| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's much to ask that you as a gaming company change things in the core game, but this is something most players on the board seems to agree with and it would be easy to fix.
I know it can be house ruled, but something so basic should really be a part of the base system and isn't hard to change. It's a major bug in the system. And seeing as how you're trying to fix stealth, this would be very easy and very important to fix. I know it can be hand-waved but so can anything, and it is an important part of the game.
Right now, the distance penalty for perception is -1 per 10 ft. of distance. The DC to see a visible creature is 0. Thus, the maximum distance at which you can see a medium-sized creature "in plain sight" is 20 + perception modifier * 10 ft. That means the average Joe can only see people 200 ft. (60 m) away - which isn't really appropriate. You can never see a huge dragon soaring through the sky, because they're far too far away. I'm currently watching a "tiny" gull maybe 100 m (300 ft.) away, and can determine the species.
The solution would be really simple: A different set of distance penalties. For example:
10 ft. -1
30 ft. -2
60 ft. -3
100 ft. -4
150 ft. -5
Every 50 ft. after that, another -1.
That way, the maximum distance to (just barely) see a medium-sized human if you're actively looking (taking 20) is for the average person 900 ft. (300m). You can see a huge dragon at 1300 ft. That seems about right. And it's not that much harder to remember.
EDIT: I know it might seem rude to ask Paizo to change rules printed so long time ago, but in this specific circumstance I feel it's motivated. In any case, it's meant as a plead or request, not as an order.
EDIT2: If you think this is a good idea, please FAQ the thread.
EDIT3: Edited thread title to not look as aggressive.
Hee... Kinda funny really... All these people who are, generally speaking, walking around with the Oracle's curse of blindness, but doesn't gain any benefits for it :D
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW, you can't see the sun! :P
Not unless you GM fiat some modifiers to the DC to spot it due to brightness.
The penalty to spot it is -49,104,000,000 due to distance. The bonus to spot it due to size is nowhere near that.
Addendum: According to the Immortals Handbook, the size penalty for the sun is about -120.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.
I think you're lending too much weight to the skill. I wouldn't consider either the sun or a dragon to be 'fine details'.
Your senses allow you to notice fine details and alert you to danger. Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.I think you're lending too much weight to the skill. I wouldn't consider either the sun or a dragon to be 'fine details'.
No, but it's the DC used for detecting creatures regardless of circumstances. While the first line of the description might mention fine details, that's not what the skill actually does when you read the rules for it. _Detecting_ a creature in plain sight has a base DC of 0.
|
|
No, but it's the DC used for detecting creatures regardless of circumstances. While the first line of the description might mention fine details, that's not what the skill actually does when you read the rules for it. _Detecting_ a creature in plain sight has a base DC of 0.
The skill mentions two circumstances for a perception check: an opposed stealth roll, and noticing fine details.
The DC of 0 is for a visible creature (as in not invisible), not a creature in plain sight.
Noticing a farmer across the field does not require a check. Noticing the colour of his handkerchief would (fine details).
A check would also be required if that farmer were attempting to hide (opposed stealth roll).
Only you cannot hide in plain sight...
The skill mentions two circumstances for a perception check: an opposed stealth roll, and noticing fine details.The DC of 0 is for a visible creature (as in not invisible), not a creature in plain sight.
Noticing a farmer across the field does not require a check. Noticing the colour of his handkerchief would (fine details).
A check would also be required if that farmer were attempting to hide (opposed stealth roll).
That's simply incorrect. These are the circumstances mentioned in the skill description:
Hear the sound of battle
Notice the stench of rotting garbage
Detect the smell of smoke
Hear the details of a conversation
Notice a visible creature
Determine if food is spoiled
Hear the sound of a creature walking
Hear the details of a whispered conversation
Find the average concealed door
Hear the sound of a key being turned in a lock
Find the average secret door
Hear a bow being drawn
Sense a burrowing creature underneath you
Notice a pickpocket
Notice a creature using Stealth
Find a hidden trap
Identify the powers of a potion through taste
Notice that when it's detailed information gathering, that's noted ("hear the details of a conversation"). The wording between "notice a creature using stealth" and "notice a visible creature" are the same except for what the other character is doing. The DC against stealth is set by enemy's hide, the DC for a visible creature is 0.
Claiming that all these are for determining the details would mean "hear the sound of a key being turned in a lock" would be automatic, while a successful check would give you details, such as... what? The number of teeth on the key? The type of material the key is made from? How long ago the lock was oiled?
Determining the color of the handkerchief would be a perception DC vs. the item in question, so DC probably 0 + distance + 12 for being diminutive, if objects and creatures are treated the same.
EDIT: I'm sorry about using the wording "in plain sight" as that's clearly relative to the perception rules themselves. The thing is, if you are over 200 ft. away, you are not in plain sight of farmer joe, even if it's light outside and nothing's in the way in between you.
Those are all listed under the heading of 'detail' in the table.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say hearing the sound of a key being turned is automatic, it has a DC of 20.
Well, according to your reading, you don't need to make a check for it just like you don't need to make a check to notice a visible creature. You only need a check to notice the details, such as how well-oiled the lock is. You automatically detect if food is spoiled - the check is only there if you want to know the details, such as what parasites are in it or exactly how rotten it is.
That reading doesn't make much sense to me, and that, in combination with some lines actually stating that it's for hearing the details, that leads to the conclusion that it's the base DC for exactly what the line says, not "the details of *line*" but rather just "*line*". As such, DC 20 is for noticing a key being turned and DC 5 for noticing spoiled food and DC 0 for noticing a visible creature and DC 15 for hearing the details of a whispered conversation.
That's the only reading that even remotely makes sense.
EDIT: Now I see where you got it wrong. It's "detail in the environment", not "detail in a creature". The detail is "there's a creature there", or "this food is rotten", or "someone just turned a key" - not "that creature has a red handkerchief". Or rather, that last IS a function of the perception skill, just not in the list and with a higher DC. (12 or so methinks)
|
|
When did I say you do not need to make a check for hearing the sound of a key being turned?
I think you're misinterpreting what i'm saying. The list you gave are all example DCs once a perception check is triggered.
I don't believe a visible creature 200' away activates either the 'opposed stealth roll' or 'notice fine detail' trigger for a perception check.
When did I say you do not need to make a check for hearing the sound of a key being turned?
I think you're misinterpreting what i'm saying. The list you gave are all example DCs once a perception check is triggered.
I don't believe a visible creature 200' away activates either the 'opposed stealth roll' or 'notice fine detail' trigger for a perception check.
But you have no rules support why a visible creature 200' away should NOT when the table actually puts out the DC for noticing said creature. Notice that it's a "fine detail of the environment", not "fine detail of a certain object". A "visible creature" is listed as a detail in the table, just as hearing a key in a lock is. For this argument, they are the same. Basically, something would NOT be a fine detail when the DC is so low everyone just detects it (such as noticing that you are in a city when you are in a city, because the DC would be something like -16, at least).
The RAW is clear, spotting a medium-sized creature 200 ft. away is a DC 20 check. I'm sorry, I can't explain it in any further way than I've already tried, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
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.
|
|
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?
For detecting not invisible creatures once a perception check is triggered?
You're in fog (terrible conditions +5 DC) looking for your not invisible (base DC 0) opponent 50' away (+5 DC) for a total DC of 10.
You would not need a perception check to notice a not fogged, not stealthed, not invisible opponent 50' away.
EDIT bad numbers and fog is probably terrible conditions. Principle is the same.
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?For detecting not invisible creatures once a perception check is triggered?
You're in fog (unfavourable conditions +2 DC) looking for your not invisible (base DC 10) opponent 50' away (+5 DC) for a total DC of 17.
You would not need a perception check to notice a not fogged, not stealthed, not invisible opponent 50' away.
Visible (or "not invisible" as you call it) has base DC 0. Fog is +2, 20 ft is +2, there's no difference between those except you could actually hide in the fog if you try. But supposing none does, there isn't any difference between 50ft. away in fog and 70 ft. away outside of fog. The RAW makes no difference at all between them.
If the DC is at 0 or lower, no check is needed unless you're very unperceptive (as in, wis 7) and stressed so you can't take 10. If the DC is 10 or lower, most people will automatically make it since you usually take 10. If the DC is over 10, you have to look for it unless you're perceptive.
Thus, someone not stealthed 50' away would be automatically detected unless you can't take 10 (such as in a battle), but once they're more than 100' away you have to roll. Which is a far too small distance in my mind.
The system works great as is except for the actual distances per penalty, which shouldn't be linear but exponential (and in any case, larger than now).
By RAW, you can't see the sun! :P
Not unless you GM fiat some modifiers to the DC to spot it due to brightness.
The penalty to spot it is -49,104,000,000 due to distance. The bonus to spot it due to size is nowhere near that.
The only reason we can see the sun is because it doesn't have hide in plain sight.
So it only hides at night. :)My brain hurts.
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.
Which might work fine in home games but which are technically off-limits when it comes to PFS unless they've house-ruled it differently. And that could be said about anything - you don't need working targeting rules because you could just have the referee determine when you have to roll and what your DC is.
It's much better to have a well-working system than to require everyone to houserule it or ignore the rules for the system to make sense. And seeing as how it's easily fixed, and they are updating other rules related to the senses (the stealth blog post), it seems like they should at least consider it.
EDIT: And you could easily say that the sun isn't a detail in the environment, seeing as how it defines the way the whole world looks, and there's no listed DC. There IS however a listed DC for creatures, and it's good that there is one, it's just too high when it comes to distances.
|
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.Which might work fine in home games but which are technically off-limits when it comes to PFS unless they've house-ruled it differently. And that could be said about anything - you don't need working targeting rules because you could just have the referee determine when you have to roll and what your DC is.
It's much better to have a well-working system than to require everyone to houserule it or ignore the rules for the system to make sense. And seeing as how it's easily fixed, and they are updating other rules related to the senses (the stealth blog post), it seems like they should at least consider it.
EDIT: And you could easily say that the sun isn't a detail in the environment, seeing as how it defines the way the whole world looks, and there's no listed DC. There IS however a listed DC for creatures, and it's good that there is one, it's just too high when it comes to distances.
Even PFS GMs are thinking people who understand when something is absurd.
There are zero situations where this distance penalty is an actual problem. There is never a need for a perception check to notice the obvious or you'd be making perception checks all day.
|
|
Visible (or "not invisible" as you call it) has base DC 0. Fog is +2, 20 ft is +2, there's no difference between those except you could actually hide in the fog if you try. But supposing none does, there isn't any difference between 50ft. away in fog and 70 ft. away outside of fog. The RAW makes no difference at all between them.If the DC is at 0 or lower, no check is needed unless you're very unperceptive (as in, wis 7) and stressed so you can't take 10. If the DC is 10 or lower, most people will automatically make it since you usually take 10. If the DC is over 10, you have to look for it unless you're perceptive.
Thus, someone not stealthed 50' away would be automatically detected unless you can't take 10 (such as in a battle), but once they're more than 100' away you have to roll. Which is a far too small distance in my mind.
The system works great as is except for the actual distances per penalty, which shouldn't be linear but exponential (and in any case, larger than now).
I edited my post while you were replying.
I used fog as an example of a perception check trigger.
If I interpret the table as you seem to be it should be possible to percept a visible creature through a 20' wall (DC 0+20=20). This doesn't make sense, much like it doesn't make sense to only be able to see people up to 200' away.
I really do think it comes down to when you call for a check, which goes back to my comments on the two triggers for a perception check.
EDIT: To use your example someone not stealthed 50' away (or 100') would not even require a perception check. Provided there are no other conditions that would trigger a check. No taking 10, no implication of a roll at all.
This can and does come up in play.
Consider that a sniper can attack from over 1000 feet away. That's a -100 to your perception check to notice where the attack is coming from. Only -80 if you take into account the penalty for sniping!
|
|
This can and does come up in play.
Consider that a sniper can attack from over 1000 feet away. That's a -100 to your perception check to notice where the attack is coming from. Only -80 if you take into account the penalty for sniping!
What weapon has that kind of range? Even if a weapon could fire from that distance, isn't that the point of attacking at extremely long rang? It's hard to spot the shooter.
What weapon has that kind of range? Even if a weapon could fire from that distance, isn't that the point of attacking at extremely long rang? It's hard to spot the shooter.This can and does come up in play.
Consider that a sniper can attack from over 1000 feet away. That's a -100 to your perception check to notice where the attack is coming from. Only -80 if you take into account the penalty for sniping!
Composite long bow, heavy crossbow...
|
|
What weapon has that kind of range? Even if a weapon could fire from that distance, isn't that the point of attacking at extremely long rang? It's hard to spot the shooter.This can and does come up in play.
Consider that a sniper can attack from over 1000 feet away. That's a -100 to your perception check to notice where the attack is coming from. Only -80 if you take into account the penalty for sniping!
Projectile weapons have a maximum range of 10 range increments. So a longbow with a range increment of 100' could fire that far.
Not just hard to spot. Impossible to spot. A 20 on a perception check is not an automatic success.
Add in far shot and a distance weapon and it can get truly ridiculous.
Edit:
A colossal creature with far shot firing a composite longbow of distance at a target 1000 feet away has only a -4 penalty to hit due to distance and a +64 bonus to the stealth check, counting only distance, size and sniping. Assuming the creature has no stealth modifier, that's a minimum check of 65.
Let's be generous and say your perception total is +20. To have a 1 in 400 chance of spotting the creature (it rolls a 1 and you roll a 20), you have to close to 750 feet.
Even PFS GMs are thinking people who understand when something is absurd.There are zero situations where this distance penalty is an actual problem. There is never a need for a perception check to notice the obvious or you'd be making perception checks all day.
Yes, but when confronted with the rules they actually have to follow these. I know plenty of DM's who find things in the ruleset absurd but they can't houserule it for PFS just because they do.
When is something obvious and when not? Is seeing someone a mile away obvious? A mile minus 20 ft? And so on. Sooner or later you get from the "obvious" to "non-obvious", and then there'll be a hard limit there between automatic success and automatic failure even for the best.
Say that you think that up to 1000 ft. is "obvious", but more than that is. A half-blind commoner will detect someone at 1000ft. without rolling, as will a 20th-level ranger with maxed perception. At 1010 ft. the DC of 101 kicks in and it's impossible to detect it for both. That doesn't make sense either.
Also, as Umbral Reaver said, this IS relevant in a game where you have as large distances as you have. Without clear rules on when it's obvious and not, it becomes 100% DM fiat - something that is bad for something as basic as detection rules.
If you think it's so obvious, why even include those DC's in the list? Why have perception rules based on distance if we shouldn't use them?
If I interpret the table as you seem to be it should be possible to percept a visible creature through a 20' wall (DC 0+20=20). This doesn't make sense, much like it doesn't make sense to only be able to see people up to 200' away.
I really do think it comes down to when you call for a check, which goes back to my comments on the two triggers for a perception check.
EDIT: To use your example someone not stealthed 50' away (or 100') would not even require a perception check. Provided there are no other conditions that would trigger a check. No taking 10, no implication of a roll at all.
20 ft. wall is DC 200. I think you're talking about a 2 ft. wall and yes, that is correct. Perception is more than just sight, so if you make the DC 20 feat you hear them breathe, move or the like. That is if there isn't any distance otherwise between you. I would however consider treating the creature as invisible to the player as he is (in fact) invisible, increasing the DC to 40. But that's more of a DM call - which I'm fine with in such a special situation.
If it's a silenced area you might have a point, but that's very much of a special case where it's noted that some forms of perception doesn't work.
And by RAW, there WOULD be a check, but the DC is 5 for 50 ft. away, disregarding other factors, so unless something bumped it up to DC 10+your perception modifier it won't matter.
What weapon has that kind of range? Even if a weapon could fire from that distance, isn't that the point of attacking at extremely long rang? It's hard to spot the shooter.This can and does come up in play.
Consider that a sniper can attack from over 1000 feet away. That's a -100 to your perception check to notice where the attack is coming from. Only -80 if you take into account the penalty for sniping!
Spotting someone at a range of 300m isn't hard, unless there's other factors involved (distractions, cover, bad lighting). Hitting them is another thing, but you DO take the -20 for firing.
But it's enough that some flying dragon casts a fireball at you from 600 ft. The DC to detect a huge creature at 600 ft. is 52.
What weapon has that kind of range? Even if a weapon could fire from that distance, isn't that the point of attacking at extremely long rang? It's hard to spot the shooter.This can and does come up in play.
Consider that a sniper can attack from over 1000 feet away. That's a -100 to your perception check to notice where the attack is coming from. Only -80 if you take into account the penalty for sniping!
Spotting someone at a range of 300m isn't hard, unless there's other factors involved (distractions, cover, bad lighting). Hitting them is another thing, but you DO take the -20 for firing.
But it's enough that some flying dragon casts a fireball at you from 600 ft. The DC to detect a huge creature at 600 ft. is 52.
..There we were, just wandering about in the country side, when *WHAMMO* we got hit by a fireball that came out of thin air! Strangest thing I ever saw! Good thing we were all rogues and we made our reflex saves and, well, you know, evasion and all that.... But we did run mighty fast afterwards, I tell you. Scared the bejeezers out of us....
Spotting someone at a range of 300m isn't hard, unless there's other factors involved (distractions, cover, bad lighting). Hitting them is another thing, but you DO take the -20 for firing.
But it's enough that some flying dragon casts a fireball at you from 600 ft. The DC to detect a huge creature at 600 ft. is 52.
This did come up in game. GM describes huge dragon soaring down from a mountain peak. It's 800 feet away. Ranger figures he can make that shot and wants to use the sniping rules to stay hidden.
We work out the modifiers and determine that neither of them can see each other.
But it's enough that some flying dragon casts a fireball at you from 600 ft. The DC to detect a huge creature at 600 ft. is 52.
You can't really complain about one side of the analogy without looking at the other.
A huge Red Dragon (Adult) has a Perception of +23, so even with rolling a 20 he isn't seeing the target to cast said fireball.
For clarity's sake, I have no issues with the Perception system. It has a set of guidelines and you can use Rule 0 whenever you think it needs to be altered.
Hitting them is another thing, but you DO take the -20 for firing.
Well, -10 with far shot. -0 if you're also a rogue with the sniper archetype. Plus all your sneak attack if you have a pair of sniper goggles. Not a bad plan, assuming you can spot your target at all, at that distance.
|
|
Even PFS GMs are thinking people who understand when something is absurd.There are zero situations where this distance penalty is an actual problem. There is never a need for a perception check to notice the obvious or you'd be making perception checks all day.
Yes, but when confronted with the rules they actually have to follow these. I know plenty of DM's who find things in the ruleset absurd but they can't houserule it for PFS just because they do.
When is something obvious and when not? Is seeing someone a mile away obvious? A mile minus 20 ft? And so on. Sooner or later you get from the "obvious" to "non-obvious", and then there'll be a hard limit there between automatic success and automatic failure even for the best.
Say that you think that up to 1000 ft. is "obvious", but more than that is. A half-blind commoner will detect someone at 1000ft. without rolling, as will a 20th-level ranger with maxed perception. At 1010 ft. the DC of 101 kicks in and it's impossible to detect it for both. That doesn't make sense either.
Also, as Umbral Reaver said, this IS relevant in a game where you have as large distances as you have. Without clear rules on when it's obvious and not, it becomes 100% DM fiat - something that is bad for something as basic as detection rules.
If you think it's so obvious, why even include those DC's in the list? Why have perception rules based on distance if we shouldn't use them?
Ah my numbers. Again, the principle is the same. Can you explain why whether or not something is visible (not invisible) sets the base DC for something behind a 2' thick wall. Be it a room or a corridor or a building or what have you?
The rules would seem to be when you make a perception check the table provides suggested modifiers to that check. Not all the situations you describe require a perception check.
I think 1000' is obvious if there are no other conditions present that would trigger a perception check.
If a sniper is sniping I assume he's making some effort to conceal himself which would trigger a perception check. If he is standing in the middle of a field, 1000' feet away with no other trigger conditions being present, then no perception check is required.
The modifiers come into play once a perception check is called for.
I'm not saying perception checks aren't relevant. I'm saying not every situation you've described requires a perception check.
But it's enough that some flying dragon casts a fireball at you from 600 ft. The DC to detect a huge creature at 600 ft. is 52.You can't really complain about one side of the analogy without looking at the other.
A huge Red Dragon (Adult) has a Perception of +23, so even with rolling a 20 he isn't seeing the target to cast said fireball.
WHICH IS MY POINT. Neither side can see each other, which is unrealistic AND hurt the game.
Yes, you can rule 0 stuff, but so can you with everything else. Saying that a broken rule isn't a broken rule just because you can rule 0 it is meaningless, because that's true for everything. And now I'm talking broken as in "this rule makes no sense at all" rather than "this rule is overpowered/not to my personal taste".
I'm fine with "rule 0 it" as a solution to odd class/feat interactions, because those won't show up in most games and solving it for those that have issues with it works fine. I'm fine with "rule 0 it" when it comes to stuff like the craft skill, because making a working system for that is hard and would eat a lot of space and isn't anywhere near the focus of the game. I'm fine with "rule 0 it" when it comes to alignment, because those don't have as large mechanical part and instead have good guidelines.
I'm not fine with "rule 0 it" when it's a rule so basic and common that 95% of all games will have to rule 0 it, and with no guidelines as to when to do it. It's like lacking movement speed and saying "well, just rule 0 how far people can walk". This is instead "well, just rule 0 how far people can see". Right now, maximum perception distance is 20+perception mod*10 ft. for objects of human-like size, and up to 36+perception mod*10 ft. for creatures the size of a large house.
It is a non-working rule at the very core of the system, and it's very easy to fix.
Since it is so 'easy' to fix - how would you fix it?
The rules would seem to be when you make a perception check the table provides suggested modifiers to that check. Not all the situations you describe require a perception check.
But _every single other thing_ on that list require a perception check (if the DC rises to warrant it). Hearing a key turn, knowing if food is rotten or not and so on. Why would noticing a creature be the sole exception, without them noting that anywhere in the skill description?
I think 1000' is obvious if there are no other conditions present that would trigger a perception check.
And thus when it triggers it's completely impossible for anything short of a god to detect something 1000 ft. away. If you think there should be a check at 1000 ft., everyone automatically would fail it, even for a colossal creature.
Since it is so 'easy' to fix - how would you fix it?
Increase distance per penalty. I made a suggestion in the OP.
10 ft. -130 ft. -2
60 ft. -3
100 ft. -4
Every 50 ft. beyond that, another -1.
Or, if we want to simplify it even further, simply -1 per 40 ft, but I don't like that as much since it makes shorter distances not worth the trouble.
Yes, I can do this in my game and so can others, but that isn't relevant to PFS and it isn't relevant to it being a bad system mechanic to start with. Just as how I could create movement speeds if there wasn't a system for it but it's good that there is one that works very well. So would the perception skill with just a few minor changes.
|
|
The rules would seem to be when you make a perception check the table provides suggested modifiers to that check. Not all the situations you describe require a perception check.But _every single other thing_ on that list require a perception check (if the DC rises to warrant it). Hearing a key turn, knowing if food is rotten or not and so on. Why would noticing a creature be the sole exception, without them noting that anywhere in the skill description?
I think 1000' is obvious if there are no other conditions present that would trigger a perception check.And thus when it triggers it's completely impossible for anything short of a god to detect something 1000 ft. away. If you think there should be a check at 1000 ft., everyone automatically would fail it, even for a colossal creature.
I am not being sarcastic when I say I'm interested in you addressing my other points, particularly the wall scenario.
As to your colossal creature example. Under what circumstances is the colossal creature.
Right now it's possible to fail to notice a person standing in front of you. Or even yourself!
Wis 7, 0 ranks in Perception. Roll a 1. Your check result is -1.
You can't see a creature standing in your space!
I am not being sarcastic when I say I'm interested in you addressing my other points, particularly the wall scenario.
As to your colossal creature example. Under what circumstances is the colossal creature.
I did, didn't I? A creature on the other side of a 2' wall (+20 DC) is basically invisible to you (+20 DC). As long as he doesn't speak, it's a DC 40 check which means only a really perceptive character/creature could detect him, in that case through hearing your breathing or whatever.
You said that 1000ft. distance is enough to warrant a check. A collosal creature has a -16 due to size, so the DC is 0 + 100 - 16 = 84. I don't know of anything less than a god that can make that save - it might be possible through some shenanigans, but basically it's impossible.
Right now it's possible to fail to notice a person standing in front of you. Or even yourself!
Wis 7, 0 ranks in Perception. Roll a 1. Your check result is -1.
You can't see a creature standing in your space!
I WOULD see detecting yourself as at least favorable circumstances, so you wouldn't fail that. But yes, if your abscent-minded and stressed so you can't take 10 it might happen now and then that you don't notice a person in front of you in the first instance you see them. That isn't too hard to imagine.
|
|
Right now it's possible to fail to notice a person standing in front of you. Or even yourself!
Wis 7, 0 ranks in Perception. Roll a 1. Your check result is -1.
You can't see a creature standing in your space!
Again I need to ask what is actually triggering the need for a perception check in this example?
Again I need to ask what is actually triggering the need for a perception check in this example?Right now it's possible to fail to notice a person standing in front of you. Or even yourself!
Wis 7, 0 ranks in Perception. Roll a 1. Your check result is -1.
You can't see a creature standing in your space!
The creature is the detail in the environment, just as it is stated in the skill description. Don't you even read the skill?
It comes down to: RAW, the DC IS 0+1 per 10 ft, and that's the way it is. There's really no debate about it since the rules are clear. What people are suggesting is "skip the RAW, rule 0 it" and I thought that was what you were doing too.
|
|
I am not being sarcastic when I say I'm interested in you addressing my other points, particularly the wall scenario.
As to your colossal creature example. Under what circumstances is the colossal creature.
I did, didn't I? A creature on the other side of a 2' wall (+20 DC) is basically invisible to you (+20 DC). As long as he doesn't speak, it's a DC 40 check which means only a really perceptive character/creature could detect him, in that case through hearing your breathing or whatever.
You said that 1000ft. distance is enough to warrant a check. A collosal creature has a -16 due to size, so the DC is 0 + 100 - 16 = 84. I don't know of anything less than a god that can make that save - it might be possible through some shenanigans, but basically it's impossible.
I WOULD see detecting yourself as at least favorable circumstances, so you wouldn't fail that. But yes, if your abscent-minded and stressed so you can't take 10 it might happen now and then that you don't notice a person in front of you in the first instance you see them. That isn't too hard to imagine.Right now it's possible to fail to notice a person standing in front of you. Or even yourself!
Wis 7, 0 ranks in Perception. Roll a 1. Your check result is -1.
You can't see a creature standing in your space!
I think you're misreading me again. What I said was 1000' is enough to warrant a check provided there is a trigger for a perception check. Much like there would be for something 5' away provided there is a trigger for a perception check.
As to the wall you haven't answered why a vision based detail (visible creature) sets the DC for something that is behind a 2' wall and so not visible at all.
And again, what is the colossal creature doing to warrant a check? Is it invisible, stealthed?
A colossal creature 1000' away in and of itself, with no conditions that would trigger a perception check, does not require a perception check.
|
|
Again I need to ask what is actually triggering the need for a perception check in this example?Right now it's possible to fail to notice a person standing in front of you. Or even yourself!
Wis 7, 0 ranks in Perception. Roll a 1. Your check result is -1.
You can't see a creature standing in your space!
The creature is the detail in the environment, just as it is stated in the skill description. Don't you even read the skill?
It comes down to: RAW, the DC IS 0+1 per 10 ft, and that's the way it is. There's really no debate about it since the rules are clear. What people are suggesting is "skip the RAW, rule 0 it" and I thought that was what you were doing too.
I'd prefer to have this discussion without you getting narky.
RAW the modifiers affect a perception check to oppose a stealth roll or notice a fine detail in the environment.
I do not consider a colossal creature 1000' away to be a fine detail of the environment, and so no perception check is required.
|
|
And again, what is the colossal creature doing to warrant a check? Is it invisible, stealthed?It has cast blur. Or it hide behind a butterfly. Whatever: the colossal creature is either automatically visible with no check, either completely undetectable since the check is impossible to success. And this binary alternative is plain dumb.
Blur affects miss chance, a colossal creature cannot hide behind a butterfly.
Except maybe Mothra.
I think you're misreading me again. What I said was 1000' is enough to warrant a check provided there is a trigger for a perception check.
That's a tautology.
Much like there would be for something 5' away provided there is a trigger for a perception check.
As to the wall you haven't answered why a vision based detail (visible creature) sets the DC for something that is behind a 2' wall and so not visible at all.
And again, what is the colossal creature doing to warrant a check? Is it invisible, stealthed?
A colossal creature 1000' away in and of itself, with no conditions that would trigger a perception check, does not require a perception check.
It doesn't. It isn't "visible creature", it is "invisible creature" (DC 20). Or if you want, set it as impossible. It doesn't matter, because we aren't discussing the rules for detection through walls here.
Invisible has a specific DC, stealthed has a specific DC, and funnily enough, visible ALSO has a specified DC, that is used when the creature is, well, having line of sight with the perceptor.
Look, I (and others) have tried to explain this to you several times now, and I'm going to try one last time, more structured.
So:
1. Perception is a skill for noticing details in the environment.
2. It has a list of details that can be detected.
3. Each detail has a set DC that is augmented by other things.
4. To notice a detail you have to succeed on a perception check against this specified DC.
5. A visible creature is a detail in the list, and has a DC of 0.*
6. Thus, by 4 and 5, to see a visible creature, you have to succeed on a check that normally has a DC of 0.**
7. The DC that you have to beat to notice a detail increases by +1 for every 10 ft. of distance.
8. Thus, by 6 and 7, the DC to notice a visible creature you have to succeed on a check that has a DC of 0 + 1 per 10 ft. of distance.
*It is not "notice a visible creature behind cover", "notice a visible creature using stealth" or anything like that. It's a plain visible creature, neither more nor less.
**Since you can take 10 more often than not, this isn't an issue much of the time.
That's the way perception works. I've tried explaining it so many times, and this was my last - sorry if it wasn't enough.
EDIT: Sorry if I sounded snarky, wasn't meant that way. My skills with English are limited, so my language can sometimes appear to have nuance that isn't there intentionally. I was in all seriousness wondering if you had read the skill since it's written quite plainly.