[3.5] Spot vs. Mundane Objects

[Thurbane]

This is probably just an epic reading fail on my part, but where would I find the rules on how to spot objects that are not actively hiding.

For instance, there is a smallish hut on a hilly plain - how do I calculate how far away I am before I start rolling Spot checks to notice it? I know there is a terrain type chart that has a figures for how far away encounters start somewhere. Is there spot DCs for static objects based on size somewhere?

Also, same question, but in regards to creatures not hiding - say a traveler riding a horse approaching from the opposite direction on a road.

My group has struggled with this a few times over the past couple of sessions (My party also has amazingly bad spot checks all around, with the best being +3 at 7th level; the rest sit around +0 and -1). :smalltongue:

Cheers - T

[Kraken]

The spot rules are known to be dysfunctional, there was an amusing discussion about it recently where people were basically claiming that you don't need to make spot checks to see people hundreds of feet away (edit: miles, even) if they're not hiding and you're on a plain or something. The argument seemed to be that anything you have line of sight to, you see automatically. The sensible thing to do is apply the appropriate size modifier to the object, then add the normal +1 per 10' of distance. Consider adding a circumstance bonus or penalty depending on the contrast of the object's color to its surroundings.

[ericgrau]

Typically you don't:


Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen.


If and only if the DM feels an object is unusually hard to see he might make a special case and make a spot DC for the object. If you are doing this or anything else more often then you are rolling for spot against a hiding creature then you are doing something wrong. Even then the one hiding must have cover, concealment, or hide in plain sight; he can't otherwise roll hide out in the open or during random travel. He must have actively positioned himself behind something.

But while the rules intentionally don't support objects and such very well, a base DC of 0 is a good rough starting point and then you add on modifiers for size, distance and any ad hoc thing you want from there... again if and only if something is obscuring it or otherwise making it unusually hard to see in some way much more uncommon than a hiding creature. Sure you can see 10 miles in crisp mountain air, but throw in random trees, a little weather in the air or whatever and you can't see 1/100th as far. Past some point there is even total concealment and you can't see anything no matter how good your eyes are because the view is completely blocked.

[Thurbane]

Fair enough, I will point this out to the DM.

I just assumed there was a rule somewhere, similar to the set DCs for certain skills on p.31 of the DMG.

[ericgrau]

I think there is a DC 0 for "large object in plain sight" in the PHB but not the SRD. But that can lead to all kinds of silliness if you use it to roll spot for every single object as people have brought up before. So yeah, stick to unusual obscurement.

[TuggyNE]

I think there is a DC 0 for "large object in plain sight" in the PHB but not the SRD. But that can lead to all kinds of silliness if you use it to roll spot for every single object as people have brought up before. So yeah, stick to unusual obscurement.

It's in the SRD too (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#tableDifficultyClassExamples).

[Angelalex242]

"You fail to spot the sun. It's a clear day, by the way."

[Thurbane]

It's in the SRD too (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#tableDifficultyClassExamples).
Aha... thank you. :smallwink:

[Maginomicon]

"You fail to spot the sun. It's a clear day, by the way."

The Underdark book has a sidebar on page 106 that states that in dark conditions (which without the sun it would otherwise be), a light source is automatically seen at a distance of 10 times its radius of bright illumination. The sun is thus clearly visible during in the day assuming no cloud cover.

[nedz]

The spot rules are known to be dysfunctional, there was an amusing discussion about it recently where people were basically claiming that you don't need to make spot checks to see people hundreds of feet away (edit: miles, even) if they're not hiding and you're on a plain or something. The argument seemed to be that anything you have line of sight to, you see automatically. The sensible thing to do is apply the appropriate size modifier to the object, then add the normal +1 per 10' of distance. Consider adding a circumstance bonus or penalty depending on the contrast of the object's color to its surroundings.

IIRC only one person was making that claim.:smallsigh:

[TuggyNE]

IIRC only one person was making that claim.:smallsigh:

*stifles a cough that sounds alot like "pickford"* Spot what I did there? :P

[Greenish]

The sensible thing to do is apply the appropriate size modifier to the object, then add the normal +1 per 10' of distance.That's not sensible in any meaning of the word. You'd need to beat DC 28 Spot check to notice the outhouse from a hundred metres. That really sucks when you gotta go.

[ericgrau]

It's sensible if the outhouse is behind a dozen trees or light fog or what not. You could also circle around until you got a better view (get closer and/or take a 20). Part of why I'd stick to making it a special case for unusually hard to see objects, not normal objects. As the exception not the rule. Since the rule is mainly for locating actively hiding creatures.

It is notable that the SRD entry for large object in plain sight wasn't in the normal spot rules, but as an example of something super easy. It doesn't necessarily scale from there. But if an object is unusually hard to see it's a good enough guess at a starting point as any.

And if I was a wizard making magical outhouses I'd totally find a way to get them a shadowdancer level for hide in plain sight. "What do you mean? The outhouse is just a couple hundred feet that way right out in the open <points>". That and magical waste elimination, but you know, prioirities

[Maginomicon]

That's not sensible in any meaning of the word. You'd need to beat DC 28 Spot check to notice the outhouse from a hundred metres. That really sucks when you gotta go.
100m = ~330 ft (For comparison, a little longer than an American football field) = 33 spot increments = DC 33 before size modifiers. That's kinda far away to just "spot" something, and your line of sight could be blocked by any number of things.

Assuming that we're trying to spot a colossal creature (or something the size of a colossal creature), that's a -16 to the DC, so DC 17. That's... kinda reasonable really.

[Telok]

100m = ~330 ft (For comparison, a little longer than an American football field) = 33 spot increments = DC 33 before size modifiers. That's kinda far away to just "spot" something, and your line of sight could be blocked by any number of things.

Assuming that we're trying to spot a colossal creature (or something the size of a colossal creature), that's a -16 to the DC, so DC 17. That's... kinda reasonable really.

Please keep in mind that you just argued in favor of seeing a fooball goal from the other side of the field to be a 20+ DC.

The light radius rule also means that you can't see someone waving a torch more than three hundred feet away on a dark night. In fact a line of fifty people with torches still can't be seen from more than three hundred feet away. Then compare this with the tail lights of an automobile at night. You can see those much more than 300' away and they aren't giving thirty feet of bright light and another thirty feet of dim light.

[Frozen_Feet]

The spot rules are known to be dysfunctional, there was an amusing discussion about it recently where people were basically claiming that you don't need to make spot checks to see people hundreds of feet away (edit: miles, even) if they're not hiding and you're on a plain or something. The argument seemed to be that anything you have line of sight to, you see automatically.

Yes, and? This is how sight works in real life. D&D characters even have defined ranges of vision in poorly lit conditions.

[Kraken]

That's not sensible in any meaning of the word. You'd need to beat DC 28 Spot check to notice the outhouse from a hundred metres. That really sucks when you gotta go.

Please read the next sentence of the post you quoted. :smallsigh:

[Maginomicon]

Please keep in mind that you just argued in favor of seeing a fooball goal from the other side of the field to be a 20+ DC.

The light radius rule also means that you can't see someone waving a torch more than three hundred feet away on a dark night. In fact a line of fifty people with torches still can't be seen from more than three hundred feet away. Then compare this with the tail lights of an automobile at night. You can see those much more than 300' away and they aren't giving thirty feet of bright light and another thirty feet of dim light.
Multiple light sources are treated as a larger light source. It's not a perfect system, as a collection of torches in reality has a larger radius than any one torch, but it's passable for our purposes. Furthermore, car tail lights are designed to be directional whereas a torch is not. A bulls-eye lantern would be a better comparison, and a crookneck lantern might be an even better comparison than that (as that's more explicitly a flashlight).

You also seem to have missed that that light radius rule was the range of automatically detecting it (not requiring a check). You then start making checks up to a distance of double that radius.

Most of the "Wilderness" section of the SRD relies on the assumption that minor distractions, minor blocks of line-of-sight, and other goings-on in your immediate area drastically decrease the effective spot radius. Of course if you're gazing in a particular direction for a second you're going to be able to see a lot farther. You're not though, as there's no facing.

[Greenish]

Please read the next sentence of the post you quoted. :smallsigh:I did read it. It didn't change how silly the basic "+1/10 ft." is.

[Kraken]

Only if you assume circumstance bonuses to be rare and special things.

[Greenish]

Only if you assume circumstance bonuses to be rare and special things.A huge vine-covered mansion in the middle of a flat lawn should be visible from a few km off even for Joe the Commoner.

Also, it's just a band-aid to cover the problem, not anything actually useful. For the question "what's the DC to see that building?" the answer of "oh, it's +1 per 10 ft., minus size modifier, and a circumstance modifier of unspecified size" is no better than "just pick a number that feels right" (or "it's a freaking building, just standing there, of course you see it").

[Kraken]

Describe a situation where you would actually call for a spot check in a real to show how the formula doesn't work, please. I'd imagine that few people ever are going to call for a spot check to see the sun or a mansion.