D&D 3.5 Vision?

[171akup]

I wanna know how far you can see in 3.5 for example if it was sunny outside in a grassy plain. How far would a creature be to stay out of sight. :smallbiggrin:

[Phelix-Mu]

Noooo. Don't ask this question.

Short Answer: Use common sense. Characters can see to the extent of the lit area around them, and can see all things therein that aren't using Hide and that are big enough to see given distance. Characters with darkvision or other stuff can use those rules to augment their interaction with light sources. Common. Sense.

Long Answer: The rules bork this up pretty hard by penalizing Spot checks over distance at a pretty abominable rate. Such that a person can't see a mountain from several miles away because of the horrendous penalties to Spot due to distance. The moon can't be seen because it is too far away. And other illogical nonsense that quickly spirals into total dysfunction.

[Psyren]

I see this a lot and I have to say that the moon probably has massive penalties due to size and illumination and not trying to be stealthy.

And note that the moon, if it is not lit up, can't be seen so it actually does have a little bit of basis.

[Phelix-Mu]

I see this a lot and I have to say that the moon probably has massive penalties due to size and illumination and not trying to be stealthy.

And note that the moon, if it is not lit up, can't be seen so it actually does have a little bit of basis.

Well, even if the moon isn't a good example, that the rules even call this kind of thing into question represents a kind of failure of the simulation aspect of the game. At least in my mind.

The rules given aren't unfixable. They just really should be fixed or taken as a very rough guideline. Meshing things that don't simulate well with a system that generally aims to simulate well is probably going to lead to some weird conundrums.

[TroubleBrewing]

One of the more popular examples is that due to distance penalties, characters shouldn't be able to see the sun.

Without factoring size category into it, your Spot check to see the sun starts at -49,082,880,000.

A Collosal creature gets -16 to hide. Unless the sun gets -50 billion to hide checks, the average person cannot see the sun.

By comparison, trying to see the moon starts at -126,139,200. It's almost 400 times harder to see the sun!

[Brookshw]

I see this a lot and I have to say that the moon probably has massive penalties due to size and illumination and not trying to be stealthy.

And note that the moon, if it is not lit up, can't be seen so it actually does have a little bit of basis.

So use the sun, same principle applies. You should always be able to see it unless it has concealment (behind a cloud, it's night and it's behind the planet etc). We can't see the medium which we see by :smalltongue:

Agreed with Phenix, common sense should win this one.

[Slipperychicken]

To fix the sun thing, I've heard that spot adjustments should be quadratic rather than linear, such that size can counteract distance penalties.

But for a game, only make players roll Spot for things which are actually hard to see or hidden.

[Psyren]

So use the sun, same principle applies.

The sun is even further away, but is many orders of magnitude larger and brighter to compensate.

What I'm saying is that the basic principle (faraway things should be harder to see) makes sense, and what people aren't taking into account is the second basic principle (that very large and bright things - such as, say, celestial bodies - take massive penalties to their "Hide check.")

The math is the only real issue, that and the fact that size stops at "Colossal" which doesn't really work when you're comparing the Tarrasque to, say, a planet.

[Brookshw]

The sun is even further away, but is many orders of magnitude larger and brighter to compensate.

What I'm saying is that the basic principle (faraway things should be harder to see) makes sense, and what people aren't taking into account is the second basic principle (that very large and bright things - such as, say, celestial bodies - take massive penalties to their "Hide check.")

The math is the only real issue, that and the fact that size stops at "Colossal" which doesn't really work when you're comparing the Tarrasque to, say, a planet.

Oh, we're not in disagreement. I just love the ridiculous notion of not being able to see these things. It would be decent to have better rules for very large sizes but alas.

[Slipperychicken]

Oh, we're not in disagreement. I just love the ridiculous notion of not being able to see these things. It would be decent to have better rules for very large sizes but alas.

To be fair to the writers, this bit heavily implies that you don't need a Spot check to see things which are obvious and not trying to hide.


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.

[Eldariel]

What I'm saying is that the basic principle (faraway things should be harder to see) makes sense, and what people aren't taking into account is the second basic principle (that very large and bright things - such as, say, celestial bodies - take massive penalties to their "Hide check.")

Well, it's not so much that but the fact that these factors aren't quantified by the rules and following the standard penalties (-4 per size category, the maximum ad hoc penalty of -20 for basically a massive light source trying to hide) you still can't even come close to offsetting the distance penalties since they're so ridiculously massive. Like, Sun has the diameter of ~1.4 * 10^6 km. The Tarrasque is 70ft. or ~2.13 * 10^-2 km. So the sun is about 6.6 * 10^7 times larger than the Tarrasque.

Since Big T is Colossal with -16 to Hide, the sun ought to have -16 * 6.6*10^7 = ~-1.05*10^9 penalty to Spot which pales in comparison to the -4.9 * 10^10 distance penalties. Indeed, the distance penalties are almost 10 times larger than the size penalties; the -20 adjustment for "impossible" thing (such as hiding the sun) does absolutely nothing in this case. Even -10^10 hiding penalty from brightness (completely unprecedented in the rules) would be woefully insufficient for sun to be visible.

Of course, this merely serves to showcase that the rules really don't function for determining sight range - simply because they don't model the actual physics of light at all but they're simply arbitrary numbers that aren't even in the right ballpark. It also shouldn't matter overtly much, of course.

[Psyren]

Well, it's not so much that but the fact that these factors aren't quantified by the rules and following the standard penalties (-4 per size category, the maximum ad hoc penalty of -20 for basically a massive light source trying to hide) you still can't even come close to offsetting the distance penalties since they're so ridiculously massive. Like, Sun has the diameter of ~1.4 * 10^6 km. The Tarrasque is 70ft. or ~2.13 * 10^-2 km. So the sun is about 6.6 * 10^7 times larger than the Tarrasque.

Since Big T is Colossal with -16 to Hide, the sun ought to have -16 * 6.6*10^7 = ~-1.05*10^9 penalty to Spot which pales in comparison to the -4.9 * 10^10 distance penalties. Indeed, the distance penalties are almost 10 times larger than the size penalties; the -20 adjustment for "impossible" thing (such as hiding the sun) does absolutely nothing in this case. Even -10^10 hiding penalty from brightness (completely unprecedented in the rules) would be woefully insufficient for sun to be visible.

I covered all that by saying "the math is the real issue" i.e. the penalties matter more than the size, luminosity isn't taken into account at all and the effects of size are capped while those of distance are not.