How far can a character see? [3.5]

[Malimar]

This question came up in one of my games the other day, and I scoured the books and the SRD and found nothing but the rules for the Spot skill. I'm sure I've missed it in some glaringly obvious place... but how far can a character see?

Down, say, an indefinitely long, well-lit hallway. How far away does the end of the hallway have to be before you can't tell whether there is an end?

How about if the hallway is entirely dim light and the character doesn't have low-light vision?

Is it 100% determined by the Spot checks and the size of what they're looking at, or is there some "a character can by default see objects 200 yards away" or similar rule?

[Cog]

Is it 100% determined by the Spot checks and the size of what they're looking at...
This, as far as I'm aware.

There's information on low light conditions here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#visionAndLight) in the SRD.

[Jack_Simth]

Is it 100% determined by the Spot checks and the size of what they're looking at, or is there some "a character can by default see objects 200 yards away" or similar rule?
It's part of the terrain section in the DMG. "Stealth and Terrain in [Terrain type]". It's a subsection of each individual terrain type in the DMG, starting at page 87.

[Savannah]

For your hallway example, assuming it's dark and the character is using a light source, it will vary by light source and vision type. For outside, in all the terrain type descriptions in the DMG (pg 87-92), there are sections called "Stealth and Detection in a [terrain]", which give the maximum distance for a Spot check to function in that environment (if your hallway is well lit and straight, I'd use the distance given for a plains encounter, personally). Now, as far as I know, they never explicitly say "you can see [x] distance" but I tend to assume that, if it's within the distance given for the terrain and there's no reason it would be hard to spot, all characters can see it.

[Malimar]

It's part of the terrain section in the DMG. "Stealth and Terrain in [Terrain type]". It's a subsection of each individual terrain type in the DMG, starting at page 87.


For your hallway example, assuming it's dark and the character is using a light source, it will vary by light source and vision type. For outside, in all the terrain type descriptions in the DMG (pg 87-92), there are sections called "Stealth and Detection in a [terrain]", which give the maximum distance for a Spot check to function in that environment (if your hallway is well lit and straight, I'd use the distance given for a plains encounter, personally). Now, as far as I know, they never explicitly say "you can see [x] distance" but I tend to assume that, if it's within the distance given for the terrain and there's no reason it would be hard to spot, all characters can see it.

AHA! No wonder I couldn't find it, I don't recall ever having actually read that section. :smallredface:

[deuxhero]

Strangely enough, there isn't actually any limit if they aren't hiding (intentionally or there is something, like a round planet, blocking the way).

[Cog]

It's part of the terrain section in the DMG. "Stealth and Terrain in [Terrain type]". It's a subsection of each individual terrain type in the DMG, starting at page 87.
That's for spotting creatures, not for the environment itself.

This makes sense. After all, people can spot mountains, Earth's Moon, other planets, distant stars, and under the right conditions, even other galaxies - any maximum distance would have to be so high as to be meaningless.

[Curmudgeon]

That's for spotting creatures, not for the environment itself.
Actually, it's any "thing": creatures and also objects. Non-separable parts of the earth aren't classified as D&D objects, nor are substances measured by volume (water, air). Trees and other plants are living objects, so you need to Spot them the same way you Spot creatures, treasure chests, & c.

[Cog]

Actually, it's any "thing": creatures and also objects.

In a sparse forest, the maximum distance at which a Spot check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 3d6×10 feet.
I did not look through the entire terrain section, but all the ones I saw shared that reading. The restriction is given for spotting creatures specifically.

[Curmudgeon]

I did not look through the entire terrain section, but all the ones I saw shared that reading. The restriction is given for spotting creatures specifically.
It's the Spot rules that group all types of "things" together. From Player's Handbook page 64

Table 4–3: Difficulty Class Examples:
{table=head]Difficulty (DC) | Example (Skill Used)
Very easy (0) | Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)[/table]

and from page 83
Action: Varies. Every time you have a chance to spot something in a reactive manner you can make a Spot check without using an action. Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action.

[Gorfang113]

You can see as far as the DM wants you to. Im not joking with this actually, you will see that tower on the horizen when he wants you to. You will see that looted caravan ahead on the road when he wants you to. If he wants you to see that horde of orcs running at you, you will see it. I he doesn't want you to see it yet, then all the spot checks in the world won't help you. This is my anserw, if there is an actual mechanical one I have no idea.

[DonDuckie]

I didn't see this posted so far. Sorry if I missed it.

There is a range penalty for Spot at -1 per 10 ft of distance, that limits it somewhat. Otherwise it's determined by a check to notice it.

[stainboy]

Actually, it's any "thing": creatures and also objects. Non-separable parts of the earth aren't classified as D&D objects, nor are substances measured by volume (water, air). Trees and other plants are living objects, so you need to Spot them the same way you Spot creatures, treasure chests, & c.

You're going to need an actual citation if you want to say that "something" only means creatures and objects.

Regardless, as we figured out last time this came up if "something" means "creature or object" you can make yourself effectively invisible by forcing a Spot check before moving into plain sight. Then you can run right up in someone's face and stab them and they can't see you without taking an action to recheck. So even if you can find textual support for "something" meaning "creature or object," it doesn't matter because it makes the game unplayably insane.

The only workable interpretation is that "something" can refer to any detail of your environment, so that a creature can become a different "something" if it jumps out of the bushes right in front of you and tries to stab you in the face.

[Cog]

It's the Spot rules that group all types of "things" together.
There is nothing in that wording to prevent specific distinctions from being made elsewhere. A distinction of creatures is made in the terrain rules. Creatures and objects are said to be treated the same when they're large and in plain sight, and for the opportunity to make a reactive spot check. This does not mean they're treated the same for other purposes, as no such general rule is called out.

[Amphetryon]

I didn't see this posted so far. Sorry if I missed it.

There is a range penalty for Spot at -1 per 10 ft of distance, that limits it somewhat. Otherwise it's determined by a check to notice it.

"It's a perfectly clear, cloudless night on the ocean."

"Oh, good. My character's going to use the stars to try to navigate, with Profession (Sailor)."

"Make a Spot check. The nearest object in the sky is 47,000 miles from you. Be sure to apply the appropriate negative modifiers for that distance, and ask about each other object in the sky for the correct modifiers."

"You're a real pain in the neck DM, Frank."

[Curmudgeon]

There is nothing in that wording to prevent specific distinctions from being made elsewhere. A distinction of creatures is made in the terrain rules.
I must have missed where they said this only works for creatures, then.
Stealth and Detection in a Forest: In a sparse forest, the maximum distance at which a Spot check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 3d6×10 feet. It doesn't say this is only for other creatures, so it should apply to other objects as well. This same language is used for all terrain types. Each section then goes on to specify how creatures can Hide in that terrain. Since objects don't Hide, that part is specific to creatures. Detection is not specific to creatures, though.

Creatures and objects are said to be treated the same when they're large and in plain sight, and for the opportunity to make a reactive spot check. This does not mean they're treated the same for other purposes, as no such general rule is called out.
These are reactive Spot checks! (Seriously now: the alternative would be that each character would have to literally specify each Spot check to notice anything in the wilderness.) The basic Spot action (i.e., no action) doesn't change merely because the terrain type provides a maximum line of sight distance.

[Coidzor]

So... How close would one have to be to something the size of Mount Everest to see it, assuming they were able to take 10 on their spot check?

[Worira]

"others" does not mean inanimate objects. That's not how English works.

[Cog]

"others" does not mean inanimate objects. That's not how English works.
Indeed. Others, in that context, refers to creatures (at the broadest interpretation; generally, it'd be other people).

Edit:

These are reactive Spot checks!
I never said they weren't. I was pointing out that the rules align for giving you the opportunity to make said reactive spot checks, but do not align for the range limits on those reactive spot checks.

[Curmudgeon]

"others" does not mean inanimate objects. That's not how English works.
English rules get necessarily stretched in a fantasy game context. A tree with its branches swaying in the wind, or a sunflower turning to follow the sun is a living, moving thing ─ and also a D&D "inanimate" object. Plus, a character is not allowed to automatically perceive the difference between a regular tree (an object) and an awakened tree (a creature with the plant type); that distinction requires a successful Knowledge (nature) check. By assuming that the terrain Spot rules only apply to creatures, you immediately provide this knowledge when you tell a player that their character Spots a particular tree in the forest.

[Coidzor]

English rules get necessarily stretched in a fantasy game context. A tree with its branches swaying in the wind, or a sunflower turning to follow the sun is a living, moving thing ─ and also a D&D "inanimate" object. Plus, a character is not allowed to automatically perceive the difference between a regular tree (an object) and an awakened tree (a creature with the plant type); that distinction requires a successful Knowledge (nature) check. By assuming that the terrain Spot rules only apply to creatures, you immediately provide this knowledge when you tell a player that their character Spots a particular tree in the forest.

So it's either insane in terms of everyone and everything being too myopic to see Mt. Everest or the Moon or insane in terms of automatically knowing if a tree is really a treant in disguise?

Yeah, that sounds like D&D rules.

[Curmudgeon]

So it's either insane in terms of everyone and everything being too myopic to see Mt. Everest or the Moon or insane in terms of automatically knowing if a tree is really a treant in disguise?

Yeah, that sounds like D&D rules.
No, Cog's point about the environment not needing Spot checks is still relevant, because Spot works on things rather than landscapes. Things like trees, though difficult to separate from the environment, are still individual objects, and follow the usual skill rules. Your chance to Spot a normal tree, and a similar awakened tree, should be the same.

[Cog]

Your chance to Spot a normal tree, and a similar awakened tree, should be the same.
"Should be" and "are" are not the same thing.

[HunterOfJello]

Here's a similar question for all of you. If a character has a negative spot check say from the Inattentive flaw, Absent Minded trait, and a wisdom score of 8 this would give them a -6 to spot.

Are you comfortable in declaring that a PC with -6 to spot who rolls a 1-5 on the d20 for a Spot Check of (-5 to -1) doesn't notice an Ogre standing next to them or a Mountain that happens to be directly to their right since they didn't achieve the necessary DC 0?

There's a wizard in my game who does this on a somewhat regular basis because he has that setup and no familiar to gain the Alertness feat. We treat it as a sort of joke when he gets negative spot rolls since his partner has a ton of skill points put into spot, but when I tell him that he doesn't notice the mountain behind him, I'm usually not joking.
~

I also think it's interesting that there isn't a DC table in the Spot section for noticing things at different distances. It would be more useful than breaking things up into their different sections in the DMG imo.

[Curmudgeon]

Are you comfortable in declaring that a PC with -6 to spot who rolls a 1-5 on the d20 for a Spot Check of (-5 to -1) doesn't notice an Ogre standing next to them or a Mountain that happens to be directly to their right since they didn't achieve the necessary DC 0?
For the Ogre, absolutely.
Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it. Being unable to make a DC 0 check is a clear indication that pretty much anything is difficult for the character to see. The player shouldn't get a free pass on an important skill when they decided to put their character development resources elsewhere.
Trying to spot something you failed to see previously is a move action. That's the rule as written, and I enforce it.

[erikun]

So... How close would one have to be to something the size of Mount Everest to see it, assuming they were able to take 10 on their spot check?
By what the rules say? Colossal objects have a -16 penality to hide, so it "would" be a -16 DC. Factoring in the -1 to the check every 10 feet, that's 260 feet for the layman and around double that for a high-level adventurer (assuming ~20 ranks and ~+5 modifier).

More realistically? You'll see the Himalayas when they become a noteworthy landmark on the horizon, and will be able to pick out Everest when you have an unobstructed view of the mountain range. (It's kind of hard to pick out just one mountain. They tend to look similar.)

[candycorn]

Being unable to make a DC 0 check is a clear indication that pretty much anything is difficult for the character to see. The player shouldn't get a free pass on an important skill when they decided to put their character development resources elsewhere.

I disagree, in part. "difficult to see" is a relative term. An ogre, in plain view, is not any more or less "difficult to see" based on who is viewing.

That same ogre, a great distance away? Perhaps. That same ogre, if he's covered in mud and swimming through a bog? Perhaps.

But something either IS difficult to see, or it ISNT. Enforcing spot differently for different characters is a double standard.

In other words? Being unobservant doesn't mean that something is difficult to see. It means that you find it difficult to notice things. There's a subtle difference.

[Curmudgeon]

I disagree, in part. ... Being unobservant doesn't mean that something is difficult to see. It means that you find it difficult to notice things. There's a subtle difference.
In game terms, such a difference is too subtle to matter. We've got just the single skill to represent visual perception. Whether you're adjusting the DC or penalizing the skill check attempting to make that DC, the end result is that the character either notices something or not; it doesn't matter, mechanically, if the target is intrinsically hard to see or if they're merely unobservant.

[mucco]

By what the rules say? Colossal objects have a -16 penality to hide, so it "would" be a -16 DC. Factoring in the -1 to the check every 10 feet, that's 260 feet for the layman and around double that for a high-level adventurer (assuming ~20 ranks and ~+5 modifier).

Yes, distance penalties are borked, because it's hard to do any other simple ruling. The world works in a logarithmic way - if you want to have it realistic then houserule a logarithmic penalty. I usually do +4 to the DC every time the distance doubles. And dont put a cap on "creature sizes" when talking about Himalaya. :smalltongue:

[TOZ]

He can see forever.

[DonDuckie]

"It's a perfectly clear, cloudless night on the ocean."

"Oh, good. My character's going to use the stars to try to navigate, with Profession (Sailor)."

"Make a Spot check. The nearest object in the sky is 47,000 miles from you. Be sure to apply the appropriate negative modifiers for that distance, and ask about each other object in the sky for the correct modifiers."

"You're a real pain in the neck DM, Frank."

That would be kind of Evil, but I think stars count as obvious things in plain sight, DC 0, if not; make a ranged touch attack at the DM with a book, don't forget -4 penalty for lack of proficiency.

- Am I the only one thinking we read rulebooks like the devil reads the bibel. Figuratively speaking from an atheist

[Amphetryon]

That would be kind of Evil, but I think stars count as obvious things in plain sight, DC 0, if not; make a ranged touch attack at the DM with a book, don't forget -4 penalty for lack of proficiency.

- Am I the only one thinking we read rulebooks like the devil reads the bibel. Figuratively speaking from an atheist

DC 0 is still difficult to hit if you've got -3,470 to the modifier from distance. :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

Where are the colossal+ sizes detailed again?

[Circle of Life]

Where are the colossal+ sizes detailed again?

The Book of Epileptic Monkeys.

[Curmudgeon]

Where are the colossal+ sizes detailed again?
As far as I know there's no actual "Colossal+" size, just an effective size, allowed for Dragons only. From Draconomicon page 99:
Colossal+ Size: Although there is no size category larger than Colossal, the largest advanced dragons have a greater reach and deal more damage with their attacks than other Colossal dragons.

[Knaight]

The Epic Level Handbook contains Colossal+ (Titanic), Colossal++, so on and so forth.

[Curmudgeon]

The Epic Level Handbook contains Colossal+ (Titanic), Colossal++, so on and so forth.
1) Epic Level Handbook is 3.0 material. What parts that haven't already been reprinted in 3.5 sourcebooks have to undergo minor revisions to fit in with 3.5 rules, such as those for "Colossal+" size, already redone for dragons in Draconomicon.

2) I couldn't find anything in ELH for larger sizes outside of for dragons. From page 180:
Epic dragons, already Colossal+ by the time they reach the great wyrm stage, do not increase in size thereafter. Am I missing something there?

[Knaight]

1) Epic Level Handbook is 3.0 material. What parts that haven't already been reprinted in 3.5 sourcebooks have to undergo minor revisions to fit in with 3.5 rules, such as those for "Colossal+" size, already redone for dragons in Draconomicon.
Colossal ++ has never been redone. Neither has Colossal +++.

[Curmudgeon]

Colossal ++ has never been redone. Neither has Colossal +++.
And again, please, where exactly are these sizes specified? As I stated, I couldn't find anything in Epic Level Handbook for anything other than Colossal+, and that only for Dragons.

[Knaight]

I currently have no access to that book*, so I can't say with any certainty. However, I seem to remember it being in the creature advancement section.

*And won't for the foreseeable future. I'm not even on the same continent as my copy.

[Curmudgeon]

I currently have no access to that book, so I can't say with any certainty. However, I seem to remember it being in the creature advancement section.
There's no creature advancement section in Epic Level Handbook, so I think your memory is playing tricks on you. The only note about advancement in the Monsters chapter is for ECL. The individual monsters have advancement entries, topping out at 288 HD, and still no more than Colossal size. It's only Advanced Dragons which have an effective size of "Colossal+".

Most of the Epic Level Handbook is available as OGC here (http://www.d20srd.org/), under Epic Rules.

[Greymane]

There's no creature advancement section in Epic Level Handbook, so I think your memory is playing tricks on you. The only note about advancement in the Monsters chapter is for ECL. The individual monsters have advancement entries, topping out at 288 HD, and still no more than Colossal size. It's only Advanced Dragons which have an effective size of "Colossal+".

Most of the Epic Level Handbook is available as OGC here (http://www.d20srd.org/), under Epic Rules.

Curmudgeon, you are the Batman of RAW.

I have nothing useful to add to this conversation. :smallredface: