Doesn't it seem a little crazy to have a distance modifier of +1/100 feet for seeing something hidden in bright light conditions? For instance, if an elven sniper is hidden in some bushes 300 feet away (the length of an American football field), he only gets a +3 bonus. That seems a little bit off to me. I like the 3.5 version better (+1/10 feet for bright light of any kind).
I like this change from game balance perspective. In 3e, an archer could hide 200' away from the party and enjoy a massive +20 to his hide check, which nicely offsets the -20 penalty on hide checks from sniping. Combine this with a good hide bonus, and the archer is practically undetectable. If he somehow was detected, he could just not snipe the next round, hide and distance himself from the party and start sniping again.
|
I like this change from game balance perspective. In 3e, an archer could hide 200' away from the party and enjoy a massive +20 to his hide check, which nicely offsets the -20 penalty on hide checks from sniping. Combine this with a good hide bonus, and the archer is practically undetectable. If he somehow was detected, he could just not snipe the next round, hide and distance himself from the party and start sniping again.
Seems to me that an archer hidden 200 feet away should be relatively undetectable. Snipers really are dangerous (modulo the damage they can do, of course).
I still think that sniping should be feasible for a semi-skilled character, even in daylight.
Consider a level 2 elf ranger with 16 Dex. He has a Stealth modifer of +8. So for him to be able to successfully snipe at Joe the Woodcutter (Perception +0) 50% of the time, he needs to be a whopping 1,200 feet away -- farther than the maximum range of a composite longbow.
I'd be happy with something in between.
Also, having different modifiers for daylight/torchlight/candlelight is introducing a new gradation over bright light/shadowy light for little benefit (in my opinion).
I'm with you Hogarth.
There's a reason that sniping is one of the most effective ways to approach any combat situation.
The poor characters who take far shot very rarely get a chance to use their max range, let's not make life hard for them in the few situations where they can.
And also, it really is hard to spot things a hundred feet away.
Let perception be at +1 per 10 feet. No really good reasons to change, and perception has too many conditional modifiers that doesn't make me want to use it as is.
I was just looking down my garden wondering about this. Someone trying to hide and I'm not actively looking, spending time staring at each smallish area? I have bugger all chance of noticing them if they aren't morons, at 100+ feet.
Sure, but I think D&D characters are generally assumed to be looking around for possible threats most of the time. Nevertheless, a motionless enemy hiding in some shrubs 300 feet away (say) should be just about invisible, I think.
|
|
Sure, but I think D&D characters are generally assumed to be looking around for possible threats most of the time. Nevertheless, a motionless enemy hiding in some shrubs 300 feet away (say) should be just about invisible, I think.
Well, even with no facing rules in 3.x, I don't think that characters are doing a close look around 360 degrees, all the time. That should slow them up at the least, because you'd be through an area too quickly to have a really close look everywhere, even at normal walking pace.
Perception (sight) is influenced by a lot of factors. What we need are the variables akin to encounter distance found e.g. in the old 3.0 DMG.
Unfortunately, this can really complicate things a lot. Even so, here are some of the things I think should influence the distance modifier when making a Perception (sight) check:
Terrain:
* Smoke or heavy fog
* Dense forest/jungle
* Light forest
* Grass land/hilly
* Grass land/flat
Weather:
* Severe (Blizzard/sandstorm)
* Bad (downpour, snow)
* Medium (light drizzle, heatwave (desert))
* Light (light rain, overcast)
* Clear (erm... sunny)
Lighting (natural):
* Total darkness
* Starlight
* Moonlight
* Dusk/Twilight
* Daylight
Lighting (artificial):
* Daylight (spell)
* Lantern
* Torch
* Candle
Size/number of creatures:
This is partially taken care of in regard to creature size, but I don't think there are any modifiers for several creatures of same (or differing) size.
So, what does this mean?
It would mean that e.g. the range modifier in flat grassland could easily be the +1/100', +1/50' in hilly grassland while in dense forest it could be +1/10' and +1/5' in fog/smoke (numbers are just suggestions).
If several of the above distance modifiers come into play, one would go by the most "obscuring" distance.
Perception (sight) is influenced by a lot of factors. What we need are the variables akin to encounter distance found e.g. in the old 3.0 DMG.
There are encounter distances listed in Pathfinder; they're listed under the individual type of terrain (e.g. on page 318, it says encounter distance in gentle hills is 2d10 x 10 feet and in rugged hills it's 2d6 x 10 feet).
That has nothing to do with spotting enemies once the encounter has begun, though.
Perception (sight) is influenced by a lot of factors. What we need are the variables akin to encounter distance found e.g. in the old 3.0 DMG.There are encounter distances listed in Pathfinder; they're listed under the individual type of terrain (e.g. on page 318, it says encounter distance in gentle hills is 2d10 x 10 feet and in rugged hills it's 2d6 x 10 feet).
That has nothing to do with spotting enemies once the encounter has begun, though.
Oh I know, I just mentioned that these same categories could be applied to spotting enemies after an encounter had begun too, i.e. these situational modifiers would also affect general spotting distance not just encounter distance.
Oh I know, I just mentioned that these same categories could be applied to spotting enemies after an encounter had begun too, i.e. these situational modifiers would also affect general spotting distance not just encounter distance.
A guy is hiding in a patch of concealment 300 feet away with no intervening objects. Why would it matter if the terrain in between is grassland or swamp?
I agree that stuff like smoke or rain might give a greater distance penalty, though.
|
Keep in mind the +3 is just for the distance-- if a guy is standing 300' away and has no form of cover, then he's going to be fairly easy to spot. However, if our sniper is prone beneath some thick bushes that provide improved cover, then he's got a +10 to that Hide check for only having his eyes and crossbow peering out. Now he's just increased his success rate by effectively 50%.
My experience is that most snipers are using cover (+4 Hide) or improved cover in addition to distance.
My experience is that most snipers are using cover (+4 Hide) or improved cover in addition to distance.
Cover doesn't give you a bonus to hide.
But either cover or concealment is required in order to make a Hide/Stealth check in the first place; that's why snipers use cover.
Oh I know, I just mentioned that these same categories could be applied to spotting enemies after an encounter had begun too, i.e. these situational modifiers would also affect general spotting distance not just encounter distance.A guy is hiding in a patch of concealment 300 feet away with no intervening objects. Why would it matter if the terrain in between is grassland or swamp?
I agree that stuff like smoke or rain might give a greater distance penalty, though.
I think you're too caught up in the wording I used above. The examples are just that, examples of what would constitute a given modifier. I.e. grassland (flat) could just as easily be any other kind of open area with no discernible features (a flat desert, a demi-plane with a glass "floor" etc.). It would make a huge difference if the terrain in between you and the other guy 300' away is just flat grassland or if it's a light forest, even if it's bright daylight.
I think that the +1/100ft modifier will be redundant in many cases, as in, there is almost no reason to have it. Either skip it all together or conjure something up that works. I think maybe that GentleGiant has got a point, though.
There could be various modifiers for perception, depending on which enviroment you are in and the nature of your surroundings.
So I'm totally with the notion that the range modifier is a little nuts, and that it needs a fix'in'. ;-)
Gworeth
Well in meadow, you probably can't find cover or concealment, or at least not as you can find it in a forest.
And you need cover or concealment to hide (or stealth).
The fact is that it's more difficult to spot something when it's farther than another one, whether should it be a +1/10 feet or +1/100 ft.
It would make a huge difference if the terrain in between you and the other guy 300' away is just flat grassland or if it's a light forest, even if it's bright daylight.
I agree...and that's factored into the encounter range number. To me, the encounter range number means: "Beyond this distance, your opponent has full concealment or full cover because there's a lot of stuff in the way (trees, hills, etc.)" But once you get within encounter range, you should be able to make Perception rolls normally; by definition, there's not so much "stuff" in the way that a Perception check is impossible.
At any rate, I can't think of any (non-magical) terrain that would give you telescopic vision! A thousand feet is a lo-o-o-ong way away to see someone standing motionless behind a tree, bright light or no bright light...
It would make a huge difference if the terrain in between you and the other guy 300' away is just flat grassland or if it's a light forest, even if it's bright daylight.I agree...and that's factored into the encounter range number. To me, the encounter range number means: "Beyond this distance, your opponent has full concealment or full cover because there's a lot of stuff in the way (trees, hills, etc.)" But once you get within encounter range, you should be able to make Perception rolls normally; by definition, there's not so much "stuff" in the way that a Perception check is impossible.
At any rate, I can't think of any (non-magical) terrain that would give you telescopic vision! A thousand feet is a lo-o-o-ong way away to see someone standing motionless behind a tree, bright light or no bright light...
I fully agree that vision beyond the encounter range number means full concealment/cover. The space between this number and you is filled with the terrain in question, though, and gradually provides more and more concealment/cover as you move further towards the encounter limit. It's this space that I think should be indexed to give range modifiers to the perception check based on terrain/weather/etc.
Okay.... Lez'zee.....
Can we agree on this: The +1/100ft is whaked, broken, nuts and by and by of no matter in most cases, factoring in the encounter distances and all?
But if it is of no real consequence, what should happen to it then?
Well a) We drop the modifier all together since it's mostly pointless
or b) We fix it! (Hey I'm really clever here!! ;-))
If we go with option a, there is nothing more to talk about.... (See? I'm a genious! :-P)
If we choose b, we have some work cut out for us.
See, I think that Hog (can I call you Hog?) and the Giant are on the same track, so to speak, only you are not seeing this... No offence intended.... happens to me an my wife all the time ;-)
The question here is as I see it: Is it workable with a differentiated modifier depending on where you are?
The examples that GG posted are merely lifted out from the encounter distance thingie as I see it. It's got nothing to do with encounter distances besides that... "Don't think of encounter distances (waving my hand Jedi-like, hoping the ol' trick will work....)
If you are confused, well? Isn't that part of the fun?
Gworeth
It would mean that e.g. the range modifier in flat grassland could easily be the +1/100' [..]
Gworeth, this is the line I'm disagreeing with.
Oh! Oki! Good to know that ;-)
So what can we agree on then, if we are to take the positive approach?
'cause the +1/10ft is also a bit, well, broken....
Oh! Oki! Good to know that ;-)
So what can we agree on then, if we are to take the positive approach?
'cause the +1/10ft is also a bit, well, broken....
It's only broken if your DM is attacking you with long-distance snipers a lot.
Do you have any personal horror stories explaining why you think +1/10 ft is broken?
Why not base the penalty/distance on the terrain. Then the lighting could apply a modifier or divisor, depending on what you want to do.
For ex, +1/100 in a plains terrain, but +1/10 in forest?
Why not base the penalty/distance on the terrain. Then the lighting could apply a modifier or divisor, depending on what you want to do.
For ex, +1/100 in a plains terrain, but +1/10 in forest?
How does standing on a flat plain give you telescopic vision?
(Personal note: I lived in the Canadian plains for many years, and I can attest that seeing a grasshopper at a distance of 10 feet is easier than seeing a grasshopper at a distance of 100 feet. YMMV.)
I mean to account for intervening growth/landscape. You know, because trees and brush get in the way? Which is why they use maximum distances for perception in different terrain? I am just suggesting merging the two standards into one.
Hogarth said:
It's only broken if your DM is attacking you with long-distance snipers a lot.
Do you have any personal horror stories explaining why you think +1/10 ft is broken?
Hehe... well, I think, if truth be told, that I was the cause of the horror since I was the DM at the time....
A Gnoll Ranger took out a fair chunk of the party until they finally located him... Then he was minced meat...
In any case, I think that the +1/10 in most cases are too much and the +1/100 is too little... if that makes any sense?
I mean to account for intervening growth/landscape. You know, because trees and brush get in the way? Which is why they use maximum distances for perception in different terrain? I am just suggesting merging the two standards into one.
This is more or less what I was thinking. A merger.... How would that be done then?
I'm a goat when it comes to making up new rules... No comments GG!! ;-)
+1/10 ft. to Hide did seem quite high to me - I've essentially never used it. +1/100 ft works for me, but I'm perhaps too conservative on that.
+1/30 ft would work well I think.
Important to consider here is that the bonuses are *not* to Hide vs. Spot checks, but to Stealth vs. Perception checks.
I would agree with a 1/30 ratio. Thinking about it, though, you'd still need the max range for the sniper. Otherwise he would just be using max bow range, and that is pretty far... You could use the range modifier as a passive stealth check for the party, especially if the sniper was a sentry of some kind. Not allow him to start attacking until he had perceived them. I dunno how I'd handle this. I'll mull it over and get back to you.
Let us try the -1 vision Perception per 30' in broad daylight part. I can see the -1 per 100' on flat, clear terrain in daylight. Especially with any advantage in elevation on top of it...
Let us try the -1 vision Perception per 30' in broad daylight part. I can see the -1 per 100' on flat, clear terrain in daylight. Especially with any advantage in elevation on top of it...
But if the terrain is completely clear, then no one can hide at all, naturally. We're talking about cases where your opponent has concealment or cover. Think about it this way: seeing a grasshopper 5' away from you should be much, much easier than seeing a grasshopper 100' away, even in grassland.
Or maybe I just need glasses...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I was just looking down my garden wondering about this. Someone trying to hide and I'm not actively looking, spending time staring at each smallish area? I have bugger all chance of noticing them if they aren't morons, at 100+ feet.
*surreptitiously retreats from Bagpuss's garden*
Let us try the -1 vision Perception per 30' in broad daylight part. I can see the -1 per 100' on flat, clear terrain in daylight. Especially with any advantage in elevation on top of it...But if the terrain is completely clear, then no one can hide at all, naturally. We're talking about cases where your opponent has concealment or cover. Think about it this way: seeing a grasshopper 5' away from you should be much, much easier than seeing a grasshopper 100' away, even in grassland.
Or maybe I just need glasses...
^^ That'd be the big +8 Stealth bonus due to size the grasshopper gets compared to our Joe Average practically non-existent Perception bonus.
PC's tend to be VERY Perceptive - adventurer's won't live long without that skill. Or, at least, they won't live as long without it as a general rule of thumb. :)
Oh, and even in grasslands or the like there is concealment from the grass - very few natural terrains are actually without benefit of some form of concealment. What will suffice as concealment to a cricket may be of no use to a hobbit or a human of course...