A good archer can shoot an arrow, what, 1,100 feet away? A long range spell maxes out at 1,200 feet at 20th-level. What is the point of having such a long range attack form if you will never be able to use it at those ranges?
A 20th-level cleric/archer min/maxed to the teeth can only see as far as 650 feet in ideal conditions.
Assuming a colossal creature standing 1,000 feet away on an open plain in broad daylight, you are looking at a DC of 98 (0 base DC for not trying to hide, +100 DC for distance, -2 DC for favorable conditions).
Let's see how close we can get:
20 Perception ranks
20 Max possible die roll
10 Wisdom of 30
06 Skill Focus
04 Alertness
03 Class skill
63 x 10 = 630 feet; The total distance anyone can see a visible creature (+20 additional feet with favorable conditions).
Furthermore, most adventures are held in dungeons and other close areas to begin with. Even in wide open areas, encounters rarely ever start hundreds of feet apart.
So with all of this, what is the point of long range spells and weapons even existing? Why would anyone ever bother to use them (for range) when they can't even see their targets at said ranges?
I submit to you that the rules interactions I present here are FUBAR.
|
So with all of this, what is the point of long range spells and weapons even existing? Why would anyone ever bother to use them (for range) when they can't even see their targets at those ranges?
I submit to you that the rules interactions I present here are FUBAR.
Have you seen the fight at the end of "Kingdom of heaven" not the best movie in the world, but it proved how with thinking ahead you can use ranged attacks to the most effectiveness. Might not have seen the guys, but you knew they were in range when you couldn't see the bright white rock piles.
Uhmm, you're talking about the rules for spotting something. You can essentially see as far as necessary when things are made obvious.
Plus, the +100 thing is arbitrary. You can see as far as you need to so long as nothing obstructs line of sight.
Uhmm, you're talking about the rules for spotting something. You can essentially see as far as necessary when things are made obvious.
Plus, the +100 thing is arbitrary. You can see as far as you need to so long as nothing obstructs line of sight.
Though I agree with the logic of your words, the rules don't support you.
Sure you might automatically see the big castle a mile away, but your ability to spot a creature a thousand feet away is non-existent, even when it isn't trying to hide.
Though I agree with the logic of your words, the rules don't support you.
Sure you might automatically see the big castle a mile away, but your ability to spot a creature a thousand feet away is non-existent, even when it isn't trying to hide.
Heh, heh. Now you need spotters for your short-range artillery, too!
|
Heh, heh. Now you need spotters for your short-range artillery, too!Though I agree with the logic of your words, the rules don't support you.
Sure you might automatically see the big castle a mile away, but your ability to spot a creature a thousand feet away is non-existent, even when it isn't trying to hide.
Is there linkage to the spotting ranges as mentioned in the rules? These seem ridiculous. These could easily be doubled.
|
|
Is there linkage to the spotting ranges as mentioned in the rules? These seem ridiculous. These could easily be doubled.
They are hidden in the environments section. do a CRTL + F and search for "sight" it started with deserts which is the 3rd or forth hit
They are hidden in the environments section. do a CRTL + F and search for "sight" it started with deserts which is the 3rd or forth hit
Is there linkage to the spotting ranges as mentioned in the rules? These seem ridiculous. These could easily be doubled.
Yep. The max range Perception checks can be made is ~720 ft. when on the open plain. You can also deduce similar max ranges from the Perception skill description.
|
|
actually, looking at plains:Yep. The max range Perception checks can be made is ~720 ft. when on the open plain. You can also deduce similar max ranges from the Perception skill description.They are hidden in the environments section. do a CRTL + F and search for "sight" it started with deserts which is the 3rd or forth hit
Is there linkage to the spotting ranges as mentioned in the rules? These seem ridiculous. These could easily be doubled.
Stealth and Detection in Plains: In plains terrain, the maximum distance at which a Perception check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 6d6 × 40 feet, although the specifics of your map might restrict line of sight. Cover and concealment are not uncommon, so a good place of refuge is often nearby, if not right at hand.
6*6*40= 1440 ft. 720 might be the average of that roll, but it is not the max distance as you stated.
actually, looking at plains:Yep. The max range Perception checks can be made is ~720 ft. when on the open plain. You can also deduce similar max ranges from the Perception skill description.They are hidden in the environments section. do a CRTL + F and search for "sight" it started with deserts which is the 3rd or forth hit
Is there linkage to the spotting ranges as mentioned in the rules? These seem ridiculous. These could easily be doubled.Stealth and Detection in Plains: In plains terrain, the maximum distance at which a Perception check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 6d6 × 40 feet, although the specifics of your map might restrict line of sight. Cover and concealment are not uncommon, so a good place of refuge is often nearby, if not right at hand.6*6*40= 1440 ft. 720 might be the average of that roll, but it is not the max distance as you stated.
That's odd. I saw 6d6 * 20.
|
|
In context, that sounds about right. Other factors such as plowed ground, short vegetation, big monsters and higher elevations would increase that. Walking along in a grassland (2-4' tall grasses) I would say it is reasonable not to be able to spot medium sized creatures more than 4 football fields away!
However, I don't think these rules say you can't SEE anythign further away, just that encounters are usually limited to that range while travelling through the terrain. If you were on a tower you could certainly see past the range listed for the terrain type. Everyone can see the sun, right? That's more than 1440 feet away.
However, I don't think these rules say you can't SEE anythign further away, just that encounters are usually limited to that range while travelling through the terrain.
Exactly. These are the rules for SPOTTING something, which in this context means "first becoming aware of it". Once you're aware of a creature, you can see it until you lose line-of-sight to it.
I am thinking of battlefield situations where archers were just angling their bow at a certain angle and loosing arrows. The could see a mass of creatures or they were given a range, and they just loosed the volley, but they were to far away to be picking out individual targets. In that situation you would be minus a lot to hit. Once the horde gets closer, the archers can spot and pick out individual targets.
Sure you might automatically see the big castle a mile away, but your ability to spot a creature a thousand feet away is non-existent, even when it isn't trying to hide.
So you can see a castle a mile away, but not a castle-sized creature at the same distance?
I'm pretty sure the actual purpose of archers in a warfare situation is to release a volley of arrows with very little aiming done. Archers were trained on distance, not accuracy.
If an army is advancing, you don't need to pinpoint and hit individuals in the army.
I'm pretty sure the actual purpose of archers in a warfare situation is to release a volley of arrows with very little aiming done. Archers were trained on distance, not accuracy.
If an army is advancing, you don't need to pinpoint and hit individuals in the army.
It depended on the distance, but yes, mass volleys were the way to go. Open field combat or advancing lines they were the norm. Defending a position would have been a different story. Archers on a castle wall might fire 300 yards to specifically target the engineers working on seige engines, and some of them might have been able to make the shot.
arcane archer prestige class = win. if the cleric was able to scry target, then his phase arrow can't miss if within range. just saying
It depended on the distance, but yes, mass volleys were the way to go. Open field combat or advancing lines they were the norm. Defending a position would have been a different story. Archers on a castle wall might fire 300 yards to specifically target the engineers working on seige engines, and some of them might have been able to make the shot.I'm pretty sure the actual purpose of archers in a warfare situation is to release a volley of arrows with very little aiming done. Archers were trained on distance, not accuracy.
If an army is advancing, you don't need to pinpoint and hit individuals in the army.
There are also no rules for shooting up and down, the range of a weapon firing down should be infinite. whilst firing upwards should have some severe penalties.
It's a flaw of the Pathfinder game engine's rendering distance.
Sure you might automatically see the big castle a mile away, but your ability to spot a creature a thousand feet away is non-existent, even when it isn't trying to hide.So you can see a castle a mile away, but not a castle-sized creature at the same distance?
Exactly.
Your argument is completely fabricated.
Nowhere do the rules state that a Perception check is necessary to see something that is not hidden. Stealth is opposed by perception; a character must attempt to use Stealth before a Perception check is required.
A good archer can shoot an arrow, what, 1,100 feet away? A long range spell maxes out at 1,200 feet at 20th-level. What is the point of having such a long range attack form if you will never be able to use it at those ranges?
A 20th-level cleric/archer min/maxed to the teeth can only see as far as 650 feet in ideal conditions.
Assuming a colossal creature standing 1,000 feet away on an open plain in broad daylight, you are looking at a DC of 98 (0 base DC for not trying to hide, +100 DC for distance, -2 DC for favorable conditions).
Let's see how close we can get:
20 Perception ranks
20 Max possible die roll
10 Wisdom of 30
06 Skill Focus
04 Alertness
03 Class skill
63 x 10 = 630 feet; The total distance anyone can see a visible creature (+20 additional feet with favorable conditions).Furthermore, most adventures are held in dungeons and other close areas to begin with. Even in wide open areas, encounters rarely ever start hundreds of feet apart.
So with all of this, what is the point of long range spells and weapons even existing? Why would anyone ever bother to use them (for range) when they can't even see their targets at said ranges?
I submit to you that the rules interactions I present here are FUBAR.
Regarding something using stealth:
A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Stealth checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large –4, Huge –8, Gargantuan –12, Colossal –16.
So assuming a colossal creature is hiding form you and failing horribly, 630 feet away is not difficult in this example.
Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is.
So unless your trying to determine if it has a comb over or wearing a colossal toupee, I don't think spotting the thing will be an issue.
So unless your trying to determine if it has a comb over or wearing a colossal toupee, I don't think spotting the thing will be an issue.
Nice!
Your argument is completely fabricated.
Nowhere do the rules state that a Perception check is necessary to see something that is not hidden. Stealth is opposed by perception; a character must attempt to use Stealth before a Perception check is required.
The Perception skill specifically says it is a DC 0 check to notice a visible creature. That seems pretty clear cut to me that there is a rule (and even a check) to see someone who isn't bothering to hide.
|
|
The Perception skill specifically says it is a DC 0 check to notice a visible creature. That seems pretty clear cut to me that there is a rule (and even a check) to see someone who isn't bothering to hide.Your argument is completely fabricated.
Nowhere do the rules state that a Perception check is necessary to see something that is not hidden. Stealth is opposed by perception; a character must attempt to use Stealth before a Perception check is required.
This looks like a good example of how someone can make the game more difficult than it has to be.
The PFRPG also doesn't have rules for urinating/deficating, would you then rule that all PCS die of internal hemmoraging several days after being born?
Except that there are rules for spotting things, and they don't work right. They lead to spotting distances shorter than the distance most people can hurl a baseball.
Exactly!
|
|
Except that there are rules for spotting things, and they don't work right. They lead to spotting distances shorter than the distance most people can hurl a baseball.Exactly!
I hardly believe that MOST people can throw a baseball more than a few hundred feet, let alone 1440 feet.
The spotting ranges are perfectly good for spotting creatures that do not want to be found. If you use that to justify that no one can see further than 1440 feet in the game, you can go down that slipperly slope as far as you want.
The Perception skill specifically says it is a DC 0 check to notice a visible creature. That seems pretty clear cut to me that there is a rule (and even a check) to see someone who isn't bothering to hide.
Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines.
What seems clear is that the table you refer to is meant to apply to environmental details (i.e. did the player notice the strange half-orc in the crowd at the royal ball?). Otherwise, a character with a -1 or -2 Wisdom modifier would fail to see a creature attacking him in melee 5 or 10 percent of the time.
That the environmental rules give guidelines for spotting distances is further evidence of this interpretation. Also, the Stealth rules say that you cannot hide from a character that is observing you.
Basically, you would have to willfully interpret the rules in a way that is contradictory and doesn't make sense in order to draw the conclusion that you are drawing (namely that characters are invisible unless observers make a DC 0 Perception check).
One thing you should note that while there are records of English longbowmen firing and killing people at up to 400 yards away, that is firing into a massed army, not aiming at particular targets.A good archer can shoot an arrow, what, 1,100 feet away?
I submit to you that the rules interactions I present here are FUBAR.
English longbowmen weren't level 20 Rangers with true strike and inspire courage +7.
Everyone can see the sun, right? That's more than 1440 feet away.
Methinks the Sun has a substantially larger size modifier than a Colossal creature. What's the Earth's size modifier? Take that and multiply it by a little over 100. :)
|
|
Everyone can see the sun, right? That's more than 1440 feet away.Methinks the Sun has a substantially larger size modifier than a Colossal creature. What's the Earth's size modifier? Take that and multiply it by a little over 100. :)
Methinks a colossal creature should have a substantial negative circumstance modifier for trying to hide in the "wide open field" the OP had postulated. However, it dosen't look like we're using common sense in this thread so you can't apply those modifiers.
|
I usually house-rule that the distance penalty changes based on size category. For small and medium it's the same, for tiny it's -1/5ft (then -2, then -4). For large it's -1/20ft, huge is -1/40ft, gargantuan -1/80ft and colossal is -1/160ft.
This means that the average person can see a colossal creature coming from roughly 3/4 of a mile away (10 vs. a DC-16, or 26 * 160) assuming they aren't trying to hide. If a person is actively looking they are getting the equivalent of two rolls a round, which should round out to about a 12-13 average on the die. I would halve the penalty again if the creature's coloration contrasts well with the background (eg a black dragon against a blue sky).
My previous snark aside (I can't resist setting a straw man alight), there is an issue with the Perception vs Stealth DCs. My group has come across this when trying to determine if someone walking down a corridor (without using Stealth) is heard. The book lists this as a DC10. However that doesn't take into account their size (heavier footfalls), Dexterity penalty (clumsier) or Armor Check Penalty (clankiness). Going by the RAW, a low-Dex Giant in full plate may very well make more noise TRYING to be stealthy than just walking around.
This issue comes up because the static DCs listed under the Perception skill do not take the whole system into account. At the very least, size modifiers need to be included. Loathe as I am to admit it, common sense needs to be included as well (I've argued for strict RAW in other threads after all). While it is possible to simply not notice someone in the same room with you, even if they're not hiding (average WIS+distracted+bad roll, hey I've done it RL), it's nigh impossible to miss a 50' tall humanoid while looking down on an open plain at high noon, even 1000' away.
It's not that hard to imagine either. If you've got behind-home-plate seats at a baseball game and good vision, you can follow a home-run ball hit 400-500' into the stands. A baseball is what, a Tiny object? Fine? You can't see the details of course, and the fact that it's moving really helps, but it can be done. And none of us are 20th Level Elven Rangers, by far.
Methinks a colossal creature should have a substantial negative circumstance modifier for trying to hide in the "wide open field" the OP had postulated. However, it dosen't look like we're using common sense in this thread so you can't apply those modifiers.
It's not trying to hide. It's just chilling out, so the DC is 0.
The whole point of the thread is that the rules don't match common sense. At all. When the rules don't match common sense and you have to ignore them to get reasonable results, that means that the rules are flawed.
Exactly.
I thought I would bring this back to join the chorus of "there/not there" perception/stealth discussions currently going on.
Does anyone else care to weigh in on the discussion?
Obviously, the rules in the Perception skill don't work for non-hiding creatures. That would mean that the outfielders in a baseball game cannot see the pitcher, let alone the batter, and imagine them trying to keep track of a tiny baseball on a pop-fly. For that matter, the fans in the bleachers can't see most of the players and could never see the ball at all.
So, the gist of this thread is correct. Using a DC 0 to see a "visible creature" and then adjusting by -1/10 feet is utterly ludicrous in any kind of normal daylight conditions.
Me, I just assume that, if there is no Stealth going on, line of sight can go on for miles. I know in my home I can see hikers on the mountainside several miles away. Occasionally if I watch close I can see deer up there (but the brown on brown makes them kinda hard to spot).
Now, trying to spot someone hiding is a different story. I think the distance modifiers are still off, but at least they make sense. They also make much more sense in bad lighting. Nighttime, twilight, maybe even really overcast days with rain or snow falling. And during blizards, seeing a "visible creature" the size of a human, even in a bright red parka, can often be difficult at only 20 or 30 feet (which ties into "terrible conditions" but that puny little +5 modifier really doesn't turn 300 feet in daylight into 20 feet in a blizard.
It's all wonky.
It gets even wonkier when you consider that those ranges are for sound and smell too.
Apparently, I can barely see a human at more than a couple hundred feet, but I can hear him speaking in a normal voice at that range, and I can smell him (regardless of his good/bad hygiene) at that distance too.
Even wonkier.
I know Paizo tried to consolidate a whole bunch of stuff into a simpler single skill, but this is too much. Previous editions with separate Listen, Spot, and Search skills weren't really that hard, and while I like the idea of limiting the "skill point tax", they should have still kept separate DCs and modifiers for the three different types of perception.
A simple houserule fix might be to treat the -1/10 feet rule as applying to sound. Multiply by 5 for vision and divide by 5 for smell. But leave it alone for visually spotting hidden/Stealthed creatures. It puts stuff at least into the realm of believability without overcomplicating it too much.
Do people have a lot of trouble with this? We never seem to encounter creatures at those sort of ranges.
Maybe the reason we don't have these encounters is because the ranges are so weird. It would certainly be interesting playing cat and mouse with a group a long ways off.
I use those kinds of ranges all the time.
DM: You're on your third day walking across The Barrens. It's like Kansas during the great Dust Bowl Days (but minus the dust in the air). Ahead you see a bunch of orcs approaching, what do you do?
Player: How far away are they?
DM: 50'. In fact, it looks like they are about to charge!
Player: 50 feet??? How did they get so freakin close. It's a bright, clear sunny day for pete's sake!
DM: Well, even though you think you can see for miles, you can really only see a couple hundred feet. So I made perception checks in secret. You know, with a -20 modifier, you couldn't see squat. Then they moved 60', and then you moved 60', and then they were only 80' away. But that's still -8 and, well, you rolled badly. So then they moved 30' and I decided to roll again. You finally see them, but they see you too.
Player: This is nuts! Can I pretend I have a Near-signted disadvantage and at least take a free feat for it?
OK, it doesn't really go like that. It goes more like:
DM: You're on your third day walking across The Barrens. It's like Kansas during the great Dust Bowl Days (but minus the dust in the air). Ahead you see a bunch of orcs approaching, what do you do?
Player: How far away are they?
DM: About a half a mile. Call it 2,500 feet more or less.
Players: Ok, we ready weapons and spells and wait for them to get closer before we attack.
DM: How close?
Ranger player: I'll take a shot when they get within 300' feet. Call that my Readied action.
DM: OK, initiatives will start from 300'.
Yeah, we're not always in Kansas, but when we are, it's silly not to be able to see stuff. Even a half a mile is really a short vision range on a good day with clear line of sight.
|
Yeah, I definitely can see in desert/ plains needing longer range vision. It's a bit weird there though because you might see someone miles off but miss someone just over the next hill. Likewise it's easy to stay out of line of sight, just by staying off the hilltops. But if you are flying high enough or on a tall enough tower you can probably see anyone not under cover.
It's definitely not a situation covered by the rules well. I suppose you could assume that most creatures are trying to remain out of sight.
This thread is getting me in the mood for a large-area sniper-fight!
I bet that would be awesome in PFRPG :D
How large?
Those -18 penalaties at 1,000 feet can add up to a very very long fight:
Player: I shoot. I roll a 7. I guess that's a miss.
DM: The orc shoots back. A miss.
Player: I shoot again. I roll a 12. I miss.
DM: The orc shoots back. Another miss.
Player: I shoot again. I roll at 9. I miss.
DM: The orc shoots back. Another miss.
Player: I shoot again. I roll a 12. I miss.
DM: The orc shoots back. Another miss. Again.
Player: I shoot again. I roll a 4. I guess I really miss.
DM: The orc shoots back. Yet another miss.
Player: I shoot again. I roll a 10. I miss.
DM: The orc shoots back. Surprise! Another miss.
Player: I shoot again. I roll a 12. I miss.
DM: The orc shoots back. He misses again.
Player: I shoot again. I roll a 19!. Sweet! Do I hit him finally?
DM: No, that's still a miss. The orc shoots back. Strangely enough, it's a miss.
Player: *rolls and secretly tips his die to a 20* I shoot back and roll a natural 20! I roll for damage. 4 HP. Does the orc die?
DM: Nope, he shoots back. He misses.
Player: Uh, I think Lost is on TV. I'll be back when it's over. Lemme know if we ever hit each other again...
LOL
For those who argue that these ranges are not playable, I offer that Maptool lets you have maps large enough. Sure, you have to zoom out very far to actually see the tokens, but it can be done!
|
|
For those who argue that these ranges are not playable, I offer that Maptool lets you have maps large enough. Sure, you have to zoom out very far to actually see the tokens, but it can be done!
I think it would work better just to ditch maps entirely and go the verbal route. When you get 100' or less away then it might matter. For the GM it might help to have a topo map of an area to refer to so you can have a good idea of where people might have cover or concealment. Though I suppose there are some areas like Kansas in every universe where you have 1/4 mile visibility. Even then tall grass makes for total concealment.
Ultimately I think it's heavily on the GMs shoulders.