I noticed this flaw in the original 3.5 rules and see it has been carried over here into the Pathfinder rules. Archery is getting blunt arrows because of a skill check rule that I think is penalized a bit to harshly. Now the rules state a longbow has a standard maximum distance of 1000' and for this range you take a -20 to hit penalty that makes sense but for that very same distance you take a -100 penalty on your Perception check. I would say this too makes sense if we were talking about trees, bushes, low cavern ceilings or such obstructions but this penalty is already enforced for a clear sunny day across a wide open field. I hope a correction to this rule can be found so that Robin Hood can once again become the archer of legendary ranged accuracy and that archery can once again have broadheads instead of blunt arrows.
I have always used best judgemen on penalties to Perception durring my game. I grew up in a town on the plains and if it is sunny and bright and flat one can see up to two miles with out problems. A huge creature is roughly the size of a tractor and I have gotten stuck in the country and had to walk for help (days prior to cell phones I know I am setting a date to my age here) and you can see a tractor and not reach it till three hours of constant walking. In a forest though or at night? That is when I set my penalties. This is one rule that can be RAWed but it often does not make alot of sense. All power to the GM house rule.
I have always used best judgemen on penalties to Perception durring my game. I grew up in a town on the plains and if it is sunny and bright and flat one can see up to two miles with out problems. A huge creature is roughly the size of a tractor and I have gotten stuck in the country and had to walk for help (days prior to cell phones I know I am setting a date to my age here) and you can see a tractor and not reach it till three hours of constant walking. In a forest though or at night? That is when I set my penalties. This is one rule that can be RAWed but it often does not make alot of sense. All power to the GM house rule.
Agreed that this can easily be houseruled (I'd personally set a 1 point penalty every 60' or 100'), what I don't understand is a fantasy setting should be considering rules for something like archery more seriously instead of an after thought addition.
Agreed that this can easily be houseruled (I'd personally set a 1 point penalty every 60' or 100'), what I don't understand is a fantasy setting should be considering rules for something like archery more seriously instead of an after thought addition.
I agree I feel that range has always been short shafted. (HA HA) I use alot of house rules when I have an ranged fighter in the party. Be it with bows or thrown weapons. With the use of mat/minis the game has I feel taken a step back on the long range combat. When does a wiz get to use the full range of fireball? When it comes to long distance fights I dont use a mat or minis to play and the soptting rules are usually thrown out the window.
It makes me wonder if one person was working out the Perception rules and another was working on the Ranged Attack rules without either of them talking to each other so they'd be on the same page in the end result. Visual range is only discussed when vision impairment is involved but regular daytime vision is rarely talked about, reading these rules you're blind as a bat before reaching a bows max range, yet on a clear day without obstructions we can see roughly 84000' (16 miles). Sure we can't tell that the guy walking by at that distance is a redhead with mustache and freckles wearing nikes and levi's but why limit us so drastically?
It makes me wonder if one person was working out the Perception rules and another was working on the Ranged Attack rules without either of them talking to each other so they'd be on the same page in the end result.
Well when you read the rules for them this sounds about right. Always has been a point of contention at my table no matter who was running the game. I have had some who Raw the decison for balance but then I myself have always house rulled it. Saw a game come crashing to a halt because two of the players at the table began to argue over RAW VS. Real.(The DM was a good story teller but bad a table controll) One of the players got up and left (RAW guy) and refused to play with Realism Guy till the rest of us tricked them into the same room at a party and they settled things.(The end of the argument was to just not bring it up again at the table and let the DM make the call) Many a good time ruined by RAW VS Real. Too bat too because that is the one part of the game that has always bothered me.
The perception skill is used to detect fine details or hidden things. You don't make perception checks to see things that are fully in evidence.
You don't make a percpetion check to notice someone walking in a plain, even if he is 100 m away. You will make a percpetion checl to recognize who is it !!!
The perception skill is used to detect fine details or hidden things. You don't make perception checks to see things that are fully in evidence.
You don't make a percpetion check to notice someone walking in a plain, even if he is 100 m away. You will make a percpetion checl to recognize who is it !!!
Have you ever played with a lawyer at the table? Not a Rules lawyer but a real lawyer who is also has a thing for RAW; along with a good DM (his stories were great) but one who is bad at solving conflicts or making calls because he just wanted everyone to get allong and no one to be mad at him. These are the kind of things that make Ranged Rules sticky.
I usually play RAI, because this is a game, not a juridical contract between DM and players. I want to have fun, not to spend a half night debating on the interpretation of a three-word sentence.
Moreover, English is not my mother tongue, but I always use books in English (translations are usually full of errors). As I will not certainly notice all the fine details of the rules, it is easier to considere them RAI rather than RAW.
Perception checks are also used to spot somebody that is attempting to hide so yes the ruling between Perception and ranged attacks do conflict with one another. You also use a Perception check to notice something even if you are not concentrating on that subject or as you said to recognize who is walking 100' away. Alone your recognition example Noir can easily be used as "You can't recognize him so how can you target an arrow to hit him?"
Can we can an OFFICIAL ruling on this? We are constantly discussing/arguing about this very thing in my group. As we have multiple GM's and rotate through games, the rules keep changing depending on whose game we're running.. which gets annoying/confusing.
Our basic question boils down to: When do you apply the range penalties of 1/10' to perception checks?
Person A argues for FINE DETAIL and opposing stealth.
Person B argues for all perception checks.
Lets also assume an open field (no obstructions).
You have a lookout on a tower, whose only job is to watch.
Someone is 250' away, and approaching.
Person A says:
To see a figure coming:
. Notice a visable creature +0
. Favorable conditions -2
. Total: -2 to Perception. Automatic success.
To tell WHO that figure is:
. Notice a visable creature +0
. Favorable conditions -2
. Distance to creature: 25
. Total: 23
Person B says:
To see a figure coming:
. Notice a visable creature +0
. Favorable conditions -2
. Distance to creature: 25
. Total: 23
To tell WHO that figure is:
. same. Total: 23
------------------
We tried using examples like the longbow only being -4 to hit at that distance, but then the discussion just goes right back to how can you hit something you didn't see due to range penalties on sight.
Person A has also argued that human vision, conservatively, has a 3 miles range. But at 1 mile, the range penalties would be -528 by person B's way of doing it.
PLEASE HELP! Who's interpretation is correct: A or B?