Spotting opponents to start an encounter

[Andezzar]

In different terrains there are different distances at which spot checks to discover hiding opponents may be attempted. Depending on the type this can go up to 1440 ft, but spot checks are supposed to be modified by -1 per 10 ft. of distance. At maximum range this would be -144! Am I missing something or are there supposed to be a lot of pointless rolls? All but the most skillful spotters would rarely spot anything beyond 100 ft (about 30m) in any terrain with perfect visibility :confused:

When am I supposed to start an encounter with opponents that are not hiding?

[Golden Ladybug]

When they're not hiding.

Some advice that I got from a friend (who originally introduced me to D&D) when I started DMing with my real life group was to ignore what I didn't want to deal with, and no one else wanted to deal with either. This, I think, is an example.

IF you want the PC to run into an enemy that isn't hiding, they run into them. You don't call for Spot Checks, because they're not necessary; the thing is here, not even hiding. Do what you want PCs.

If you want to give them a chance to not engage based on their spot rolls, make a Hide vs Spot check and assign a penalty that gives them whatever sort of chance you want them to have.

If they're in an ambush, the same.

Rules like this are enjoyed by some, but not by others. I know there are people who swear by enforcing XP Penalties for multiclassing and there are others who couldn't care less. Play the Game as you want to play it, in a way that is the most fun for all involved.

[Curmudgeon]

You don't roll when the DC is impossible to make (21+ needed on the d20 roll). The DC to see something Large in plain sight (i.e., not hiding) is 0, and you adjust for sizes. You can effectively halve all distances if a character is looking through a spyglass (2X magnification). Still, this means all encounters start at fairly short distances.

I don't use a lot of house rules, but this linear scaling penalty for a real-world logarithmic increase in difficulty was spoiling my games, so I came up with this:

Range penalties for Spot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm) and Listen (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/listen.htm) are reduced:

From 101'-300', range penalties add -1 per additional 20'.
From 301'-600', range penalties add -1 per additional 30'.
From 601'-1000', range penalties add -1 per additional 40'.
Beyond 1000', range penalties add -1 per additional 50'.


{TABLE="head"] Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty
10' | -1 | | 160' | -13 | | 450' | -25 | | 880' | -37
20' | -2 | | 180' | -14 | | 480' | -26 | | 920' | -38
30' | -3 | | 200' | -15 | | 510' | -27 | | 960' | -49
40' | -4 | | 220' | -16 | | 540' | -28 | | 1000' | -40
50' | -5 | | 240' | -17 | | 570' | -29 | | 1050' | -41
60' | -6 | | 260' | -18 | | 600' | -30 | | 1100' | -42
70' | -7 | | 280' | -19 | | 640' | -31 | | 1150' | -43
80' | -8 | | 300' | -20 | | 680' | -32 | | 1200' | -44
90' | -9 | | 330' | -21 | | 720' | -33 | | 1250' | -45
100' | -10 | | 360' | -22 | | 760' | -34 | | 1300' | -46
120' | -11 | | 390' | -23 | | 800' | -35 | | 1350' | -47
140' | -12 | | 420' | -24 | | 840' | -36 | | 1400' | -48[/TABLE]

This addresses the issue of characters being incapable of perceiving enemies at D&D encounter distances (up to 1440'). -48 is tough to make with up to 23 ranks in Spot or Listen; the -144 of the standard rules is impossible.

[Andezzar]

You don't roll when the DC is impossible to make (21+ needed on the d20 roll). The DC to see something Large in plain sight (i.e., not hiding) is 0, and you adjust for sizes.Ah thank you, I was not sure if it was 0, 5 or 10. You can effectively halve all distances if a character is looking through a spyglass (2X magnification). Still, this means all encounters start at fairly short distances.


I don't use a lot of house rules, but this linear scaling penalty for a real-world logarithmic increase in difficulty was spoiling my games, so I came up with this:

Range penalties for Spot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm) and Listen (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/listen.htm) are reduced:

From 101'-300', range penalties add -1 per additional 20'.
From 301'-600', range penalties add -1 per additional 30'.
From 601'-1000', range penalties add -1 per additional 40'.
Beyond 1000', range penalties add -1 per additional 50'.


{TABLE="head"] Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty
10' | -1 | | 160' | -13 | | 450' | -25 | | 880' | -37
20' | -2 | | 180' | -14 | | 480' | -26 | | 920' | -38
30' | -3 | | 200' | -15 | | 510' | -27 | | 960' | -49
40' | -4 | | 220' | -16 | | 540' | -28 | | 1000' | -40
50' | -5 | | 240' | -17 | | 570' | -29 | | 1050' | -41
60' | -6 | | 260' | -18 | | 600' | -30 | | 1100' | -42
70' | -7 | | 280' | -19 | | 640' | -31 | | 1150' | -43
80' | -8 | | 300' | -20 | | 680' | -32 | | 1200' | -44
90' | -9 | | 330' | -21 | | 720' | -33 | | 1250' | -45
100' | -10 | | 360' | -22 | | 760' | -34 | | 1300' | -46
120' | -11 | | 390' | -23 | | 800' | -35 | | 1350' | -47
140' | -12 | | 420' | -24 | | 840' | -36 | | 1400' | -48[/TABLE]

This addresses the issue of characters being incapable of perceiving enemies at D&D encounter distances (up to 1440'). -48 is tough to make with up to 23 ranks in Spot or Listen; the -144 of the standard rules is impossible.That looks a lot better. I'll steal it, if you don't mind.

[Palanan]

This is one of those rules that convinced me the folks at Wizards don't get outside much. I'm not an especially good birder, but I can easily tell a kingfisher from an osprey at 500', and out on the water you can ID frigatebirds from a mile away.

So, Golden Ladybug is right--this is an excellent example of a rule you can ignore. It's never come up in any 3.5 game I've played in.

[TuggyNE]

I don't use a lot of house rules, but this linear scaling penalty for a real-world logarithmic increase in difficulty was spoiling my games, so I came up with this:

Range penalties for Spot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm) and Listen (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/listen.htm) are reduced:

From 101'-300', range penalties add -1 per additional 20'.
From 301'-600', range penalties add -1 per additional 30'.
From 601'-1000', range penalties add -1 per additional 40'.
Beyond 1000', range penalties add -1 per additional 50'.


{TABLE="head"] Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty | | Distance | Penalty
10' | -1 | | 160' | -13 | | 450' | -25 | | 880' | -37
20' | -2 | | 180' | -14 | | 480' | -26 | | 920' | -38
30' | -3 | | 200' | -15 | | 510' | -27 | | 960' | -49
40' | -4 | | 220' | -16 | | 540' | -28 | | 1000' | -40
50' | -5 | | 240' | -17 | | 570' | -29 | | 1050' | -41
60' | -6 | | 260' | -18 | | 600' | -30 | | 1100' | -42
70' | -7 | | 280' | -19 | | 640' | -31 | | 1150' | -43
80' | -8 | | 300' | -20 | | 680' | -32 | | 1200' | -44
90' | -9 | | 330' | -21 | | 720' | -33 | | 1250' | -45
100' | -10 | | 360' | -22 | | 760' | -34 | | 1300' | -46
120' | -11 | | 390' | -23 | | 800' | -35 | | 1350' | -47
140' | -12 | | 420' | -24 | | 840' | -36 | | 1400' | -48[/TABLE]

This addresses the issue of characters being incapable of perceiving enemies at D&D encounter distances (up to 1440'). -48 is tough to make with up to 23 ranks in Spot or Listen; the -144 of the standard rules is impossible.

I believe I shall yoink this for future use! Thanks, Curmudgeon. :smallcool:

[Curmudgeon]

So, Golden Ladybug is right--this is an excellent example of a rule you can ignore. It's never come up in any 3.5 game I've played in.
So you've never had any characters who wanted to be scouts (the role, not necessarily the Scout class)? If everybody can automatically see perfectly, you've just removed a big part of what makes the scout archetype. Similarly, all the enemies automatically know you're coming unless everyone in the party is capable of making Hide checks out in the open.

[Zaranthan]

This is one of those rules that convinced me the folks at Wizards don't get outside much. I'm not an especially good birder, but I can easily tell a kingfisher from an osprey at 500', and out on the water you can ID frigatebirds from a mile away.

So, Golden Ladybug is right--this is an excellent example of a rule you can ignore. It's never come up in any 3.5 game I've played in.

I choose to interpret it the other way around: the rules create the reality of the game world. In the real world, vision reaches as far as it can before hitting an obstacle. Eventually, things start dropping below the horizon as the planet curves away. In the game world, air isn't so transparent. "Typical" conditions include a mild haze that blurs forms not too far in the distance. Even mountain ranges are hard to pick out from across a large field.

It means the Material Plane is a rather alien place compared to our Mother Earth, and I like that. After all, it's got wizards and dragons in it, why is thick air suddenly surprising?

[Andezzar]

Hah, that is an interesting interpretation.

[sonofzeal]

Remember that you can only make Hide checks if you have concealment and are trying to hide, and that the Spot skill has no DC for unopposed rolls except reading lips. The way I read the rules, you can see to infinity and back unless you're trying to recognize details.

[Curmudgeon]

Remember that you can only make Hide checks if you have concealment and are trying to hide, and that the Spot skill has no DC for unopposed rolls except reading lips.
You might want to check a couple pages of your Player's Handbook again. 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 page 83:

Check: 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.
In short, there is a DC to Spot someone who isn't hiding, and if you fail that check you've proven that they're still difficult for you to see.

[sonofzeal]

You might want to check a couple pages of your Player's Handbook again. Page 64:
and page 83:

In short, there is a DC to Spot someone who isn't hiding, and if you fail that check you've proven that they're still difficult for you to see.
Hmm, I didn't notice the pg64 text. The pg 83 text is ambigous though; it could simply imply that something with concealment requires a spot check, as that would qualify as "difficult to see".

The odd thing is that the Spot rules themselves contradict the pg 64 text. "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."

In other words, primarily, you aren't rolling at all for unopposed Spot checks, even against a low DC. If spotting anything at all is a DC 0, and characters can have penalties due to low wisdom or flaws or traits, that means that in theory characters should be rolling Spot checks all the time. But the Spot rules are fairly clear that this isn't the case. If seeing even large objects in clear view has a DC, then that must be the "primary", "typical" use.

I realize it's slightly outside of RAW, but I'd rather treat the pg 64 text as more of a hypothetical starting point. Seeing a large object in plain sight is DC 0, but you don't actually have to roll against that DC unless the clauses from the actual Spot rules are met - namely, that it's "hiding" or "difficult to see". Since the latter is a subjective term with no definition or clarifying text given, the DM arbitrates what that means, but they're entirely within their rights to not require Spot checks until there's something interfering.

The upshot of all of that means that you can see a person at a thousand feet, but the moment they give even a halfhearted attempt at hiding it's pretty much impossible to pick them out. And while that might be slightly unrealistic, I think it's as reasonable as most things you'll see in D&D.

[Zaranthan]

If spotting anything at all is a DC 0, and characters can have penalties due to low wisdom or flaws or traits, that means that in theory characters should be rolling Spot checks all the time.

Technically, you are. People just usually gloss over it in casual encounters. After all, you get a free spot check every round to notice EVERY SINGLE THING IN SIGHT. Unless you're in a hurry, you'll roll a 20 against everything around you eventually (notice this accounts for day-to-day occurrences from the real world, like not noticing a bump in the sidewalk until you trip over it). Also, once you've spotted somebody, you get all kinds of bonuses to spot them again, so things work out in practice much like they do in reality: there are a lot of distractions out there, so you might not notice everything immediately, but usually you'll only have a hard time picking out stuff that's either far away or actively concealing itself.

[Curmudgeon]

The odd thing is that the Spot rules themselves contradict the pg 64 text. "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."

In other words, primarily, you aren't rolling at all for unopposed Spot checks, even against a low DC.
There's no contradiction there. The words primarily and typically allow for exactly that situation: when someone isn't hiding, but they may still be difficult to see if the character isn't perceptive. The Spot check result (against a fixed DC instead of the typical opposed Hide check) will determine if that's the case.

[sonofzeal]

Technically, you are. People just usually gloss over it in casual encounters. After all, you get a free spot check every round to notice EVERY SINGLE THING IN SIGHT. Unless you're in a hurry, you'll roll a 20 against everything around you eventually (notice this accounts for day-to-day occurrences from the real world, like not noticing a bump in the sidewalk until you trip over it). Also, once you've spotted somebody, you get all kinds of bonuses to spot them again, so things work out in practice much like they do in reality: there are a lot of distractions out there, so you might not notice everything immediately, but usually you'll only have a hard time picking out stuff that's either far away or actively concealing itself.
While I agree that it does strike up a nice analogue to the real world if used that way, it still violates the actual wording of the Spot skill and makes it impossible for a normal person to see anything more than 60 meters away. It's also a hell of a way to play the game, making five dozen Spot checks every time you open a door. I think my interpretation lines up better with the real world overall, is more in accordance with RAI, and makes more gameplay sense.




There's no contradiction there. The words primarily and typically allow for exactly that situation: when someone isn't hiding, but they may still be difficult to see if the character isn't perceptive. The Spot check result (against a fixed DC instead of the typical opposed Hide check) will determine if that's the case.
But then the primary use is checking to see if you notice things clearly visibile, and typically you'll be rolling against those flat DCs. The wording of the Spot rules simply does not allow for that as a default state of affairs, only as an occasional exception.

[Curmudgeon]

But then the primary use is checking to see if you notice things clearly visibile, and typically you'll be rolling against those flat DCs. The wording of the Spot rules simply does not allow for that as a default state of affairs, only as an occasional exception.
The presumption is simply that the DM typically isn't going to require explicit Spot checks for most things that don't affect game play: the ground underfoot, the trees alongside the path, some fallen stone blocks, & c. See the EXAMPLE OF PLAY on pages 8-10 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, which starts with
Tordek: Let’s give these upper ruins one more quick look.
DM: [Making some rolls in secret, but knowing there’s nothing to find in the burned-out shell of the monastery.] You don’t find anything. Nothing is hiding there, but the DM is (pretending to be) rolling Spot checks for the characters, using the DETERMINING OUTCOMES (page 18) guideline.
In cases where the player shouldn’t know the die result, you can make the roll, keeping dice behind a screen or otherwise out of sight. (No, those wouldn't be Search checks; that skill requires a minimum of a full round for every 5' square, so it's incompatible with "one more quick look" for something the size of a monastery; it would also be very many rolls rather than "some".)

[sonofzeal]

The presumption is simply that the DM typically isn't going to require explicit Spot checks for most things that don't affect game play: the ground underfoot, the trees alongside the path, some fallen stone blocks, & c. See the EXAMPLE OF PLAY on pages 8-10 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, which starts with Nothing is hiding there, but the DM is (pretending to be) rolling Spot checks for the characters, using the DETERMINING OUTCOMES (page 18) guideline. (No, those wouldn't be Search checks; that skill requires a minimum of a full round for every 5' square, so it's incompatible with "one more quick look" for something the size of a monastery; it would also be very many rolls rather than "some".)
I don't think that's conclusive in the slightest; indeed, I think it actually supports my argument. The DM knows there's "nothing" up there, but is rolling anyway. The implication is not that the ruin is totally empty of everything, but that there's nothing hiding. It's pretty much explicitly stated that he's rolling the Spot checks as a bluff, which he wouldn't have to if he was supposed to roll for every little doodad.

There could have been things hiding or otherwise concealed up there, so he bluffs and rolls the dice even though there isn't, and then reveals the (lack of) outcome. That fits my interpretation perfectly.

[Curmudgeon]

After all, you get a free spot check every round to notice EVERY SINGLE THING IN SIGHT. Unless you're in a hurry, you'll roll a 20 against everything around you eventually
You get one initial free Spot check to notice things in a reactive fashion. After that, you've got to consciously work at paying better attention.
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.
So you only eventually get that 20 on your roll if you keep using move actions for your Spot rechecks.


There could have been things hiding or otherwise concealed up there, so he bluffs and rolls the dice even though there isn't, and then reveals the (lack of) outcome. That fits my interpretation perfectly.
But that's not what was written; it's actually "nothing to find", not "nothing hiding".

Your basic premise is that if you read the rules with an assumption that they contradict themselves, you might then be able to ignore the Spot DC to notice things in plain sight; i.e., characters get a free pass on perception checks unless someone is actively hiding.

I don't buy this sort of disingenuous argument. It seems to me you've got a desired outcome in mind, and you're trying really hard to squint at the rules until they read the way you'd like them to. Personally, I prefer to take the rules as written, and deal honestly with problems there (as I've done with my house rule reducing distance penalties) rather than pretend those problems don't exist.