way off the mark. A difference of 4 points in Spot equating to a 20 fold increase in vision is plain wrong. So I might just ditch it and do as you suggest, and set DCs on the fly (I really like your examples by the way: v. wide ranging), or go for some other chart. Haven't decided yet. Maybe -1 for every 100 yds would be better. Thanks, Ferretty, for pointing out the info in the environment section of the DMG. The differences between the environments are a helpful guide. I do think that some (most?) of the distances suggested there are too small though.
Steevo 05-08-07, 10:46 AM	Sorry, I can see a human in a field at over a mile, a tree on a mountain top ten miles away, smoke dozens of miles away, the moon a hundreds of thousands of miles away, and stars light years away. -1 per 10 can't apply to any of these or everyone would be near sited. The rule can not apply when creatures/objects are not attempting to hide or it is too absurd to function. I agree with your main point here, and I have no particular desire to get dragged down in a debate over silly spot rules. I just wanted to jump in here and point out that the moon would have to provide a HUGE bonus to your spot check due to its size, and another due to the fact that it's reflecting light. If you're going to factor in penalties for the distance between Earth and Moon, you also have to factor in bonuses for it being a small planetoid. That said, I do agree with your actual point. The spot check rules are really only meant to be used if the target is actively hiding or otherwise concealed. In the example of a man a quarter of a mile on down the road, I wouldn't ask my players to make a spot check to notice him. They just do. Of course, he's too far away for them to get any detail, so they might not realize until he's much closer that this person is actually an orc, and then the situation might change.
BW0222 05-08-07, 12:22 PM	Clearly_Toughpick, Even if something is not trying to hide, distance is not meaningless: Actually, I said any distance chart would be meaningless. Since certain things (such as color, movement, light, reflectivity, etc.) negate distance easily, it really depends on the complete picture. I'm not saying that distance does not play any factor, but I'm saying that any fixed formula for distance isn't really meaningless. Movement, coloring, backgrounds, light, etc. all play a bigger part than actual distance. an eagle can see a rabbit from 2 miles, but a human can't. Sure you could. A white rabbit jumping up and down in front of a black screen? I'd give it a higher DC, but honestly isn't that hard. Certainly, coloring and movement like that would negate a lot of the distance. If it was a stationary brown rabbit against a brown field, then at even a fifty feet the DC would be in the same range as that of the moving white rabbit against a black background. A silvered celestial rabbit jumping around in the sunlight or flying across the twilight sky? Obviously, distances is pretty well out the window. Likewise, a watcher in a watchtower can see people a long way in the distance, but how far exactly? I know one book which suggests halving the distance modifier. -1 per 20'. However, it still doesn't work well. It certainly allows you to see over trees, small hills, etc. so it removes a lot of concealment/cover which makes seeing some things possible (and avoids some of the hide checks). And yes I apply a penalty for distance. And it's what that penalty should be, that I'm wondering about. What you have said has made me realise that the chart I posted before is way off the mark. A difference of 4 points in Spot equating to a 20 fold increase in vision is plain wrong. So I might just ditch it and do as you suggest, and set DCs on the fly (I really like your examples by the way: v. wide ranging), or go for some other chart. Haven't decided yet. Maybe -1 for every 100 yds would be better. Unfortunately, just above anything breaks down. At -1 per 100 yards, small objects can now be seen at long distances. It is also kind of meaningless in the D&D tactical sense, since battlemaps work in 5' squares. Honestly, there are too many factors at play: size, distance, coloring, movement, numbers, height of the observer, background, lighting, light sources, reflectivity, length of time the creature is in the open, where folks are looking, etc., etc. IMO, just let the DM pick a DC. Having set rules for distance and size seems somewhat pointless if the DM is going to be adding massive and arbitrary adjustments for all the other factors. For example, you are up in a tree looking for bandits coming down the road. You can see a clearing in about thirty yards across about two miles away. You have a good view of the road. Now, IMO, the DM should just look at the situation and say... humm... it takes the six men about a minute to cross. They aren't hiding. A few have metal armor not fully covered. A fairly alert person should see at least one of them. DC 15. But, lets assume there was some type of chart which said that the DC was 8 to see a human at that distance. Well, the DM is going to then say, yah but... there is six of them so I should make it a bit easier? Say -5 to the DC. But then again they are moving thats another -5. But then again, some have metal and the sun is overhead. That's another -5 to the DC. But then again, they are only in the open for a short period of time, thats what +20? You end up with DC 13 or so. Since the DM is already adjusting the DC by amounts well over the DC to start with and making all sorts of decisions such as "that there is a clearing 2 miles away", IMO, I don't think worrying about hard rules makes too much sense. The second DC as as arbitrary as the first.
TheCobra 05-08-07, 03:12 PM	I strongly disagree with the idea that penalties for distance don't normally apply. A Rules of the Game article agrees with me. Also, the 3.0 DMG has much better rules for spot checks to start an encounter and all that.
BW0222 05-08-07, 10:46 PM	TheCobra, I strongly disagree with the idea that penalties for distance don't normally apply. A Rules of the Game article agrees with me. And we agree with you. The rules do say this. However, most folks would not buy a game where a human can't see a performer because the DM rules that the stage is 50 yards away and no one in the audience can make a DC 15 spot check to see the singer. Or the DC 528 spot check to see the smoke a mile away, or the DC 850 spot check to see a ship on the horizon, or the DC 1,500 check the storm clouds coming in from the east, etc. If the rules are absurd, then it is the DMs right (and I say responsiblity) to not use them. If some DM rules that I can't see a person waving a red flag 100 yards away because the rules say it is a DC 30 spot check, sorry, I'm walking.
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 03:55 AM	BW022, I totally agree with everything you've posted so far. I agree that the –1 per 10 feet of distance should only be implemented when what you are trying to spot is actively hiding or hidden. You're posts are a fine example of going by the letter and spirit of the rules.
Ferrety 05-09-07, 06:17 AM	And we agree with you. The rules do say this. However, most folks would not buy a game where a human can't see a performer because the DM rules that the stage is 50 yards away and no one in the audience can make a DC 15 spot check to see the singer. Or the DC 528 spot check to see the smoke a mile away, or the DC 850 spot check to see a ship on the horizon, or the DC 1,500 check the storm clouds coming in from the east, etc. Sorry but there are no rules for most situations given here. One really needs to make own rules, and I think there are several good suggestions in this thread. Everybody here has access at least to the SRD, and can read the spot skill description. I suggest you do, and if you still think that there are rules that absurd, we can agree that you think my reading skills are lacking :weep: I strongly disagree with the idea that penalties for distance don't normally apply. A Rules of the Game article agrees with me. I really hope that I would not have to say this, but unfortunately, I think I must. I'd suggest you consider the Rules of the Game articles with very critical mind. I'd go even so far as to suggest you try to ignore who has written them, and read them as advices given by some anonymous DM, containing his house rules. And do not be surprised if one familiar only with the core books is a tad surprised by some rulings given in Rules of the Game Articles.
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 07:19 AM	I'd suggest you consider the Rules of the Game articles with very critical mind. I'd go even so far as to suggest you try to ignore who has written them, and read them as advices given by some anonymous DM, containing his house rules. And do not be surprised if one familiar only with the core books is a tad surprised by some rulings given in Rules of the Game Articles. Very true, the FAQ and Sage Advice can also have some pretty warped interpretations.
BW0222 05-09-07, 11:27 AM	Ferrety, Sorry but there are no rules for most situations given here. One really needs to make own rules, and I think there are several good suggestions in this thread. First, I may not agree with the rules, but I can read as well as you can. The spot description says -1 per 10' of distance. Now, I originally made the proposal that perhaps this penalty does not apply to all spot checks, but only those dealing with the spot used to determine encounter distance. Well, pretty much everyone else things that's wishful reading and use various sources (including the rules of the game) to show that the penalty was intended to apply in all cases. I might not like the result, but even I can't really argue that the RAW do say -1 per 10' distance. Are you saying that this penalty does not apply? If, so, please provide some proof or at least your reasoning. Second, I've already said (several times now) that applying the RAW in this case leads to ridiculous cases of not being able to see things at even moderate distances. And I've proposed tossing them aside and just allowing the DM to set the DC based on the situation and be done with it. Third, I've even said that if someone actually enforced such silly rules that I'd walk. Everybody here has access at least to the SRD, and can read the spot skill description. I suggest you do, and if you still think that there are rules that absurd, we can agree that you think my reading skills are lacking Exactly what are you saying? a) You don't need spot checks? b) That the spot check does not have a penalty of -1 per 10'? c) That this penalty does not apply in this case? d) That there is a penalty of -1 per 10' and it somehow does not lead to absurd results? I have no idea whether your reading skills are lacking because I have no idea what you claim the rules say, or don't say. I'd suggest you consider the Rules of the Game articles with very critical mind. I'd go even so far as to suggest you try to ignore who has written them, and read them as advices given by some anonymous DM, containing his house rules. Agreed. I'll also point out that the WotC development staff does not review Rules of the Game or even the FAQ to the same level as errata. They have no place in the official campaigns and in many cases they get a good laugh. That said, they are some evidence. It supports what DMs up here generally appear to acknowledge -- that all spot checks get a -1 per 10'. I reluctantly agreed, and then concluded that if played that way, it resulted in such silly that I couldn't play using such a ruling.
Ferrety 05-09-07, 12:44 PM	First, I may not agree with the rules, but I can read as well as you can. The spot description says -1 per 10' of distance. Now, I originally made the proposal that perhaps this penalty does not apply to all spot checks, but only those dealing with the spot used to determine encounter distance. Are you saying that this penalty does not apply? If, so, please provide some proof or at least your reasoning. Well, my bad, I've really not kept track who is saying what in different messages, , I just try to reply to each message as they are. I am indeed saying that this penalty does not apply. The RAW gives spot penalties due distance only when determining the distance at which the encounter begins. The text is not overly complex, and this is the level of understanding I get from the text with my reading skills. Really, I just reread the description, and I still read it like that. As I said, it now seems that we agree that I can't read. (and really (and I mean really), I am not trying to imply that I think you cannot read. As you can probably guess, English is not my native language) And furthermore, I can't find RAW for most examples given in this thread. There are no rules for those situations, the DM must make them up. As for the original question, I've already given my take for the problem: "I am trying to figure out how far away he can actually see things well enough to shoot at them." in the #13 post of this thread. Of the other situations, I would not to make any rules, but I'd decide on the spot what would happen. For example, all characters see the smoke, but the character with +55 spot notices it first and would point it to other characters.
TheCobra 05-09-07, 05:37 PM	However, most folks would not buy a game where a human can't see a performer because the DM rules that the stage is 50 yards away and no one in the audience can make a DC 15 spot check to see the singer. Is this performer hiding? If not, why would a spot check be required? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't buy a game in which it's as easy to spot a rogue hiding a hundred yards away as it is to spot one right in front of your face. The penalty for distance applied on spot checks in 3.0. It worked fine that way.
Nadaka 05-09-07, 06:29 PM	I can't find a link (it must have not made it to the archives), but I had posted a houserule for d20 modern concerning spot distance. For every size category over tiny, the spot distance increment doubled, I don't recall the exact numbers but it was something like this: fine 5 dim 10 tiny 20 small 40 medium 80 large 160 huge 360 garg 720 col 1440 + 2880 etc
BW0222 05-10-07, 12:29 AM	TheCobra, Is this performer hiding? If not, why would a spot check be required? Then your rule is if something is not hiding, you don't need a spot check? The problems with saying that no spot check is required are a) the PHB allows for spot checks even if a creature isn't hiding and b) you can see at infinite distance provided the creature is not hiding. In the later case spotting a mouse at a mile is automatic. As is seeing a flee on a mountain top. If it isn't hiding, then no spot check is needed. Exact, of course this is equally as silly as saying that one can't see a person on the stage 50 yards away. The penalty for distance applied on spot checks in 3.0. It worked fine that way. It is the same rule, so it obviously does not work. If the penalty applies to all spot checks, then everyone ignores it because folks can clearly see things at distances beyond what the rules would allow. DMs aren't saying make spot checks to see the tree on the mountain top, the man in the field waving his arms, etc. And if it doesn't apply to when folks are hiding (even though it say it can) then folks ignore that rule over long distances and require spot checks anyway.
TheCobra 05-10-07, 02:17 AM	Then your rule is if something is not hiding, you don't need a spot check? That's what the description of skill suggests, yes. b) you can see at infinite distance provided the creature is not hiding. The DMG gives maximum spotting distances for various types of terrain. In the later case spotting a mouse at a mile is automatic. Mice are always hiding. I don't really worry about things like mountains and smoke in the distance. I don't know of any rules that cover such things. But I certainly apply the penalty if a PC is trying to spot a rogue hiding a hundred feet away. This works in my game. If it doesn't work in yours, that's fine. It is the same rule, so it obviously does not work. If the penalty applies to all spot checks, then everyone ignores it because folks can clearly see things at distances beyond what the rules would allow. Nothing in the skill description says you have to make spot checks to see normally. "The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding." It's always used against creatures. The idea that the spot skill would cover mountains and stars have no basis that I can find.
Clearly_Toughpick 05-10-07, 09:02 AM	I can't find a link (it must have not made it to the archives), but I had posted a houserule for d20 modern concerning spot distance. For every size category over tiny, the spot distance increment doubled, I don't recall the exact numbers but it was something like this: fine 5 dim 10 tiny 20 small 40 medium 80 large 160 huge 360 garg 720 col 1440 + 2880 etc Nadaka I think you've solved my problem. Doing away with the size modifier was a real coup! A minor point is that I would change the scale slightly for a trebling (rather than doubling) of the distance with each increment as below... fine 1 dim 3 tiny 10 small 30 medium 100 large 300 huge 1000 garg 3000 col 10000 + 30000 etc So a human can take 20 to see a non-hiding elephant (i.e. hide check result of 0) at 20,000 ft or 4 miles, or a mouse (fine) at 20 feet; The mouse (no Spot modifier) would see the human at 2000 ft or 1/3 mile. An eagle can take 20 to see a rabbit at 360 feet. I'm pretty happy with all of that, but that eagle should still see that rabbit 2 miles away!
TheCobra 05-10-07, 12:57 PM	Eagles should get huge bonuses on Spot.
Steevo 05-10-07, 03:17 PM	In the later case spotting a mouse at a mile is automatic. As is seeing a flee on a mountain top. If it isn't hiding, then no spot check is needed. Exact, of course this is equally as silly as saying that one can't see a person on the stage 50 yards away. Well, I don't put too much stock in the rules to begin with, they're mainly just there to prevent things from getting out of hand, in my experience. In my games, though, spotting a mouse from a mile away is automatic. Automatic failure. I wouldn't ask for a spot check to notice a mouse from a mile away any more than I would to notice a performer on stage 50 yards away. The former is ridiculously hard, the latter is ridiculously easy. Neither requires a roll in my books, and therefore penalties and DCs are moot.
TheCobra 05-10-07, 03:39 PM	I think some characters (epic ones, at least) should be able to spot a mouse a mile away. After all, eagles are supposedly able to do this.
BW0222 05-10-07, 04:22 PM	TheCobra, Eagles should get huge bonuses on Spot. They do. Ranks plus a massive racial bonus. +14 or so. That is certainly considerable and dwarfs any elven or wisdom differences between most folks. Certainly, enough to equal what most 10th-level PCs can get without magical aid. I think some characters (epic ones, at least) should be able to spot a mouse a mile away. After all, eagles are supposedly able to do this. Unfortunately, the rules don't allow it. If you include the -1 per 10' to all spot checks, an eagle (taking a 10) has a spot check of say 24. Mouse (not hiding) has a DC of say 8. This means the eagle can only spot the mouse (in the middle of a road) at 160' (-16). Of course this is complete nonsense, because we know an eagle can to it from 1000' easily. If you do not include the distance penalty, then of course the eagle could see it as 1000', or 5000', or 25000',... but so could a normal human. Taking a 10, they get a 10, which is enough to see the mouse at any distance also. In either case, the results are silly. The -1 per 10' is so off, no one can keep a straight face using it. Having no range penalty (or not requiring a check at any distance for a non-hiding creature) is equally silly. IMO, the DM factors distance along with all the other facts and comes up with an appropriate DC. Use the eagle as an good real world example. If someone in a tree wanted to see a moving mouse on a road a mile away, then the DM might say "Well an eagle might be able to? So, the DC should be something like 25 - since an eagle would see it about half the time."
TheCobra 05-10-07, 04:27 PM	Mouse (not hiding) has a DC of say 8. Do Spot DCs exist for creatures that aren't hiding in 3.5? The 3.5 DMG lacks that section about Spot DCs for starting an encounter that was in the 3.0 DMG.
Nadaka 05-10-07, 04:29 PM	You could give eagles superior vision, unfortunately this only works in low light. Or of you really want to give eagles a boost, just give them a quality that treats every objects as 2 to 4 size categories larger in terms of spot penalties based on distance. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/owlGiant.htm
Ferrety 05-10-07, 06:03 PM	Do Spot DCs exist for creatures that aren't hiding in 3.5? The 3.5 DMG lacks that section about Spot DCs for starting an encounter that was in the 3.0 DMG. In 3.0 the spot had base DC 20 for for "nonhiding encounters", and DC 20+hide check for hiding creatures. And the check was not modified due distance, but by size of the creatures, weather, etc. I think if you failed the spot check, you made it automatically when opponents were close enough, probably when the distance was half of the given random encounter distance. And if a opponent was hiding, the spot vs hide was handled normally from that point on (and then the check was modified due distance, but not due the other conditions). I don't think anyone used the encounter rules in 3.0 as written, and they changed those rules quite a lot for 3.5. edit: By removing most of them.
TheCobra 05-10-07, 09:46 PM	I don't think anyone used the encounter rules in 3.0 as written, and they changed those rules quite a lot for 3.5. People used them. Some loved them, in fact. Personally, I liked have a little guidance on the matter. The 3.5 DMG refers Spot and Listen checks to determine encounter distance, but doesn't explain how this checks work. Of course, there's a lot of stuff in the 3.5 DMG that doesn't make any sense. The editors didn't do a very good job. They kept some chunks of text from the 3.0 DMG, but didn't seem to realize the new context makes these bits incorrect.
Ferrety 05-11-07, 06:28 AM	People used them. Some loved them, in fact. Personally, I liked have a little guidance on the matter. The 3.5 DMG refers Spot and Listen checks to determine encounter distance, but doesn't explain how this checks work. Of course people used them, and it should not be too great a hurdle to use those rules in 3.5. But I do not think many people used them as written, as even 3.0 was not perfect. Of course in 3.0 the distance did not matter in spots checks made to determine when encounter begins, but it did indeed affected other spot checks. And in 3.5 they are stating the opposite. One could combine those rules, and decide that the base DC for spotting nonhiding creatures (and things) is 1 per 10 feet, modified by similar conditions as in 3.0. The spot would be made automatically when the distance is halved. The spot DC would have upper limit given by the maximum spotting distance given by the terrain type. If the terrain is has no features blocking vision (for example, opponents are high up in the air), one could use the maximum distance given by those terrain types for the upper limit. Which happens to be plains and 1440 feet or DC 144. Or one could make the ruling by the situation.