PDA

View Full Version : Listen, Spot, and encounter starting distance



ffone
2010-09-17, 08:08 PM
One group approaches another from a distance.

1. How do I determine 'awareness'? What are the listen and spot DCs for creatures who are not trying to hide and move silently?

2. Let's say one group sees the other first. They get a surprise round, but what if they do things that don't cause the other group to become aware of them? Do they keep getting surprise rounds, or act 'out of combat' / 'pre initiative' until an action causes the other side to become aware?

3. How do I deal with things like running that are full-round actions and RAW can't be done on a surprise round? Like if a PC starts running towards unaware foes from a great distance - do the enemies make listen/spot checks once per round?

One particular issue I'm trying to resolve is that, presumably PCs can use the run action pre-combat, as in the above example, but I'm guessing that even with, say, Invisibility and great Move Silently, you can't guarantee a full attack action against a foe before initiative. How do I do things if a PC tries this? Declare that the first attack is their surprise round action, and then we roll initiative (and if they win, great, they can do a full attack, for a total of 1 standard attack + 1 full attack)?

Curmudgeon
2010-09-17, 08:30 PM
Assume everybody is using their "take 10" values for reactive Spot and Listen checks. The Spot DC to notice a Large creature in plain sight, with 10', is 0 (Player's Handbook, page 64). Adjust the DCs opposing Spot by +/- 4 for every size step away from Large. Then take into consideration a -1 penalty for each 10' of distance by instead boosting the DC +1 per 10' and you've got the value you need to reach for someone to be Spotted. Do the same thing for Listen, assuming that the "People talking" DC of 0 represents the occasional comment people who aren't trying to be silent will make as they walk along.

A surprise round is only a surprise round if it instigates an encounter, so there's only one. You can have any amount of time before that where one party is aware of the other. As for starting full round actions in a surprise round, you use "Start/Complete Full-Round Action" action (2 standard actions in consecutive rounds). Running with "Start/Complete Full-Round Action" just runs half as far as if you had a full round. Up until the surprise round the characters are simply running or doing whatever.

Gan The Grey
2010-09-17, 08:31 PM
If you turn to the environment sections of the DMG, it will list the spot and listen distances for each terrain type as a variable die roll. AFB right now, but basically:

1. Determine terrain type. Let's say everyone is on plains.

2. Roll for an encounter based on your plains encounter table.

3. Once an encounter is determined and you know what your party is up against, roll to determine awareness threshold distance. I think plains is somewhere like 3d10 x 100 feet or something like that. That means that the encounter begins at that distance.

4. Have both parties roll spot and listen, modified for distance. If one sees the other, the other gets to act as they like for as long as they go undetected. They can buff, sneak around, set up an ambush, but the other party gets spot and listen checks every round to detect them.

5. Once both parties notice the other, the battle begins.

holywhippet
2010-09-17, 08:37 PM
1. I'm not sure what the DC is, only that there is a -1 penalty per 10 feet between the spotter and the spotee. It might be DC 0, so if the other party is 200 feet or more away they need better than 20 to spot them.

2. Yes. The group who sees the other first gets to keep taking rounds of action until the other group is alerted either by an action or by a successful spot/listen check.

3. Surprise round might be a misleading term. It's only a surprise round when they actually do something hostile. Prior to that they are acting outside of combat so they can do whatever they like.

Looking at the text for full attack I don't think it's prohibited. The only thing you can't do in a round as part of a full attack is move more than a 5 foot step.

Forged Fury
2010-09-17, 08:43 PM
1. I'm not sure what the DC is, only that there is a -1 penalty per 10 feet between the spotter and the spotee. It might be DC 0, so if the other party is 200 feet or more away they need better than 20 to spot them.
Being in a situation right now where one of my characters is trying to spot an opponent at range, the Spot rules seem kind of ridiculous. As above, 200' is only about 2/3 the length of an American Football Field. That takes a spot check of 20 to see something from that range? Quarterbacks must have max ranks in Spot and Skill Focus to boot...

Then I think of Army Basic Training and realize we were routinely acquiring and firing at targets at 900 feet (300 meters), I have to wonder if the designers intended the rules to work this way.

Gan The Grey
2010-09-17, 08:58 PM
K, the distance on plains is 6d6x40 feet. Min of 240 feet, Max of 1440, average of 840. Min Spot DC (assuming 0 DC from non-active hiding) - DC 24, Max DC 144 (lol), Average of 84 (lol2).

Now, I know SRD only lists penalties to Spot, but I thought somewhere there were bonuses for open area, group size, ect... I'll have to look some more.

Malakar
2010-09-17, 09:34 PM
I'm not exactly sure whether you are looking for RAW or for good alternative rules, so here's some of the latter:

1) Assume everyone takes 10 on spot and listen. If someone isn't trying to move silently, it's because they are doing normal actions. The DC for a normal person attempting to move without slowing down is DC 0, unless they are in combat, in which case it's DC -10.

This is because they take ten, and move at normal speed. So exceptionally silent people (+30 MS check) actually fight quieter than normal people stand still. Just assume people are always taking ten on MS until combat starts, and they take a -10 or -20 penalty depending on what they are doing at the same time.

Hiding... Lots of people don't treat hiding right. If you are hiding within 60ft of someone with darkvision 60ft, or within 20ft of someone holding a torch, you are not hiding, they can see you automatically.

Basically, Hiding only applies with concealment or (total) cover, and (total) cover already blocks line of sight. So instead, just say that people get to see other people when their spot check hits DC 0, unless that person is invisible/in concealment/behind cover, in which case apply the hide bonus like you would the MS.

2) Surprise rounds are now full round actions. No seriously, it's not a bad change. If you can see them and they can't see you, you get a full round action. Now people can do things like run, or summon, or move and attack, in the round. The disadvantages are few, and localized pretty much to archers who do too much damage (very few) and monsters that have full attacks (so not shadows and wraiths) but get to surprise you from adjacent (so not anyone else).

Curmudgeon
2010-09-17, 11:58 PM
Being in a situation right now where one of my characters is trying to spot an opponent at range, the Spot rules seem kind of ridiculous.
They're ridiculous because they're linear for penalties rather than quadratic. A Large creature at 200' takes up exactly the same field of view as a Medium creature at 100'. However, the Large creature Spot DC is 0 (for size) +20 (for distance) = 20, while the Medium creature Spot DC is +4 (for size) +10 (for distance) = 14. Sound works the same way (both inversely proportional to the square of the distance), so Listen checks are messed up differ from real-world spread of sound in exactly the same way.

ericgrau
2010-09-18, 12:10 AM
^ It's worse because the modifiers themselves aren't linear. Someone with a +20 modifier isn't twice as good as someone with a +10, he's way better. And compared to someone with a +0 he can do things that are virtually impossible. I think it's more like skill ranks are exponential, DCs are quadratic, and size modifiers are linear. Now find the log of the distance squared times size and tell us the appropriate DCs :smallbiggrin:.


K, the distance on plains is 6d6x40 feet. Min of 240 feet, Max of 1440, average of 840. Min Spot DC (assuming 0 DC from non-active hiding) - DC 24, Max DC 144 (lol), Average of 84 (lol2).

Now, I know SRD only lists penalties to Spot, but I thought somewhere there were bonuses for open area, group size, ect... I'll have to look some more.
Then encounters won't begin 840 feet away, naturally. Encounters will begin closer or else both groups will walk past each other (at a distance) and never notice each other.

@Malakar's Post: I think most of that is RAW anyway, except the always moving silently and surprise round as a full round action.

Jjeinn-tae
2010-09-18, 12:14 AM
If something is not actively trying to hide, you don't need to make spot checks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm) to see them, which is the reason characters can see the sun. It gets a little harder with line of sight when regarding hilly terrain, that would count as difficult to see under spot's rules I would think. It doesn't really say how far away they need to be in blank space to be difficult to see, it would probably be at a couple hundred feet though at minimum (probably further as adventurers are going to have good eyes usually).

The listen skill doesn't really say, though I'd assume it would be harder to hear someone walking normally then a regular conversation, which is a 0 dc point blank, but easier than an untrained person trying to be quiet in medium armor (which apparently averages at DC 5 point blank).

ericgrau
2010-09-18, 12:18 AM
The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding. Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen. Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.
...
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).

Man if only people would stop using it for creatures that aren't actively hiding, that would end all the mistaken comments like "every class should have spot as a class skill or they're blind". Usually actively hiding creatures is what it's usually used for, not much else, and not seeing everything under the sun. But as it so happens determining encounter distances in the wilderness is another minor application. Looks like I'll have to pull out my DMG b/c I'm pretty sure it has rules for this and the SRD doesn't seem to have anything. EDIT: Never mind, maybe it was in 3.0 or maybe I couldn't find it. There is some related info on page 22 though.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-18, 12:21 AM
If something is not actively trying to hide, you don't need to make spot checks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm) to see them
Sorry, but that's not what the rules say.
Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen. Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.
Please turn to page 64 of your Player's Handbook, where the table states that it's DC 0 to
Notice something large in plain sight (Spot) If you fail such a Spot check, you've established that the creature is difficult for you to see even though it isn't hiding.

Jjeinn-tae
2010-09-18, 12:27 AM
Sorry, but that's not what the rules say.


:smallconfused: Read a little further in my post, I said hilly terrain would make them difficult to see definitely. As well as distance in a completely blank space, which I figured would be several hundred feet. I left it at that because I can't really guess what sorts of things might make it difficult.

ericgrau
2010-09-18, 12:41 AM
Since there doesn't seem to be an official rule, here's a quick formula based on the skill rules:

Encounter Distance = ((higher of Spot or Listen check) + 5) x 10 feet.

Or the maximum distance for the terrain type, whichever is lower. Double the listen (but not spot) distance in mountains. If the terrain is wide open or featureless or for whatever other reason you decide, you may have creatures see each other automatically without a check. +5 assumes the other party is moving at normal speed. Standing still gets +0 instead. Generally battle gets +10 instead. Any violent action (attacking, casting, running, charging) is a +20 instead. I suppose the +10 for battle assumes a mix of actions and averages out all the +0's, +5's and +20's, I dunno.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-18, 12:48 AM
I said hilly terrain would make them difficult to see definitely. As well as distance in a completely blank space, which I figured would be several hundred feet.
You don't need to guess at these things because there are rules for them. Hills terrain maximum distances are on page 89 of the Dungeon Master's Guide. "Completely blank space" isn't a D&D terrain type, but the maximum distance for open plains is given on page 92; that can be up to 1440 feet.

These distance formulas take the terrain into account, and let the DM roll to determine the maximum distance at which the two parties would have unobstructed line of sight to each other. Then it's just a matter of checking to see if one or the other group has an adequate Spot check to overcome the distance penalty.

jmbrown
2010-09-18, 07:12 AM
To avoid the default ridiculous spot rules, I just adapted the AD&D rules for spotting. If someone isn't trying to be stealthy, you can automatically see them at the terrain range. Roll the terrain range for spot checks for each party; if the two parties aren't trying to be stealthy, they see each other at that listed range. This explains things like hilly terrain or the fact that people aren't actively looking hard enough and other mitigating factors.

It really makes no sense why you can't see a barn 1,000 feet away on completely flat icy tundra.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-18, 07:17 AM
"Surprise Round" is only for the ones that were surprised. When both sides are aware of the other there isn't a surprise round. They were made so aware characters wouldn't be useless in an ambush.

Thus, come the logic conclusion: The group that is acting without the other's notice just gets to act normally till they get the drop on the second group. THEN the combat starts and the surprise round becomes relevant.



Then encounters won't begin 840 feet away, naturally. Encounters will begin closer or else both groups will walk past each other (at a distance) and never notice each other.
What do you call "Encounter"? The combat between 2 or more opposing groups? Then, just because a group is out of range of the other, doesn't mean there isn't combat.
This is relevant when huge spot/listen checks are involved and the area they interact with is sufficiently large. For example, a cragtop archer. They're built around starting combat from really, really far. Reaching a cragtop archer without teleport or invisibility is asking to be reamed.
Example:
My current group has a psychic warrior//incarnate gestalt whose perception modifier (pathfinder, I love thee) increases fast (think +15 at level 4 unbuffed, escalating to, roughly, +49 unbuffed at 20). It's already noticeable at 4, and we do engage in long-distance combat often (think fleeing ships, crossing large plains within hostile territory and the like).

Malakar
2010-09-18, 08:09 AM
"Surprise Round" is only for the ones that were surprised. When both sides are aware of the other there isn't a surprise round. They were made so aware characters wouldn't be useless in an ambush.

Thus, come the logic conclusion: The group that is acting without the other's notice just gets to act normally till they get the drop on the second group. THEN the combat starts and the surprise round becomes relevant.

Incorrect, the Surprise round is for the one who are not surprised. It was supposed to be so that ambushes were not too good.

But since in practice it makes Spellcasters just as good, and melee fighters incapable of contributing, I recommend just ignoring the whole thing and making the surprise round a normal round, but with only those aware acting.

DonEsteban
2010-09-18, 08:29 AM
Spot DCs modified by distance can become quite ridiculous. But be aware that football fields are pretty rare in D&D worlds. A "plain" is not necessarily a perfectly flat and empty plane.

If no one is trying to hide it is usually assumed that both are aware of each other simultaneously. If you think that neither this nor normal spot checks are appropriate for some reason, I suggest opposed spot or listen checks (without distance modifier), but that's an ad hoc rule.



One particular issue I'm trying to resolve is that, presumably PCs can use the run action pre-combat, as in the above example, but I'm guessing that even with, say, Invisibility and great Move Silently, you can't guarantee a full attack action against a foe before initiative. How do I do things if a PC tries this? Declare that the first attack is their surprise round action, and then we roll initiative (and if they win, great, they can do a full attack, for a total of 1 standard attack + 1 full attack)?
Yes, basically. Check this page (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#invisibility) for detection of invisible creatures.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-18, 08:32 AM
Incorrect, the Surprise round is for the one who are not surprised. It was supposed to be so that ambushes were not too good.

Eh, just a bad wording.


"Surprise Round" is only for the combats where someone was surprised. When both sides are aware of the other there isn't a surprise round. They were made so aware characters wouldn't be useless in an ambush.

Happy now?

Forged Fury
2010-09-18, 09:47 AM
Spot DCs modified by distance can become quite ridiculous. But be aware that football fields are pretty rare in D&D worlds. A "plain" is not necessarily a perfectly flat and empty plane.
Spot DCs modified by distance do become quite ridiculous, generally after about 30 feet.

The reference to a football field was to provide a relevant and timely example. But you're right, football fields don't exist in D&D... but meadows certainly do. In addition, since most campaign settings make some indication of an agrarian society, relatively flat and expansive areas for cultivating crops probably exist to some degree or another. Not to mention lakes which normally lack much in the way of a variety in elevation. Or you can go so far as to move to three dimensions and start talking about spotting flying creatures in a cloudless sky.

Based on the assumption that you could certainly have situations where you would have a generally unobstructed view of an object at a distance of 300 feet (equivalent to an American football field), the Spot check to notice a medium creature at that distance would be made with a -30 penalty, further modified by the creature's size. That is crazy.

The problem is that Spot, the skill which should be most relevant for determining which side notices the other first at distance, isn't designed for it. It's almost specifically designed to be used to counter the Hide skill. The -1 every 10' penalty makes complete sense if the opponenet you are trying to spot is actively hiding. It doesn't if they're standing out in the open.

Also, the -1/10' penalty is pretty strongly correlated to the text for using Spot checks to determine starting encounter distance.

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).

darkpuppy
2010-09-18, 09:51 AM
This is another of those situational things. If two groups are peacefully moving towards each other, there is no point in rolling for Spot or Listen. If one group is aware of the other and wants to kick the booty of the other group, then spot and listen checks are required for the ambushees, because it is assumed one party already knows where the other is, in which case standard Spot and Listen rules for terrain apply. If neither group is aware of each other, they get one Spot and Listen check while they're in reasonable encounter range (IE- not requiring stupid Spot or Listen checks, which, as has been previously pointed out, is a fair way away. Remember the modifiers for armour and the like, and use the lowest spot DC, with higher spot DCs for more detail. If one group spots the other, they get to choose what to do. I'm really not seeing the problem here, as seeing a large creature from a distance is quite easy, as is listen (big creatures = more stompy, more things it can tread on loudly to give away its position = easier to hear)

If both groups spot each other, normal round, if one only spots, they get the choice, and the not-seeing group remain oblivious. Further Spot and Listen checks each "round" the other group gets closer, no further Spot and Listen if either group's chosen action for that round is "Get the hell out of Dodge".

But, to be honest, I've never needed the encounter range thing, deciding exactly where said beastie was when the encounter began. So long as it's reasonable (IE - not "The Random Googly-Moogly jumps out at you from the wall you just passed in the room you just cleared"), nobody complains.

mucco
2010-09-18, 10:53 AM
Based on the assumption that you could certainly have situations where you would have a generally unobstructed view of an object at a distance of 300 feet (equivalent to an American football field), the Spot check to notice a medium creature at that distance would be made with a -30 penalty, further modified by the creature's size. That is crazy.

Distance penalties do get crazy. I use a houserule that scales penalties exponentially as it should: +4 to the DC for each time the distance doubles beyond 10 feet.

Doubling five times would make it +20 for 320 feet, we're doing a bit less than that so +19. Add the size modifier for a net DC 23. Considering a generally open space, with small hills and obstacles here and there, it looks like a fair DC. In the football field case, there's a big circumstance bonus for the flatness of the environment :smalltongue:

Snake-Aes
2010-09-18, 10:58 AM
Spot DCs modified by distance do become quite ridiculous, generally after about 30 feet.
That's because spot is not made to notice "at all". It's made to notice specific details. Like a creature hiding, or a fine detail. Go ahead and try to spot the color of the eyes of the guy on the other side of the field.

Matthew
2010-09-18, 11:07 AM
That's because spot is not made to notice "at all". It's made to notice specific details. Like a creature hiding, or a fine detail. Go ahead and try to spot the color of the eyes of the guy on the other side of the field.

Yes, indeed. That whole "DC 0 to spot something in plain sight" is a red herring.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-18, 11:53 AM
Here's a house rule I'm thinking about adding for my games.
Range penalties for Spot and Listen are reduced to correspond more closely to actual light and sound propagation, as follows:
{table=head]Distance | Penalty
10' | -1
20' | -2
30' | -3
40' | -4
50' | -5
60' | -6
70' | -7
80' | -8
100' | -9
120' | -10
140' | -11
160' | -12
200' | -13
240' | -14
280' | -15
320' | -16
400' | -17
480' | -18
560' | -19
640' | -20
800' | -21
960' | -22
1120' | -23
1280' | -24
1600' | -25[/table]
The modifier opposing Spot changes by ±4 for every D&D object size step. A Medium creature (5'x5') at 100' takes up the same field of view as a Large creature (10'x10') at 200', so I made the range penalties about right (-4 for every doubling) for long distances, and merged that with the "standard" penalty scale at short range. Thoughts?

darkpuppy
2010-09-18, 12:06 PM
Here's a house rule I'm thinking about adding for my games.

[big-ass table and reasoning]

Thoughts?

Well, I personally don't see the point in modding a fantasy game for "realism", but if it makes your game go better, then what the hey, go wild.

Forged Fury
2010-09-18, 01:12 PM
That's because spot is not made to notice "at all". It's made to notice specific details.
Personally, I don't think the previously quoted section of the SRD squares with that assumption at all.

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).
Presumably, you wouldn't need to determine the color of your opponent's eye prior to realizing they may be a threat. Unless the color of their eye is laser beam.

I guess to elaborate, I think of a situation where a party who is traveling through a forest is approaching the treeline which opens into a wide valley. They send the party rogue up to take a look see before leaving the cover of the tree line. Does the rogue roll a spot check? I would say so, if I were a DM. The question is, does he notice the small encampment of bandits 1000 feet away in the valley? Depending on how the size of the encampment is defined, it's very unlikely.

Even the text about stealth in a plains environment is a little crazy.

Stealth and Detection in Plains
In plains terrain, the maximum distance at which a Spot check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 6d6×40 feet, although the specifics of your map may restrict line of sight. Plains terrain provides no bonuses or penalties on Listen and Spot checks.So the rules allowing characters to detect the presence of others in a plains environment provides them with the ability to notice something at a maximum range of 240-1440 feet depending on a 6d6 roll (kind of an odd, wide range, no?). In order to succeed on the check, it only require me to make a Spot check with a -24 to -144 penalty to the die roll. How generous, give me a d20!

Curmudgeon
2010-09-18, 01:22 PM
Well, I personally don't see the point in modding a fantasy game for "realism", but if it makes your game go better, then what the hey, go wild.
Realism in this case promotes more interesting games. Having groups completely miss each other at 200' because of range penalties makes for very dull D&D.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-18, 01:32 PM
Realism in this case promotes more interesting games. Having groups completely miss each other at 200' because of range penalties makes for very dull D&D.

The word you are looking for is Verisimilitude.

DonEsteban
2010-09-18, 02:43 PM
I agree that distance penalty is not designed for this kind of spot check. But why define a complicated house rule for this? It will come up maybe once or twice in most campaigns. Just use your best judgement, as you do for many other skill check DCs.


So the rules allowing characters to detect the presence of others in a plains environment provides them with the ability to notice something at a maximum range of 240-1440 feet depending on a 6d6 roll (kind of an odd, wide range, no?). In order to succeed on the check, it only require me to make a Spot check with a -24 to -144 penalty to the die roll. How generous, give me a d20!
Right. The 6d6 range is not too strange, though. Keep in mind that there might be the occasional tree/house/mound/whatever that could prevent visibility at the maximum possible distance.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-18, 03:24 PM
The word you are looking for is Verisimilitude.
No, it's really not. I don't care a fig about the appearance of being real; I care only about the actuality. A Large creature at twice the distance of a Medium creature will occupy the same visual span, so the range penalty for the greater distance should exactly offset the change in DC for the size difference.

What I am looking for is constructive feedback. I'm designing a game with lots of open views (snowy plains, frozen lakes, flying attackers, & c.) and I expect most encounters will begin at significant ranges. That's just not going to happen unless the distance penalties are reduced to a scale where characters with decent perception skills can notice things.

With the standard rules a Colossal creature can get within charging distance before PCs with maxed-out Spot skills can see them. That's just utterly unrealistic, and it makes running a game and making it fun quite a bit harder.

Claudius Maximus
2010-09-18, 03:24 PM
Here's a house rule I'm thinking about adding for my games.
Range penalties for Spot and Listen are reduced to correspond more closely to actual light and sound propagation, as follows:
{table=head]Distance | Penalty
10' | -1
20' | -2
30' | -3
40' | -4
50' | -5
60' | -6
70' | -7
80' | -8
100' | -9
120' | -10
140' | -11
160' | -12
200' | -13
240' | -14
280' | -15
320' | -16
400' | -17
480' | -18
560' | -19
640' | -20
800' | -21
960' | -22
1120' | -23
1280' | -24
1600' | -25[/table]
The modifier opposing Spot changes by ±4 for every D&D object size step. A Medium creature (5'x5') at 100' takes up the same field of view as a Large creature (10'x10') at 200', so I made the range penalties about right (-4 for every doubling) for long distances, and merged that with the "standard" penalty scale at short range. Thoughts?

I like this rule. I intend to run some rather long range encounters in my campaign, so I might get some use out of it. Can I steal it?

Snake-Aes
2010-09-18, 03:35 PM
No, it's really not. I don't care a fig about the appearance of being real; I care only about the actuality. A Large creature at twice the distance of a Medium creature will occupy the same visual span, so the range penalty for the greater distance should exactly offset the change in DC for the size difference.

What I am looking for is constructive feedback. I'm designing a game with lots of open views (snowy plains, frozen lakes, flying attackers, & c.) and I expect most encounters will begin at significant ranges. That's just not going to happen unless the distance penalties are reduced to a scale where characters with decent perception skills can notice things.

With the standard rules a Colossal creature can get within charging distance before PCs with maxed-out Spot skills can see them. That's just utterly unrealistic, and it makes running a game and making it fun quite a bit harder.

Change the distance penalties based on size. 10' for medium, 20' for large, 40' for huge, 80' for gargantuan, 160' for colossal.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-18, 04:06 PM
Change the distance penalties based on size. 10' for medium, 20' for large, 40' for huge, 80' for gargantuan, 160' for colossal.
And what about smaller creatures? It gets a bit unwieldy with a penalty every 3.75" for Fine size.

Jjeinn-tae
2010-09-18, 04:20 PM
And what about smaller creatures? It gets a bit unwieldy with a penalty every 3.75" for Fine size.

Here is what I think you could do for smaller, and it follows Snake Aes theme for a bit:

With small it would be every 5ft, which you can fit one small creature in a 5ft square. Half of that for tiny would be 2.5 feet, which again is the size of a tiny creature's space).

After this point, it kind of breaks down, we could continue halving, which would give us diminutive at 15," and fine would be 7.5." The problem being a space for diminutive creatures is 12" and fine is 6" which means you can't place them exactly at these distances, it would probably be best to just keep it at the size of a space for smaller creatures.


This of course could be troublesome, it would make a fine creature, at just 5 feet away, be 10 "positions" for spotting, I'm not sure if that's what you're going for. Still, might be good to get ideas flowing.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-18, 05:20 PM
And what about smaller creatures? It gets a bit unwieldy with a penalty every 3.75" for Fine size.

Just round. Small is 5', tiny is 3', diminutive is 2', fine is 1'.

Forged Fury
2010-09-18, 05:48 PM
Right. The 6d6 range is not too strange, though. Keep in mind that there might be the occasional tree/house/mound/whatever that could prevent visibility at the maximum possible distance.
I would see line of sight obstacles like the ones you mentioned as being DM fiat. If they want a house there, that's fine, but it doesn't seem like it would cause the total maximum range a character could spot something to vary. The house would simply provide full cover and concealment to anything behind it and thus make the bad guys generally ineligible for being detected by Spot. If the character were to turn around, would their maximum spot range be restricted due to the house at their back?

Personally, I just think the encounter distance rules were developed without real playability in mind.

Ormur
2010-09-19, 11:36 PM
I'd never really determine the start of an encounter where both parties have a clear view of their surroundings and are heading towards each other without hiding according to the spot rules. So I'd say the spot skill only applied when one party is trying to hide (and able to). The lack of sensible rules is problematic though since either party might have to recognize whether the other party is hostile or not. The spot rules make the long range of spells like fireball almost pointless. A wizard would never spot enemies far enough away so that long range spells were his only options.

However I haven't really experienced any trouble, even with encounters on plains or along straight roads because the hostile intent of the other party usually hasn't been established until long after it's been spotted, most often through conversation ("give me the artefact and I'll let you live"). Most of the time of course either party was actually hiding, or lurking in dark dungeons, encountered the other while entering a room, trying to scry'n die or didn't attack until after encountering to the other party

ericgrau
2010-09-20, 01:29 AM
Here's a house rule I'm thinking about adding for my games.
Range penalties for Spot and Listen are reduced to correspond more closely to actual light and sound propagation, as follows:
{table=head]Distance | Penalty
10' | -1
20' | -2
30' | -3
40' | -4
50' | -5
60' | -6
70' | -7
80' | -8
100' | -9
120' | -10
140' | -11
160' | -12
200' | -13
240' | -14
280' | -15
320' | -16
400' | -17
480' | -18
560' | -19
640' | -20
800' | -21
960' | -22
1120' | -23
1280' | -24
1600' | -25[/table]
The modifier opposing Spot changes by ±4 for every D&D object size step. A Medium creature (5'x5') at 100' takes up the same field of view as a Large creature (10'x10') at 200', so I made the range penalties about right (-4 for every doubling) for long distances, and merged that with the "standard" penalty scale at short range. Thoughts?
That's not quadratic that's exponential. And it's backwards for that matter. Sound intensity is inversely proportional to distance squared. So the difficulty is 16 times greater at 400 feet than it is at 100 feet (4^2), not twice as great (square-root(4)).

What you really have there is something to say that the skill modifier isn't linear it's exponential so that high level characters can see much farther... it has a lot more to do with scaling (linear vs. exponential) than anything in physics.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-20, 02:35 AM
What you really have there is something to say that the skill modifier isn't linear it's exponential so that high level characters can see much farther... it has a lot more to do with scaling (linear vs. exponential) than anything in physics.
You're right. I'm trying to accomplish three things here:

Give PCs a way to notice other characters at standard D&D encounter distances (up to 1440'), where the linear distance penalties make that impossible.
Reflect that advanced characters can do extraordinary things, and perception should be included in that.
Keep using the linear skill system, ill-suited though it is to this task.
What I'd really want is a mechanism where characters notice objects that subtend a certain angle, and Spot improvements reduce that angle. But that's not gonna happen. :smallsigh:

Snake-Aes
2010-09-20, 05:33 AM
Doesn't the increment adjustment work? It does emulate the "twice larger creatures can be seen twice farther" thin. Put that in addition to the normal size penalties/bonuses and good luck for the dragon to fly unnoticed.

Gan The Grey
2010-09-20, 06:20 AM
I think encounter distance should consist of three steps:

1. Determine encounter distance (as normal)

2. Determine group facing.

1d6
1-2 Opponents facing party. Party facing away.
3-4 Party facing opponents. Opponents facing away.
5-6 Both groups facing one another.

Those not facing away automatically detect the other group unless terrain would require a spot check (i.e. walking through a forest)

3. Spot and listen checks each round for those that are facing away until either the first group attacks - gaining a surprise round - or until both parties become aware of one another.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-20, 08:04 AM
2. Determine group facing.
There's no facing in D&D. Why would it be necessary to create a complexity (that was purposely simplified out of the system) in order to address perception problems? Your ears work pretty well to hear things behind you anyway.

Gan The Grey
2010-09-20, 08:30 AM
There's no facing in D&D. Why would it be necessary to create a complexity (that was purposely simplified out of the system) in order to address perception problems? Your ears work pretty well to hear things behind you anyway.

Because its not that complex? I'm not talking about combat here, I'm talking about the facing position of a party relative to the sudden appearance of another party.

I don't like the idea that two groups walking across a plain automatically notice each other at 800 feet(as an average example distance), like many people are suggesting. It just isn't realistic. They only time those two groups would automatically notice one another is if they are both looking in the other's direction.

Adding a simple facing roll allows you to simulate parties coming at one another from different angles on the field, and allows combat to play out differently. Just like it would in real life. One party might notice the other from 400 feet away, pull out a spyglass, think "Hey, I'd like to rob them", cast a few buffs, sneak on in, and launch some arrows from cover. Now the other party has to defend themselves while trying to figure out where the attacks are coming from. This wouldn't be possible if both parties automatically knew about the other upon reaching that 800 foot barrier.

And I REALLY don't want to have to roll spot checks OVER AND OVER until they are close enough for the penalties to be surmountable.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-20, 08:33 AM
And I REALLY don't want to have to roll spot checks OVER AND OVER until they are close enough for the penalties to be surmountable.
That's what "take 10" is for. No rolling is required unless there's some stressful situation (like, combat has already started.)
Taking 10

When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10.

Gan The Grey
2010-09-20, 08:44 AM
That's what "take 10" is for. No rolling is required unless there's some stressful situation (like, combat has already started.)

That doesn't change the problem. The problem is that, according to the DMG, encounters on plains terrain occur a 6d6 x 40ft. It is practically impossible, even for level 20 characters, to spot another party at the max range for that encounter, and difficult even at an average roll. Actually, at DC 84, it's practically impossible there too. My rules actually simplify the process, as the encounter automatically begins at the rolled range. You only have to make one more roll to determine who is aware of who (facing roll). THEN you can calculate how close the baddies have to be before your highest spot/listen character notices them, even if they do. At the same time, it allows for more interesting encounters than could be had otherwise.

The other way? For an average level 10 rogue (your party's scout) with a spot of 20 (to be generous), that makes the encounter start at 300 feet, not even half of the average of what the DMG says you COULD start the encounter. And, as nearly everyone has agreed, the average 1st level commoner (that we all are IRL) can see someone coming across a plains much further away than 300 feet.

On another note, I don't like the idea that everyone is walking around taking 10s. That to me says they are actively using their skill, which means their movement is reduced by half.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-20, 08:57 AM
The problem lies in thinking you have to make spot checks to detect something that isn't hiding. The rules say it is used to locate subjects in stealth and recommend to use it when the subject is somehow difficult to see (which, as we can all attest, isn't the case of someone walking in clear view within a few hundred meters).
A spot check would do to discern, say, what weapons said person at the distance is carrying, or the flag/rows of oars of a ship far in the horizon.

Gan The Grey
2010-09-20, 09:00 AM
The problem lies in thinking you have to make spot checks to detect something that isn't hiding. The rules say it is used to locate subjects in stealth and recommend to use it when the subject is somehow difficult to see (which, as we can all attest, isn't the case of someone walking in clear view within a few hundred meters).
A spot check would do to discern, say, what weapons said person at the distance is carrying, or the flag/rows of oars of a ship far in the horizon.

Exactly. If you do it my way, the only time Spot and Listen have to be used is if one party isn't facing the other. The alert party is trying to set up an ambush, so Spot and Listen obviously needed here. Otherwise, if both parties are facing the other, you just see each other and the encounter begins.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-20, 09:19 AM
Exactly. If you do it my way, the only time Spot and Listen have to be used is if one party isn't facing the other.
This is trivial to metagame. The players simply declare that the party includes one party member facing sideways, or walking backwards, and thereby always looks in all directions. Which is exactly what the D&D "no facing" rules amount to.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-20, 09:26 AM
This is trivial to metagame. The players simply declare that the party includes one party member facing sideways, or walking backwards, and thereby always looks in all directions. Which is exactly what the D&D "no facing" rules amount to.

Yeah there's no need to do that. If you're bent on adding the detection for encounter distances, just think a max distance based on your spot modifier. Size modifiers would modify said distance.

ericgrau
2010-09-20, 01:38 PM
I don't like the idea that two groups walking across a plain automatically notice each other at 800 feet(as an average example distance), like many people are suggesting. It just isn't realistic. They only time those two groups would automatically notice one another is if they are both looking in the other's direction.
Someone in the group will be, and within a few seconds everyone will be. Most travelers are always looking around. Maybe it plays a small role, but luck is luck and just melding it into everyone's spot rolls and/or initiative seems simpler. "You rolled low? Must not have been paying attention / looking the wrong way / examining a plant / etc."

Gan The Grey
2010-09-20, 05:03 PM
So...what's the problem with the rule? Is it that it's unfair to players, unfair to monsters, too simple, unnecessary...

Snake-Aes
2010-09-20, 06:54 PM
So...what's the problem with the rule? Is it that it's unfair to players, unfair to monsters, too simple, unnecessary...

The biggest problem is that the rule doesn't allow for an encounter to start at a very far distance. Far-Sighted encounters are fairly interesting if played right. Think a chase between two distant ships, or dealing with scouts (pre-steam scouts were composed of people on fast horses observing from as far as they could, which is usually a few kilometers).

Ormur
2010-09-20, 10:36 PM
Also a chance to actually use long-range spells and weapons. Two parties meet, each other on an open plain and start combat a few hundred or even a thousand feet appart. They rush to get closer to each other while chucking fireballs and shooting from longbows at each other, trying to find cover or moving faster.

hamishspence
2010-09-21, 02:42 AM
The biggest problem is that the rule doesn't allow for an encounter to start at a very far distance. Far-Sighted encounters are fairly interesting if played right. Think a chase between two distant ships, or dealing with scouts (pre-steam scouts were composed of people on fast horses observing from as far as they could, which is usually a few kilometers).

Sea campaigns in particular it doesn't represent so well. A lookout up a mast, even without a telescope, would probably be expected to spot Colossal things miles away- and be punished if they don't.

But it's hard to get Spot scores high enough to do that at low level in D&D.

Gan The Grey
2010-09-21, 04:51 AM
Then what is a simple solution to the problem without having to do unnecessary amounts of math and adhocing?

hamishspence
2010-09-21, 04:58 AM
Make it less linear. Something like:

10-50 ft: -1 to Spot.
50-100ft: -2 to Spot
100-500ft: -4 to Spot
500ft-2000ft: -6 to Spot
2000ft- 5 miles: -10 to Spot
Greater than 5 miles but within line of sight: -20 to Spot

This is just a crude generalization though.