I can (kind of) see the Sun!

[Zweisteine]

I nearly finished this post, before realizing that the distance penalty was to the spot check, and not a modifier to the DC. Duh. I feel stupid now.By posting in this thread, you agree that the Sun is large and that the Sun is in plain sight at any time it is completely visible and not obscured by any object or other obstruction.
Obstructions include, but are not limited to, clouds, trees, buildings, and mountains. The atmosphere is not an obstruction. Most astronomical objects are too small to be considered an obstruction to viewing the sun.
Very dark blue is for just a touch of humor.

I was looking through the dysfunctional rules, and came across the bit about being unable to see the sun, because of the size penalties to spot. I went and looked at spot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm), and saw nothing conflicting with that. I tried to find something about size modifiers to the spot DC, but there aren't any (that should be a dysfunction itself).

Then I went to look at the basic rules for skills, and found this table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#difficultyClass) of example skill checks:
Table: Difficulty Class Examples
{TABLE=head]Difficulty (DC)|Example (Skill Used)
Very easy (0)|Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)
Easy (5)|Climb a knotted rope (Climb)
Average (10)|Hear an approaching guard (Listen)
Tough (15)|Rig a wagon wheel to fall off (Disable Device)
Challenging (20)|Swim in stormy water (Swim)
Formidable (25)|Open an average lock (Open Lock)
Heroic (30)|Leap across a 30-foot chasm (Jump)
Nearly impossible (40)|Track a squad of orcs across hard ground after 24 hours of rainfall (Survival)[/TABLE]

Sorry, anyone who sees this after the table code changes, you'll have to put in the time and effort to click the link above if you want to see the table in its original form.

It's right there in the first example:

Very easy (0) | Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)

Big things that aren't behind other things can't be missed unless you have a low wisdom and roll low. Those are the people who really do say, "I can't see the sun."
I was looking through the dysfunctional rules, and came across the bit about being unable to spot the sun, because of the size penalties to spot. I went and looked at spot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm), and saw nothing conflicting with that. I tried to find something about size modifiers to the spot DC, but there aren't any (that should be a dysfunction itself).

I suggest this highly logical solution to the problem of being unable to see things far away:
The distance penalty to spot should be replaced with an equivalent distance bonus to the spot DC (+1/10 ft). Besides solving the problem of being unable to see anything, it makes sense. You aren't worse at seeing things far away; they're just harder to see.

Any thoughts?
Does anything keep this from working?
How could this change be exploitable?
,

[Maginomicon]

The size isn't the issue. In the Underdark book, it says you can see a light source from a distance of up to twice its radius of dim illumination. Any planet close enough to a sun to support life is going to be constantly inside its radius of BRIGHT illumination, so you never have a problem seeing the sun or a moon. Period.

As for the spot distance limits, I've always treated spot as the ability to innately notice something detailed when glancing around at random. That is, you have precise vision at the range that spot allows, and anything beyond that is blurred in your vision by the distance involved. A mountain will obviously be visible, it'll just be blurred and you can't make out fine details of any sort.

[Deophaun]

A mountain will obviously be visible, it'll just be blurred and you can't make out fine details of any sort.
If you're flying, a mountain is visible from 100 miles away with a DC 20 Spot check. It is automatically visible with no Spot check at 50 miles away (Stromwrack).

Really, Spot checks are only for things that are hiding or what the DM has predetermined as being difficult to see.

[Vogonjeltz]

DMG states sight extends until it is obstructed in some fashion. Spot check != sight range.

[Silentone98]

I haven't even bothered to look at the specifics on this one, so partly speaking out my butt.

it is
a.) Not hidden, therefore not requiring a spot check(normally...)
b.) its distance is relatively "very close" due to its size, and in plain view. Rules aside, I am pretty certain this counts for something
c.) don't you get a huge spot check bonus to see something you already know is there? like a "I don't have to roll" type bonus? lol

I think the first point discludes it from dysfunctional rules... at least in the suns case.

[Particle_Man]

Distant stars might be a more interesting example than the sun, since presumably a single star that is far enough away might be visible IRL, but not provide even dim illumination at half the distance that it is from the spotter.

[Jack_Simth]

Distant stars might be a more interesting example than the sun, since presumably a single star that is far enough away might be visible IRL, but not provide even dim illumination at half the distance that it is from the spotter.
Interestingly enough, in D&D, starlight is dim light, and any character with low-light vision is not hampered on a cloudless night.

[Maginomicon]

Interestingly enough, in D&D, starlight is dim light, and any character with low-light vision is not hampered on a cloudless night.

Nah it makes sense. Starlight itself being dim illumination is simply a matter of your planet being within range of the dim illumination radius for a significant number of stars.

Personally, I drafted up a way of determining degrees of celestial and atmospheric concealment by time of day and cloud cover.

[Deophaun]

Honestly, interacting with individual stars probably shouldn't be a Spot check, but a Survival check or Profession (Sailor) check (for navigation), or either a Knowledge (Religion) or Knowledge (Arcana) check (for astrology).

[weckar]

DMG states sight extends until it is obstructed in some fashion. Spot check != sight range.

I say DENSITY OF AIR Sir! Obstruction indeed!

[Maginomicon]

Honestly, interacting with individual stars probably shouldn't be a Spot check, but a Survival check or Profession (Sailor) check (for navigation), or either a Knowledge (Religion) or Knowledge (Arcana) check (for astrology).

Off-topic kinda, but there is in fact a Profession (Astrologer) skill. It lets you give a minor buff and debuff (or optionally just the buff) to someone for a day. Unfortunately it takes 1d4 hours to accomplish this. Luckily, you don't have to grant the buff/debuff for the current day, so you can do it ahead of time, granting your entire party free buffs when they start adventuring next week.

[Vogonjeltz]

I say DENSITY OF AIR Sir! Obstruction indeed!

Fah I say! This argument is as transparent as the air! ;)

[Drachasor]

Really spot checks should probably be based on size, contrast, brightness, with penalties based on geometric distance increases.* You'd also need to have sizes continuing to scale up past Colossal indefinitely.

In other words, if you can see something large at say 100ft, then it should be just as easy to see something huge at 200ft or something gargantuan at 400ft. Assuming they all contrast with the surroundings similarly and there are no obstructions.

Penalties with linear distance is pretty bizarre, honestly.

*You could probably fit movement into there too, but that's perhaps a bit tricky.

[weckar]

Loss of detail by distance is actually quite linear. Loss of total perception is definitely not.

[Jeff the Green]

The problem with the moon and stars remains, though. The moon isn't actually a source of light so isn't covered by that rule and there's no way (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=274160) a single non-solar star produces enough light to provide illumination even at 1/10 the distance.

[Jack_Simth]

Yeah. To truly solve the problem of not being able to see them at all, you'll need to do some odd stuff.

Let's see... we'll leave the size penalties to size as they are, but add extra size categories - basically, just extend that -4 pattern to infinity. After colossal (30 foot space), every additional 10 feet added to the space adds another -4 to the Hide check. The diameter of the sun is about 4563648294 feet (give or take a little). That gives the Sun a Hide penalty of: 1,825,459,320 (give or take a little; with these numbers, we really don't care overly much about the last few digits)

We change the distance based spot penalty. Take the square root of (one tenth the distance in feet), and round via truncation. That's the penalty to spot. So at 10 feet, it's -1. At 40 feet, it's -2. At 90 feet, it's -3. And so on. At 1 AU, the spot penalty is: 221,541.

With those changes, you pretty much have to be blind to not see it (unless it's got total cover relative to you, of course, such as from clouds).

Additionally, we can turn those around and see about reversing the question: From how far away can the Sun be seen by a wis-10 character taking 10?

Well, we just take that 1,825,459,320, add 10, square it, and multiply be ten feet: About 3.332301765e19 feet. There's about 3.1038479e16 feet in a light year, so with those rules changes, that character can see a sun-sized object at a distance of about 1073 light years.

Good enough for a game?

[TypoNinja]

I think the simple realization that the spot rules weren't designed to be used outside the tactical scale solves it quite nicely.

By spot rules you can't see Mt.Everest from more than about 500 feet away. Which is patently ridiculous, which is why the DM doesn't even ask for the spot check, he just tells you about the huge mountain dominating the horizon.

[weckar]

So, we are assuming the sun is actively hiding now? Hide is, as far as I am aware, a skill that doesn't activate passively.

[Deophaun]

The problem with the moon and stars remains, though. The moon isn't actually a source of light so isn't covered by that rule
It's as much a source of light as a bulls-eye lantern is, or a light house. Both rely on reflective surfaces. Really, the argument that the moon isn't a source of light is just pedantry. Moonlight is a thing in D&D.

and there's no way (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=274160) a single non-solar star produces enough light to provide illumination even at 1/10 the distance.
But you can see the stars in general, because the stars do provide enough illumination. Whether you can see an individual star depends on whether or not a) the star is hiding and b) it is predetermined to be difficult to see. Otherwise, there's no Spot check for it.

[weckar]

Spot also assumes light diffusion by air molecules. Which are barely there in space. Beyond the atmosphere, distance penalties should be severely cut.

[TypoNinja]

It's as much a source of light as a bulls-eye lantern is, or a light house. Both rely on reflective surfaces. Really, the argument that the moon isn't a source of light is just pedantry. Moonlight is a thing in D&D.

But you can see the stars in general, because the stars do provide enough illumination. Whether you can see an individual star depends on whether or not a) the star is hiding and b) it is predetermined to be difficult to see. Otherwise, there's no Spot check for it.

The Dysfunction is based off of option B. Since distance penalties have no cap but size penalties do, extremely large structures are harder to Spot from long distances, even if it should be practical to notice them.

Interstellar distances are so large that even with the 20times illumination rule, if you were generous and said a Sun Illuminated its entire solar system (termination shock), it still wouldn't come close. Its about 0.0015 LY to the termination shock, its about 4.2 LY to Proxima Centauri. That's about 2500 times too far away for you to even have a chance of seeing, even with epic checks.

[Deophaun]

The Dysfunction is based off of option B. Since distance penalties have no cap but size penalties do, extremely large structures are harder to Spot from long distances, even if it should be practical to notice them.
There are no distance penalties if there is no Spot check required. So no, it's not option B.

[TypoNinja]

There are no distance penalties if there is no Spot check required. So no, it's not option B.

Why exactly would no spot check be required?

[Deophaun]

Why exactly would no spot check be required?
Because a) it is not hiding and b) the DM decides it is not difficult to see. Therefor, no Spot check.

In other words: if you're the DM and you logically think someone should be able to see something, they can. There can only be a dysfunction if you think they should be able to see the object, and yet assign a Spot check anyway. In which case, you are the dysfunction.

[TypoNinja]

Because a) it is not hiding and b) the DM decides it is not difficult to see. Therefor, no Spot check.

In other words: if you're the DM and you logically think someone should be able to see something, they can. There can only be a dysfunction if you think they should be able to see the object, and yet assign a Spot check anyway. In which case, you are the dysfunction.

You are mistaken about how the rules work. Hiding is not required for a Spot check.


Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.

Also, example DC's from the Skills section provides a DC 0 Spot check as its example.


Very easy (0) Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)

So spotting Proxima Centuri is a DC 0, -16 for size, and +way too much for distance.

Is it silly? Oh yes. Is it what the rules dictate. You betcha.

[Deophaun]

You are mistaken about how the rules work. Hiding is not required for a Spot check.
Maybe you want to actually read what I wrote, and what you quoted:

Because a) it is not hiding and b) the DM decides it is not difficult to see. Therefor, no Spot check.

Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.


Also, example DC's from the Skills section provides a DC 0 Spot check as its example.
Good for the table. Text trumps.

Besides, there are other examples, too. Like the fact that if you're flying, you can see a hill or peak from 50 miles away, no Spot check required. If it's 100 miles away, it's a DC 20.

So clearly, you are trying to apply Spot rules to cases where those rules are not to be applied. It makes as much sense to apply Spot checks to see stars as it does to apply Jump checks to making a sword.

[TypoNinja]

Maybe you want to actually read what I wrote, and what you quoted:




Oh, goody, DM fiat, well hell, why talk about the rules at all, the DM can just make **** up as he goes along! Thread over!




Good for the table. Text trumps.

No, that's not how that rule works, text trumps table when there is a contradiction, its not an excuse to ignore an inconvenient table.


Besides, there are other examples, too. Like the fact that if you're flying, you can see a hill or peak from 50 miles away, no Spot check required. If it's 100 miles away, it's a DC 20.


Really? What book is that from? Never come across it. I'm in favor of any thing that helps reduce dysfunction.



So clearly, you are trying to apply Spot rules to cases where those rules are not to be applied. It makes as much sense to apply Spot checks to see stars as it does to apply Jump checks to making a sword.

Clearly? Clearly? By who's definition?

I happen to agree, you may have noticed my first post in this thread was asserting that spot rules were never meant to be used past tactical scale?

But that just makes it wishful thinking ,(and a house rule), not anything official.

[Deophaun]

No, that's not how that rule works, text trumps table when there is a contradiction, its not an excuse to ignore an inconvenient table.
So the rules text says you only make Spot checks when something is hiding or difficult to see, and a table says otherwise, and there's no contradiction? Interesting...

Really? What book is that from? Never come across it. I'm in favor of any thing that helps reduce dysfunction.
The same place I said it was from the first time it was mentioned in this thread. It hasn't moved since.

[TuggyNE]

The problem with invoking "difficult to see" is that, well, the definition of something that is difficult to see is something with a high effective Spot DC now isn't it?

In other words, the rules are begging the question here, and doing so in a rather infuriating way; if someone with unusually sharp vision is looking at the stars, are they able to see faint stars that someone with normal vision would not? If not, why not?

Or, to give a perhaps more useful example, if you are looking for the entrance to a valuable mine on a long and extremely rough mountain slope from a distance, how close do you have to be before you can find it?

Actually, if the rules were properly generalized here, encounter distances would probably be subsumed in the general, and it would be possible to, for example, spot orcs 12 leagues off, or discern (and count) 115 riders from the top of a hill as they approach from miles away.

[Deophaun]

The problem with invoking "difficult to see" is that, well, the definition of something that is difficult to see is something with a high effective Spot DC now isn't it?
Where is that? What glossary entry? Page number?

In other words, the rules are begging the question here, and doing so in a rather infuriating way; if someone with unusually sharp vision is looking at the stars, are they able to see faint stars that someone with normal vision would not? If not, why not?
The answer has already been stated: Spot would be the wrong skill to use to view individual stars. You'd use Survival or Profession (sailor) if you were trying to navigate by them, or Profession (astrologer) if you were trying to do any kind of divination.

Or, to give a perhaps more useful example, if you are looking for the entrance to a valuable mine on a long and extremely rough mountain slope from a distance, how close do you have to be before you can find it?
A valuable mine? You shouldn't need a Spot check to see it. As long as you have LoS to it, such a thing would be obvious.

Actually, if the rules were properly generalized here, encounter distances would probably be subsumed in the general, and it would be possible to, for example, spot orcs 12 leagues off, or discern (and count) 115 riders from the top of a hill as they approach from miles away.
I would rather Spot checks with distance penalties be necessary for a) finding hidden items at a distance and b) otherwise used to determine fine detail. Knowing that there are three orcs at the end of a football field shouldn't be an issue. Identifying one as Krog, another as Gulg, and the third as Fluffy would require the check.

[Osiris]

The problem with the moon and stars remains, though. The moon isn't actually a source of light so isn't covered by that rule and there's no way (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=274160) a single non-solar star produces enough light to provide illumination even at 1/10 the distance.

M'kay, but in that thread you started and linked there, you compare the stars and world of Earth to the made up stars and planet of the Prime Material. Who knows how far away the stars are from the Prime in D&D? They don't have rules for that, and furthermore, this is ridiculous, and it's starting to make my brain hurt.

[Maginomicon]

and furthermore, this is ridiculous, and it's starting to make my brain hurt.Welcome to the forums.
:smallamused:

In seriousness though, the moon is a source of light. It's just reflected light from the sun. It's still light.

If anyone would like to see how I handle celestial and atmospheric concealment (that is, based on time of day and weather), PM me.

[Jeff the Green]

Wow. Deja vu all over again.


Spot also assumes light diffusion by air molecules. Which are barely there in space. Beyond the atmosphere, distance penalties should be severely cut.

No, it doesn't. Or at least, it shouldn't. There are plenty of airless environments to explore in D&D, so the rules should account for it. Also, this is the Oberoni fallacy.


The answer has already been stated: Spot would be the wrong skill to use to view individual stars. You'd use Survival or Profession (sailor) if you were trying to navigate by them, or Profession (astrologer) if you were trying to do any kind of divination.

Seriously? By that logic a blind sailor or astrologer would be able to see the stars. You don't need to be either to look up at the night sky and see them.


M'kay, but in that thread you started and linked there, you compare the stars and world of Earth to the made up stars and planet of the Prime Material. Who knows how far away the stars are from the Prime in D&D? They don't have rules for that, and furthermore, this is ridiculous, and it's starting to make my brain hurt.

I don't think it matters, though I'd need to do the math to be certain and I don't have the time or brainpower right now. Even if they're faint and really close there's no way we're within the radius.

[TuggyNE]

Where is that? What glossary entry? Page number?

It's in the name. You use Intimidate to scare people, and you scare people with Intimidate; Bluff is used to fool people, and vice versa; Jump is for leaping; and Spot is to see things. And, per the usual principle of skills, if something is easy enough to do without difficulty, you don't need to roll for it; this is determined by the DC and your modifier.


A valuable mine? You shouldn't need a Spot check to see it. As long as you have LoS to it, such a thing would be obvious.

If the mine has a relatively small entrance in a broken landscape, not so much. Also, from how far away can you see it? 50 miles, say? Clearly not. How about 20 miles away? 5? 1? 400 yards? 50 feet?

Yeah, the answer to these is "the rules do not handle this case properly if at all". And clearly, neither does intuition: I couldn't tell you off the top of my head which is right, and apparently you didn't even consider the possibility of different ranges. So leaving it up to DMs is not ideal.