Blur affects miss chance, a colossal creature cannot hide behind a butterfly.
Blur grants concealment. You can use stealth in plain daylight if you have blur, by RAW. That doesn't make sense either, but that's more specific and such more in the "rule 0 to fix" department for me.
stringburka, I like your use of triangular numbers, 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, but for a quadratic sequence Pathfinder tends to use squares.
I had noticed the Perception limit myself when I was comparing Stealth and Perception during Stephen Radney-MacFarland's Paizo Blog posting on Stealth.
For those arguing that Perception applied only to details, let me remind you that D&D 3rd Edition had a Spot skill that Paizo incorporated into the Perception skill. And the -1 to Spot for each 10 feet of distance came from D&D.
It's too bad that this game doesn't have a real, live, human referee with a brain managing each session to determine when to call for skill checks.
As the GM, I prefer to work with the rules rather than against them. I will override ridiculous rules, but it annoys me.
Any programmer will explain you that some clipping is a good way to spare resources.
Anyway:
1. Size*2 = one size category higher.
2. One size category higher = -4 Stealth.
3. 1+2 = Perception DC is logarithmic with respect to the size.
4. Perception DC is linear with respect to the distance.
5. 3+4 = someone failed at math (or at physic).
One size category isn't size*2. It's far more than that. It's 8 times the mass IIRC, I don't know how much more volume, but seeing as how a medium human occupies about 3 m^2 while an enlarged human occupies about 11 m^2, it's far more than a doubling.
Technically, doubling the distance cuts the apparent height in half, so GâtFromKI is correct to use height rather than mass. Though in physics the difficulty of seeing something depends on apparent area, which is squared. Either way, -4 to Stealth for height*2, area*4, or mass*8 are all logarithmic.
Adapting the numbers from Stealth's logarithmic scale to Perception gives nasty results. Doubling distance would cause -4 to Perception, so if 10 feet away gives a -1 penalty, then 20 feet away gives a -5 penalty and 40 feet away gives a -9 penalty. Ouch. I think we will have to assume that the Stealth penalty represents not just ease of seeing a larger creature but also the reduced chance of the larger creature finding something big enough to hide behind.
Nonetheless, a logarithmic scale for Perception would be cute:
10 ft. -1
20 ft. -2
40 ft. -3
80 ft. -4
160 ft. -5
and an additional -1 for each time the distance doubles.
The above logarithmic scale has the advantage that it matches the existing linear scale at 10 feet and 20 feet. Thus, the D&D designers could claim that they approximated the logarithmic scale with a linear scale that is perfectly valid for the most frequent distances.
|
Blur grants concealment. You can use stealth in plain daylight if you have blur, by RAW. That doesn't make sense either, but that's more specific and such more in the "rule 0 to fix" department for me.Blur affects miss chance, a colossal creature cannot hide behind a butterfly.
So in that case the 'making a stealth check' is what would trigger a perception check. Blur in and of itself only grants a 20% miss chance (concealment) and does not affect a Perception check. If that creature is not making a stealth check, I won't need to make a perception check, I just see a colossal blurred creature that's going to be slightly harder to hit.
I have no problems with it being difficult to detect a colossal, blurred, stealthed creature from 1000' away.
As written perception is not for noticing details in an environment, it says for noticing fine details in an environment. Otherwise the game would be dominated by perception rolls.
The list of details is not prescriptive, they are guidelines. Otherwise how to you stop walking into trees all the time? They don't appear on the list at all.
I don't think you understand what I'm getting at with the wall example. I'd ask that you read that and the fog one again, if you're inclined.
I'm probably going to bow out soon, as I don't think we'll convince each other either way (and I'm not really out to convince you to be honest), but I am enjoying the discussion.
I don't believe a visible creature 200' away activates either the 'opposed stealth roll' or 'notice fine detail' trigger for a perception check.Believe it or not, but there's a DC to see a visible creature. What is this DC for?
That's the DC for fine detail. It works like this. You notice a person 300 feet away. This triggers a perception check if you wish to take notice of the that visible person. By taking notice you know they are tall with a husky build. Their hair color is blond. The person seems to be older carry a staff and wearing a a gray cloak.
In most games people choose not to take notice of people even 5' feet from them in urban location. Imagine being in city if Perception worked that way you claim. You'd spend and entire session rolling perception checks to notice the citizens. That doesn't make much sense.
One size category isn't size*2. It's far more than that. It's 8 times the mass IIRC, I don't know how much more volume, but seeing as how a medium human occupies about 3 m^2 while an enlarged human occupies about 11 m^2, it's far more than a doubling.Technically, doubling the distance cuts the apparent height in half, so GâtFromKI is correct to use height rather than mass. Though in physics the difficulty of seeing something depends on apparent area, which is squared. Either way, -4 to Stealth for height*2, area*4, or mass*8 are all logarithmic.
Oh, sorry 'bout that, you're right of course. Your suggestion is nice, except that I feel that it actually gives a little TOO far limit of sight (or rather, the ability to notice a certain object so far away).
If it's doubled per penalty, a commoner can notice a medium-sized creature at 5000 ft. (1.6 km) by default, without really looking for it. It's a little too much, in my opinion. When actively looking he can see the creature at 5 250 000 ft (1740 km), which is far too much.
The issue here is that human sight isn't just limited by distance, whether we can see that IRL pixel or not, but more due to us being imperfect and stuff floating together to a big great mass after a while. This is why I suggested a table that starts out exponantially, but that flattens.
As written perception is not for noticing details in an environment, it says for noticing fine details in an environment. Otherwise the game would be dominated by perception rolls.
It doesn't matter what word you choose to use, fact of the matter is that the rules are what they are. The DC0 is to notice a creature - whether you call a creature a detail or fine detail is irrelevant to the discussion.
The list of details is not prescriptive, they are guidelines. Otherwise how to you stop walking into trees all the time? They don't appear on the list at all.
Yes, they are guidelines/examples, but there's a difference between "hey, there's no tree, let's look for the closest thing and determine DC from there" and "hey, there's a clear listing of the object in question here, let's ignore it".
When determining the tree DC, you'd probably look for the DC of a creature of size small to huge depending on tree size, but say large for an average birch. That gives a base DC of -6. There's no risk of walking into it.
The system works very well at short distances - if you're in the center of a 20 ft. by 20 ft. room, you automatically know where anything with a DC of 10 or lower is located, that is, tiny and larger items. If you look for an item that is diminutive or smaller, you might have to look around but can usually find them quite easy unless obscured. Finding your key chain would be something like DC 12 (0 + 12 size), but if you had an idea of where you might have put them then that's favorable conditions +2 so you automatically know it unless you're a bit abscent-minded like me and have to look.
The system works great, and is actually quite "realistic" at short distances, but after 50 ft. or so it breaks down.
I don't believe a visible creature 200' away activates either the 'opposed stealth roll' or 'notice fine detail' trigger for a perception check.Believe it or not, but there's a DC to see a visible creature. What is this DC for?That's the DC for fine detail. It works like this. You notice a person 300 feet away. This triggers a perception check if you wish to take notice of the that visible person. By taking notice you know they are tall with a husky build. Their hair color is blond. The person seems to be older carry a staff and wearing a a gray cloak.
In most games people choose not to take notice of people even 5' feet from them in urban location. Imagine being in city if Perception worked that way you claim. You'd spend and entire session rolling perception checks to notice the citizens. That doesn't make much sense.
So, does that apply accross the board for those things? Can I also notice a key turning in a lock automatically at 300 feet away, triggering a perception check if you wish to take notice of the fine details, such as the golden lining of the key, the smell of the lock oil and so on?
The person _is_ the detail, just how the key is the detail, the smell of smoke is the detail and so on. Noticing their hair color would more likely be a perception check vs. a tiny or diminutive object at the same distance.
I don't believe a visible creature 200' away activates either the 'opposed stealth roll' or 'notice fine detail' trigger for a perception check.Believe it or not, but there's a DC to see a visible creature. What is this DC for?That's the DC for fine detail. It works like this. You notice a person 300 feet away. This triggers a perception check if you wish to take notice of the that visible person. By taking notice you know they are tall with a husky build. Their hair color is blond. The person seems to be older carry a staff and wearing a a gray cloak.
In most games people choose not to take notice of people even 5' feet from them in urban location. Imagine being in city if Perception worked that way you claim. You'd spend and entire session rolling perception checks to notice the citizens. That doesn't make much sense.
So, does that apply accross the board for those things? Can I also notice a key turning in a lock automatically at 300 feet away, triggering a perception check if you wish to take notice of the fine details, such as the golden lining of the key, the smell of the lock oil and so on?
The person _is_ the detail, just how the key is the detail, the smell of smoke is the detail and so on. Noticing their hair color would more likely be a perception check vs. a tiny or diminutive object at the same distance.
I'd think it works on the same principal. You hear a noise. Triggers a perception check. Success at DC 50 perception check and you determine it sounds like key in lock being turned off quite some distance in direction X. Fail you just heard brief noise in vicinity that you can't identify.
I'd think it works on the same principal. You hear a noise. Triggers a perception check. Success at DC 50 perception check and you determine it sounds like key in lock being turned off quite some distance in direction X. Fail you just heard brief noise in vicinity that you can't identify.
But the list doesn't say "hear a noise", it says "hear the sound of a key turning in a lock" and puts it on the same list as "notice a visible creature", and for that matter "hear the details of a conversation" - not "notice the details of a visible creature".
So either, the list of details lists details to be noticed, or objects/happenings which has details that can be noticed.
If it's the former, the DC to hear a key turn is 50 and to detect a creature is 30 and to hear the details of a conversation is 35.
If it's the latter, you automatically hear the key turn and may make a DC 50 check to notice the details of the key-turning sound, and you detect the creature automatically but have to make a DC 30 check to notice the details of the creature, and you automatically hear the details of the conversation but must make a DC 35 check to hear the details of the details of the conversation.
(All these are at 300 ft. distance)
The first interpretation means distances are a bit whacked out. The second interpretation means the skill is completely whacked out.
Also, the list is of "details", not "valid targets for the skill". You use perception _against the environment_, not against a certain target (barring opposed checks).
D&D 3.0 had clear rules on spotting. For the life of me, I could never understand why they were dropped in 3.5, nor what was supposed to replace them. I would use them in 3.5 and PFRPG as well. (Obviously, in PFRPG, I would replace "Spot" with "Perception.")
I now quote from the 3.0 SRD:
ENCOUNTERS
When an encounter between the PCs and an NPC or creature is imminent, follow these steps:
1. Determine vision conditions and terrain. Choose from the choices on Table: Spotting Distance.
2. If line of sight or illumination defines the distance at which the encounter occurs (as often happens indoors), start the encounter there. Otherwise, roll for spotting distance on Table: Spotting Distance.
3. All creatures involved make Spot checks. Success means that creature sees the other creature or group. See Table: Spotting Difficulty for modifiers on these checks.
4. If neither side succeeds, all creatures spot each other at one-half the rolled range.
The circumstances that can affect the DC of a Spot check are as follows:
Size: Add +4 to the base DC of 20 for each size category the creature being spotted is smaller than Medium-size or -4 for each size category larger. You can make exceptions for creatures with unusual shapes, such as a Large snake that's low to the ground and thus as hard to see as a Small creature.
Contrast: How starkly the creature's coloring stands out against the surroundings. It's easy to spot a brightly colored couatl in a dark jungle and hard to see winter wolves in the snow.
Stillness: It's harder to see creatures that are not moving.
Six or More Creatures: Groups of creatures are easier to spot, even if the creatures are smaller than Medium-size.
Moonlight: Nighttime, but with moonlight (or similar light).
Starlight: Nighttime with no moon but a clear, starry sky (or similar light).
Total Darkness: Overcast at night, or otherwise lightless.
Hiding and Spotting
If creatures are trying not to be seen, it's usually harder to spot them, but creatures that are keeping low to avoid being spotted also are less likely to notice other creatures.
If creatures are hiding, they can only move at half their normal overland speed. They also suffer a -2 penalty on their Spot checks to notice other creatures because they are staying low.
Instead of a base DC of 20 for others to spot them at the standard spotting distance, the DC is 25 + the hider's Hide skill modifier. The modifiers from Table 3-2: Spotting Difficulty still apply, except for the size modifier (which is already part of the character's skill modifier). A character whose Hide ranks, Dexterity modifier, and armor check penalty total -6 or lower is actually has a lower DC than if he or she weren't hiding. In such cases, simply calculate the Spot DC as if the character weren't hiding (according to Table: Spotting Difficulty). If a creature gets a special bonus to Hide because of camouflage, special coloring, and so on, use that bonus rather than the contrast bonus from Table: Spotting Difficulty.
Additionally, the other creatures do not automatically spot hiding creatures at one-half the encounter distance. Instead, that is the distance at which the other creatures can make Spot checks to notice the hiding creatures. These are normal Spot checks opposed by the hiders' Hide checks.
Table: Spotting Distance
Terrain Distance
------- --------
Smoke or heavy fog 2d4 x 5 ft. (avg. 25 ft.)
Jungle or dense forest 2d4 x 10 ft. (50 ft.)
Light forest 3d6 x 10 ft. (105 ft.)
Scrub, brush or bush 6d6 x 10 ft. (210 ft.)
Grassland, little cover 6d6 x 20 ft. (420 ft.)
Total darkness Limit of sight
Indoors (lit) Line of sight
Table: Spotting Difficulty
Circumstances DC
------------- --
Base 20*
Size +/-4 per size category
Contrast +/-5 or more
Stillness (not moving) +5
Six or more creatures -2
Moonlight** +5
Starlight† +10
Total darkness Impossible††
*x25 if one side is hiding, and ignore size modifiers (see text).
**+5 bonus on Spot check if the spotter has low-light vision or if he or she has darkvision that extends far enough.
†x+5 bonus on Spot check if the spotter has low-light vision or +10 if he or she has darkvision that extends far enough.
††Unless the spotter has darkvision that extends far enough.
Missed Encounters
The rules for spotting creatures assume that both sides will eventually notice each other, and they simply establish the distance at which they do so. But sometimes you want to take into account the possibility that the two groups will miss each other entirely.
To handle these possibilities, simply let there be a 50% chance that the other creatures encountered and the PCs don't get any closer but rather pass by each other, such as when one group is moving north and the other east. (Creatures following the PCs' trail, of course, always close with them.)
About the above post: I don't know how those x's got in there. My post above should read:
* 25 plus hide skill modifier if one side is hiding, and ignore size modifiers (see text).
** +5 bonus on Spot check if the spotter has low-light vision or if he or she has darkvision that extends far enough.
† +5 bonus on Spot check if the spotter has low-light vision or +10 if he or she has darkvision that extends far enough.
†† Unless the spotter has darkvision that extends far enough.
(Of course, you probably guessed all that, but I thought I should make it clear.)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Size: Add +4 to the base DC of 20 for each size category the creature being spotted is smaller than Medium-size or -4 for each size category larger. You can make exceptions for creatures with unusual shapes, such as a Large snake that's low to the ground and thus as hard to see as a Small creature.
Of course! The colossal missing factor in this whole perceive-at-a-distance argument is size! A Medium creature at 200 feet, a Large creature at 400 feet, a Huge creature at 800 feet, a Gargantuan creature at 1600 feet, and a Colossal creature at 3200 feet all have the same apparent size due to perspective. The messageboard posters who have been talking about seeing creatures at 1000 feet have not been using halflings as their examples: they have been using dragons. An adult blue dragon is huge, an ancient blue dragon is gargantuan.
And the bonus to Perception is +4 for double size (double height), which makes it a logarithmic scale, like measuring sound intensity in decibels or acidity in pH.
Your suggestion is nice, except that I feel that it actually gives a little TOO far limit of sight (or rather, the ability to notice a certain object so far away).
If it's doubled per penalty, a commoner can notice a medium-sized creature at 5000 ft. (1.6 km) by default, without really looking for it. It's a little too much, in my opinion. When actively looking he can see the creature at 5 250 000 ft (1740 km), which is far too much.
The issue here is that human sight isn't just limited by distance, whether we can see that IRL pixel or not, but more due to us being imperfect and stuff floating together to a big great mass after a while. This is why I suggested a table that starts out exponentially, but that flattens.
Your table flattens because you expect sight distance to become linear in progression, due to imprefections in our vision such as atmospheric haze? Interesting concept, but except on hazy mornings or rainy days, I don't think haze is relevant at 150 feet.
You are correct that my logarithmic table gave too far a limit on sight. I took more time to crunch and interpret the numbers this evening and I was surprised by the results. The +4 penalty for doubling size from D&D 3.0 Encounter rules provided by Aaron Bitman and the matching -4 pentalty to Stealth from the Pathfinder rules is in the right ballpark, maybe even generous. My -1 was far, far too generous.
Roleplaying games do not have to follow physics, but when physics does provide good suggestions for making game rules match reality. Let me use physics to demonstrate that the +4 is on the right scale. The physics of sight and sound follow an inverse square law: halving the distance while it doubles the apparent size (height) of objects, it makes four times as many details visible. Just like doubling the size of a computer image would require four times as many pixels.
Next consider what +1 to Perception means. A character with maximum ranks in Perception levels up and puts one more rank in Perception. In my foolish first draft, where each +1 doubled the distance the character could see, a +1 to perception mean that the person could see four times as much detail. That is much more improvement than a single level is supposed to give. The challenge rating (CR) system says that two monsters at CR X combine to give CR X+2, which suggest that two levels means a doubling in effectiveness. A four-fold increase in effectiveness would be four levels. For perception, that means that if the effectiveness of Perception increases as fast as possible at each level, +4 is the requirement to see four times as much detail.
Time for an example table. Suppose my character is examining an object 80 feet away and the object is of a size that gives a -8 to Perception at that distance. On a logarithmic +4 scale, if the character approached the object to a distance of 40 feet, he would have a -4 to Perception instead. I can use logarithms to figure out all the values for 70 feet, 60 feet, and 50 feet, too. Here is the resulting table, rounded to the nearest integer.
10 feet: +4
20 feet: +0
30 feet: -2
40 feet: -4
50 feet: -5
60 feet: -6
70 feet: -7
80 feet: -8
90 feet: -8
100 feet: -9
Subtract 4 for doubling the distance.
The center of that table, from 40 feet to 80 feet, follows the -1 for 10 feet linear rule.
How big as that object my character is examining? Imagine he is standing on home plate of a baseball diamond. First base, a canvas bag 15 inches square (Tiny size), is 90 feet away. My character can see it. Imagine that an 8-inch tall creature (Diminutive size) sits on first base. My character is taking 20 and can still see it. He can still see a 4-inch tall (Fine size) creature. But 2-inches tall? I think that is the limit. A Fine creature would be -16 to spot compared to a Medium creature and my character can spot it while taking 20. That means that spotting a Medium creature 90 feet away would have a penalty of -4. My table above must refer to a Small object.
Let me adjust my table to cover Medium size.
10 feet: +8
20 feet: +4
30 feet: +2
40 feet: +0
50 feet: -1
60 feet: -2
70 feet: -3
80 feet: -4
90 feet: -4
100 feet: -5
Subtract 4 for doubling the distance.
How far away could my character with +0 to Perception spot a Huge green dragon flying above the treetops? I get a +8 bonus for size, so to spot it while taking 10 the distance penalty could not be worse than -18. 120 feet is -6, 240 feet is -10, 480 feet is -14, and 960 feet is -18. 960 feet sounds reasonable.
How far away could my character with +0 to Perception spot a Huge green dragon flying above the treetops? I get a +8 bonus for size, so to spot it while taking 10 the distance penalty could not be worse than -18. 120 feet is -6, 240 feet is -10, 480 feet is -14, and 960 feet is -18. 960 feet sounds reasonable.960' to see a huge dragon?
You never notice planes flying overhead?
A DC 747 airliner is Colossal.
A huge dragon would be the size of a light personal plane, like a Cesna or Piper Cub. I hear those before I see them when they fly low, because airplanes are loud. I could easily miss one 1000 feet up in passive observation.
Also note that my character has +0 to Perception, which would be rare among adventurers who know to check the sky for griffins, wyverns, and dragons.