|
It would only work until the enemies can react, guessing rogue rolled a higher initiative, which means in the first round of combat, it doesn't matter that they can't see him. As soon as they act, they aren't considered flat-footed or denied their dex anymore. Also as a reminder, he would need to get within 30 ft(9 meters) for ranged sneak attack.
Perception checks are really only required when someone is trying to hide.
If safe to assume that if one group can see the other, then the other group can see them (assuming no one is trying to hide).
Perception
(Wis)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.
Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
If you're not hiding, they're not surprised or flat-footed. They notice you.
Just roll initiative.
Surprise rounds where the bad guys automatically know the party is comming are hackneyed and overdone. Its not fun just standing there and tacking off hit point damage and making multiple saves.
but why would there be an own DC mentioned to "notice a visable creature".
Distance modifiers. If you want to figure out how far away you can generally see someone from, at night, in the dark, in fog etc
There's a lot of factors here that are circumstancial or GM fiat.
Are the enemies hostile to begin with?
Do they know that you are hostile?
A surprise round does not start immediately upon the rouge spotting the enemy, but when the rouge decides to start attacking, or when the opponents start attacking if they manage to spot the rouge and/or his team.
.
Finally, and here is where GM Fiat comes in, what does stealth actually do? There is no mention of this in the stealth skill. It merely mentions that you take penalties to stealth checks if youre moving too fast, that it's hard to hide if youre big, that you cant stealth while observed, that you can snipe and create stealth opportunities with bluff. But nowhere is there mentined what stealth actually does for your character save for what we assume that you can use it to hide from your opponents. This kind of problem isnt new to roleplaying.
While stealthed you are essentially "invisible", does that mean you gain the effects of invisibility while fighting like this? While stealthed the enemy is essentially "blind" against your attacks, so should they be treated as such when you attack? Note that Invisibility grants you sneak attack, but Blindness does not.
Exactly what stealth does to aid your rouge in combat is up to your GM, whatever people tell you on the internet is merely hypotheses or half-homebrew.
Idd say neither, because neither is appropriate in this exact circumstance, and thus the enemies are merely flat footed for the surprise round and until they act in their round afterwards. In other words, the rouge gets a single sneak attack in the surprise round, and if he manages to beat their initiative then he gets a full round of sneak attack in the following round. No stealth needed.
.
About spotting distance.
"Dectecting" someone at 45meters+ isn't the issue, noticing that they are an enemy, or who they are at all, at 45m is the issue.
You would most certainly see a person standing on a road 45m away from you, but would you be able to tell if they held a gun? Probably not at first sight no.
In this circumstance the opponent wouldt notice whether or not the rouge means them harm at 45m, so unless they prepare to fight anyone they meet then they are flat footed.
if you're trying to see who sees who first make an opposed perception check. add any stealth check made previously to your rolls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put, the distance modifiers in this game are nonsense, at least with regards to vision.
If those distance modifiers applied to real life, then the two goal tenders in a soccer (footbol) match could not see each other, even in broad daylight. In fact, the players standing at mid-field would fail most of their perception checks to see either goalie. In fact, the average human who didn't specialize in training his perception would almost have to be inside the penalty box to be able to consistently see the goalie and would still fail sometimes - even when everyone is standing still and nothing is between him and the goalie. And none of the fans who came to watch the game can actually see all the way down to the field - nobody can see the players at all.
Imagine standing in that penalty box and, at least sometimes, not be able to see the goalie when you're looking right at him with nothing in the way, in broad daylight.
You would call that person blind. But Pathfinder calls that person an average commoner with normal vision.
That's silly.
I house-rule that the distance modifiers work perfectly for hearing-based perception checks or vision-based perception checks in bad lighting, but multiply them by x10 for vision-based perception checks in good lighting.
But you don't want house-rules, so I suggest that you don't even use perception checks in this situation. Use GM judgment.
Frankly, I don't think any of the game developers ever expected us to use Perception like this anyway. They expected us to only use it when seeing things is difficult in the first place.
How far away are they when they first gain line-of-sight? Did the PCs just walk around a corner, step out of a forest, come around or over a hill, etc.? Or have they been walking for hours out on a perfectly flat grassland where they can see for miles? Figure out the distance at which normal humans in the normal world would have seen each other given the terrain and other situations applicable to this encounter.
You might have people grumble that their character is an elf with better eyes, or some such. Ask them to show the rule that elves see farther in good lighting. They can't.
Some will say that they have the highest perception, they should see farther. Then use my soccer field analogy above and tell the player that his eyes are so good that he can see the goalie from midfield while the other characters can only see him from the penalty box and ask him if that makes sense - when he agrees that it doesn't, just say that Perception doesn't apply to situations like this.
Whatever that distance is, start the battle with the two groups being that far apart. No surprise round since everybody sees everyone else. Easy peasy.
If you're not hiding, they're not surprised or flat-footed. They notice you.
I think that, in a combat situation, they are flat-footed until they get to act (on their initiative round).
At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues of high enough level have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which means that they cannot be caught flat-footed. Characters with uncanny dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat. A flat-footed character can't make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat.
They may not be surprised, but they can be flat-footed.
Thinking of distance in squares instead of the actual distance may help. This mean the distance penalty is +1dc per 2 squares. So the distance you are talking the rogue has to be using a bow, or sling because even with sniper goggles the maximum range still applies. Thrown weapons have a maximum of 5 range increments and a projectile weapon has a maximum of 10 range increments. Assuming the rogue is using a short bow that means he is taking -10 to hit. Even vs. a flat footed opponent the rogue is going to have a hard time hitting.
Once you have a chance to act you are no longer flat footed. You can react to being attacked without being aware of the location of the attacker as long as you know you are under attack. Assuming that the rogue actually managed to get an arrow near the group they will probably realize they are under attack and the direction of the attack. You could make them roll a perception roll with a penalty to the distance to the nearest arrow if you really want to be hardcore. Even if I don’t know who is shooting at me, or where he is I can try and take cover or move around to make myself harder to hit. This is basic tactics that is any experienced combatant will use.
As to the rogue getting a full attack there is an easy way to do this. Use delay action in the surprise round. The delay action is triggered off of being able to get a full attack. This effectively gives up your surprise round but puts your initiative to the first person to act in the round.
The other thing people are forgetting is there are probably circumstantial modifiers that are not being factored in. The DC 0 would be for a single creature in a normal setting. Each creature in the group being spotted should increase the chance of spotting the group. I would probably say at least a +1 per person in the group would be a good start. Also what is the group wearing? Someone wearing an explorers outfit would probably be no bonus to spot, but a knight in a bright sircoat would be easier to spot. Also perception is not just sight so someone in armor would also be easier to notice. I would apply the armor check penalty to the chance to notice.
If the rogue manages to get the drop on the other group with all those penalties then let him have his full sneak attack. But he does not keep getting to make sneak attacks on someone after the person has a chance to act.
Just remember that with regards to the distance thing, while the rules exists it's actually a pretty terrible rule.
Because by the rules, a level 1 person with a +4 bonus to perception will fail to miss someone who is not hiding and is in a plain field 250 ft away. That means that football players can't spot someone on the other end of the field from them.
More obtusely, you can't see the sun in sky because it's 93 million miles away. Nor can you see the moon which is 240,000 miles away.
Don't be over particular about the distance rules or the DC for "visible" creatures. My advice is ignore that, and just assume that if no one is hiding that both groups can see each other equally well. Anything else just gets silly.
If you're not hiding, they're not surprised or flat-footed. They notice you.I think that, in a combat situation, they are flat-footed until they get to act (on their initiative round).
At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues of high enough level have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which means that they cannot be caught flat-footed. Characters with uncanny dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat. A flat-footed character can't make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat.They may not be surprised, but they can be flat-footed.
I meant they are not flat-footed due to "failing to perceive the enemy". The normal combat rules about being flat-footed apply in that people are flat-footed until they are able to act.
The perception rules are generally hand-waved unless someone is out of sight or trying to hide. If cover or concealment is in play they are also used.
By the rules you can't even make a perception check that would allow you to see the sun. Basically my point is that you have to learn when game intends for you to use certain rules.
edit:I see I was ninja'd.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More obtusely, you can't see the sun in sky because it's 93 million miles away.
Let's not get carried away...
That sun is Colossal, so it gets a -16 to it's opposed Stealth check (which equates to a -16 to the DC to spot it with Perception) and it's very bright so "Favorable Conditions" really should apply.
That means the base DC is -18.
Applying for distance modifier of +49,103,999,999 that puts the DC to see the sun at 49,103,999,981.
That's totally doable...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the game is not perfect it is not as bad as people are making out. Yes the chance of spotting someone in a field 250 away is pretty small. In many cases perception is used for when someone has a chance to notice something, but is not actively looking. You are also forgetting to factor in circumstance bonuses and penalties.
If you are sitting in the park taking to a person, what do you think your chance of spotting someone walking out a door that is 100’ away and getting into a car is? The chance of you spotting the person walking out the door and getting into the car is pretty small. On the other hand if you are watching that door for a person to come out you have a good chance to spot him.
Perception should be used for when you have a chance to notice something but may miss it. You don’t need a rule for everything. Common sense goes a long way to prevent a lot of these type of situations. Spotting the obvious should not require a roll, just like talking does not require a diplomacy roll to be understood.
You might have people grumble that their character is an elf with better eyes, or some such. Ask them to show the rule that elves see farther in good lighting. They can't.
Some will say that they have the highest perception, they should see farther. Then use my soccer field analogy above and tell the player that his eyes are so good that he can see the goalie from midfield while the other characters can only see him from the penalty box and ask him if that makes sense - when he agrees that it doesn't, just say that Perception doesn't apply to situations like this.
To be fair...
Keen Senses: Elves receive a +2 racial bonus on Perception checks.
Elves see better in any light than an otherwise identical human by RAW.
I think that the concept of someone trained to spot targets at extreme distances being able to see stuff further away isn't unreasonable. An SAS sniper should be able to notice a person from further away than a soccer mom.
Likewise, an eagle should be able to see way further than most humans because it's eyesight is just better(reflected in the rules by it's +8 racial bonus).
The implementation of this concept just happens to be really badly done.
I would probably apply different rates of penalty increase based on lighting. The RAW penalties I would apply to a dark night. Bright daylight should probably be -1 per 200 feet or there abouts. That seems a little bit more sane.
I think you are over complicating the perception rules. They are designed around you seeing fine details and hidden objects.
For outdoor perception ranges check the environment rules for example:Check: Perception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised.
...
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.
Stealth and Detection in the Desert: In general, the maximum distance in desert terrain at which a Perception check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 6d6 × 20 feet;...
This is where you have to use implicit rules rather than expecting every single circumstance to be outlined in great detail.
Taking an average I can perceive any reasonably sized item in a desert - if I want to make out fine details/see someone hidden up to 420' away then the modifiers come in for size, distance etc.
A football field would be Plains which is 6d6x40' for perception distance and so a minimum of 240'. Checking the colour of the goalies eyes = difficult seeing him = easy.
Emphasis is mine.
ok
The questions are:
1. Do i need to roll perception if a creature is not hiding?
rulebook clearly says yes, since defining an own DC for that specific Szenario.
Any other oppionions according to the rulebook or official Statements?
1. If you want to go strictly by the rules then yes, but you would also have to roll perception not just for every person, but for everything, and for every sound. <---That is why people just handwave things unless they are hidden or they have cover or concealment. Otherwise you will spend all day rolling dice, and not playing.
You would rolling for the person, their personal items, any buildings, every time someone spoke, and the list goes on.
2. Do i lose DEX-Bonus to AC if i fail to spot somebody attacking me?
rulebook generally says:"If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC."
is this rule applicable?
if yes: ok
if no: Does this mean a rogue succesfully using stealth is not allowed to use sneak attacks?
Yes, if you do not notice someone then you are denied dex to AC, whether it is due to distance or them being sneaky, but unless you are in a forest or similar place this is ignored in most games. Most players if they are new to your group would also be annoyed, so be ready if you have them rolling for all of these things that most GM's, even in PFS, don't have you roll for.
From "Scouting for Boys":
At 150’ the mouth and eyes of a person can be distinguished.
At 300’ the eyes appear as dots
At 600’ the general details of clothing can be distinguished.
At 900’ faces can be seen
At 500yds colours of clothing can be seen.
At 800yds a man looks like a post.
At 1 mile (1760yds) the trunks of large trees can be seen.
2 1/2 miles Chimneys and windows can be distinguished
6 miles windmills, large houses and towers can be recognised
9 miles an average church steeple can be seen.
A yard is 3 feet or roughly 92cm
1. If you want to go strictly by the rules then yes, but you would also have to roll perception not just for every person, but for everything, and for every sound....ok
The questions are:
1. Do i need to roll perception if a creature is not hiding?
rulebook clearly says yes, since defining an own DC for that specific Szenario.
Any other oppionions according to the rulebook or official Statements?
Where in the rules does it say you have to roll if someone isn't hiding? Edit: "or otherwise obscured"
Where in the rules does it say you have to roll if someone isn't hiding? Edit: "or otherwise obscured"1. If you want to go strictly by the rules then yes, but you would also have to roll perception not just for every person, but for everything, and for every sound....ok
The questions are:
1. Do i need to roll perception if a creature is not hiding?
rulebook clearly says yes, since defining an own DC for that specific Szenario.
Any other oppionions according to the rulebook or official Statements?
Once again the rules do not say that, but the intent is to find things that are not so easy to notice instead of spending the session rolling dice for every detail. Like I said before nobody I know and this includes official conventions in 3.5 and Pathfinder has had people roll for every possible thing that might be noticed. That is why I said in my other post "If you want to go strictly by the rules then yes....."
Where in the rules does it say you have to roll if someone isn't hiding? Edit: "or otherwise obscured"1. If you want to go strictly by the rules then yes, but you would also have to roll perception not just for every person, but for everything, and for every sound....ok
The questions are:
1. Do i need to roll perception if a creature is not hiding?
rulebook clearly says yes, since defining an own DC for that specific Szenario.
Any other oppionions according to the rulebook or official Statements?
Detail | Perception DC
Hear the sound of battle | –10
Notice the stench of rotting garbage | –10
Detect the smell of smoke | 0
Hear the details of a conversation | 0
Notice a visible creature | 0
Determine if food is spoiled | 5
Hear the sound of a creature walking | 10
Hear the details of a whispered conversation | 15
Find the average concealed door | 15
Hear the sound of a key being turned in a lock | 20
Find the average secret door | 20
Hear a bow being drawn | 25
Sense a burrowing creature underneath you | 25
Notice a pickpocket | Opposed by Sleight of Hand
Notice a creature using Stealth | Opposed by Stealth
Find a hidden trap | Varies by trap
Identify the powers of a potion through taste | 15 + the potion's caster level
Where in the rules does it say you have to roll if someone isn't hiding? Edit: "or otherwise obscured"1. If you want to go strictly by the rules then yes, but you would also have to roll perception not just for every person, but for everything, and for every sound....ok
The questions are:
1. Do i need to roll perception if a creature is not hiding?
rulebook clearly says yes, since defining an own DC for that specific Szenario.
Any other oppionions according to the rulebook or official Statements?
All right, there's a person somewhere in Yankee stadium during today's game. His name is Waldo (sometimes he goes by Wally), and he's not hiding or otherwise obscured.
Where is he?
Or, for that matter, ET at the Galactic Senate.
I think you would find that Waldo would count as obscured - there are thousands of people - recognising which is Waldo? that's fine detail base DC0 and penalties such as range apply which is equally relevant for ET.
The sound of battle is a baseline included for hearing at a distance through doors etc and presumably since it's fine detail it doesn't mean a general melee of a hundred screaming Barbarians.
And so on
If you only take on board explicit rules you will make absurd extrapolations i.e. in PFRPG you can't see the sun using perception.
you have to take on board the implicit as well.
The actual line is "Notice a visible creature 0" no mention of hiding or not hiding - it's a base line.
The actual line is "Notice a visible creature 0" no mention of hiding or not hiding - it's a base line.
That's not true.
Hiding uses Stealth. The same table says that noticing creature using Stealth (hiding) is DC = Stealth check. Therefore, noticing a visible creature is, by exclusion, not a hiding creature.
You're right though. It is a baseline for a creature who is not hiding.
for realistic sight penalties, the next range increment should be double the previous one, as the differences between something 200 ft away and 100 ft away are much less severe than the difference between someone 5 feet away and someone 100 feet away.
10-30-70-150-310-630-1270-2550-etc. this is of course non-obstructed vision.
though I still say if you want to check who sees who first, it should be an opposed perception check.
I think you would find that Waldo would count as obscured - there are thousands of people - recognising which is Waldo? that's fine detail base DC0 and penalties such as range apply which is equally relevant for ET.
Well, that's not what "obscuring" means to me, or when people in generally talk about objects being "obscured" in photos. But let it pass...
The fundamental point is that people are not necessarily good at spotting things, even things that you might consider to be "obvious." Are you familiar with the "Did you see the gorilla" experiment from 1999? Fully 50% of the subjects watching a basketball game on video didn't see a woman in a gorilla costume wander through.
In the words of the researchers behind that study, "we think we perceive and remember more of our world than we actually do." Examples are legion.
But if 50% of the people watching a basketball game can't see a DC 0 gorilla wandering across the court and pounding its chest, then I have no problem with someone missing a person who isn't hiding. After all, the gorilla wasn't hiding, either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love that gorilla experiment.
I make people roll Perception checks all the time in combat to see fairly obvious things. The DCs are usually quite low, but no Take-10 (combat) means sometimes in combat they just don't see that plain, obvious, unhidden monster walk into the room.
When the players grumble, I remind them of that gorilla experiment.
for realistic sight penalties, the next range increment should be double the previous one, as the differences between something 200 ft away and 100 ft away are much less severe than the difference between someone 5 feet away and someone 100 feet away.
10-30-70-150-310-630-1270-2550-etc. this is of course non-obstructed vision.
Granted. But since [whine]"math is HAAAARD!"[/whine] and most people can't do geometric progressions in their head, Paizo wisely went for an abstraction that wouldn't require an engineering degree to play.
Granted. But since [whine]"math is HAAAARD!"[/whine] and most people can't do geometric progressions in their head, Paizo wisely went for an abstraction that wouldn't require an engineering degree to play.for realistic sight penalties, the next range increment should be double the previous one, as the differences between something 200 ft away and 100 ft away are much less severe than the difference between someone 5 feet away and someone 100 feet away.
10-30-70-150-310-630-1270-2550-etc. this is of course non-obstructed vision.
They could just provide a chart though.
People like those, right?
Granted. But since [whine]"math is HAAAARD!"[/whine] and most people can't do geometric progressions in their head, Paizo wisely went for an abstraction that wouldn't require an engineering degree to play.for realistic sight penalties, the next range increment should be double the previous one, as the differences between something 200 ft away and 100 ft away are much less severe than the difference between someone 5 feet away and someone 100 feet away.
10-30-70-150-310-630-1270-2550-etc. this is of course non-obstructed vision.
They could just provide a chart though.
People like those, right?
Oh, absolutely. <rolleyes> That's why 1st Edition AD&D outsells Pathfinder by 4 to 1, and ICE's Rolemaster outsells them both combined.
The opposite of visible is invisible it's a base line as the DC20 is for invisible creatures.
As for the gorilla experiment there are rules for being distracted and or in unfavourable circumstances under Perception to account for it.
Why add more complication? Why invent checks for things that don't need them? I Pathfinder if it isn't fine detail obscured/hidden it doesn't need a perception check - according to the rules.
Apart from detecting Stealthed characters Perception is for
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.
Emphasis is again mine. Why do you want to add "see anything" to "notice fine details"?
I love that gorilla experiment.
I make people roll Perception checks all the time in combat to see fairly obvious things. The DCs are usually quite low, but no Take-10 (combat) means sometimes in combat they just don't see that plain, obvious, unhidden monster walk into the room.
When the players grumble, I remind them of that gorilla experiment.
I think DM Blake has the best answer. Everyone has been so focused on the range penalties and the fact it lists a DC for spotting a visible person. Most people seem to think that this means you must roll a perception roll to notice anything in any circumstance. The way I see it if someone is visible and not hiding, and you are not distracted or under stress you don’t need to roll to see them. If on the other hand you are in combat or otherwise distracted then asking a player to make a perception roll to notice someone is not unreasonable.
So spotting the goalie in a soccer game from the stands would not require a roll at all. If the person in the stands is in a fight or otherwise distracted then yes he is probably going to miss it when the goalie blocks the shot.
The problem is not so much the rule, but when to apply it.
The opposite of visible is invisible it's a base line as the DC20 is for invisible creatures.
As for the gorilla experiment there are rules for being distracted and or in unfavourable circumstances under Perception to account for it.
Why add more complication? Why invent checks for things that don't need them? I Pathfinder if it isn't fine detail obscured/hidden it doesn't need a perception check - according to the rules.
Apart from detecting Stealthed characters Perception is for
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.Emphasis is again mine. Why do you want to add "see anything" to "notice fine details"?
Here is the issue.
What is a fine detail?
Here is another. If seeing a visible person isn't a fine detail, why is there a DC for seeing a person.
One of the following is true
a) seeing a person is a fine detail and thus *all the stupid scenarios listed above* and the "fine details" phrase is basically meaningless fluff (if a perception check isn't an auto-pass the reason for the check should probably qualify as a "fine detail")
b) seeing a person is not a fine detail and thus people can see other people anywhere in line of sight even if they are on the moon unless those people happen to be using stealth. Also, the see a visible person line is literally pointless(and thus should probably read "no check")
c) seeing a person is sometimes a fine detail and sometimes not based on rules that exist nowhere in anywhere and thus there is no way of knowing if person A can see person B at distance X under Y conditions for any value of X and Y for which person A would fail their perception check were they to make it.
Your way basically says c).
A character is looking at an empty stretch of pavement. Do they see a gorilla that walks by. According to you, yes. Realistically, probably yes. Rules don't indicate one way or the other.
A character is looking at a stretch of pavement containing a basketball game. Do they see a gorilla that walks by. According to you, maybe not. According to empirical evidence, probably not. Rules don't indicate one way or the other. The rules do give a modifier to a perception check, but who knows if you have to make one.
ALL the rules for perception apply modifiers. None of them dictate if a check must be made or not aside from a single clause that mentions "fine detail" that could (read - probably) be there only because the developers of Pathfinder(or 3.5, whatever) didn't understand how catastrophically bad their rules were and thought that one would have to be looking for fine detail for the perception check to be high enough for a roll to be necessary.
Most people don't really bother with many perception checks that by RAW should be made because they understand that the rules are broken and it should be possible to see a tree 100 meters away in bright sunlight. They don't think that the perception DCs just *don't* apply sometimes based on some non-existant rules on what constitutes "Fine Details" that by one possible interpretation of the rules are vaguely implied to exist by part of a single sentence but not mentioned or implied to exist in any way by any other rules text anywhere ever.
It's really quite simple.
Use skill checks, ANY skill checks (including ability checks), only when there seems to be a non-negligible chance to fail and/or there are no significant consequences of failure.
Otherwise, when there is no chance to fail (such as seeing the sun on a clear sunny day) or a negligible chance to fail (such as walking down the sidewalk) or no significant consequences for failure (such as picking up a book), then don't bother will skill checks.
It's really that simple.
So let's forget about the absurdities, like seeing soccer players or seeing the sun. Under normal conditions (e.g. the spectator is NOT engaged in combat in the stands), there is no chance to fail.
Seeing people a few hundred feet away has NO CHANCE TO FAIL.
Unless there are other circumstances that can create a chance to fail. These might include:
- Distracted observers might fail an easy check, so make the check.
- Bad lighting can change everything, so make the check.
- Other sources of cover (bushes, trees, etc.) or concealment (fog, shadows, etc.) can justify a check.
- Etc. (anything that can reasonably cause an observer to fail to make an observation.
As a suggestion, the Perception table lists Distraction, Unfavorable Conditions, and Terrible Conditions. If any of these apply, then make the check, otherwise just assume that observers automatically make obvious perception checks.
An even better suggestion is that when the base DC is zero or less before distance modifiers, then don't make the check.
As for the OP, consider this:
Initially, there is no chance to succeed - neither party can successfully perceive the other one. The PCs are around a corner, or indoors, or maybe the bad guys are. Or they're just too far away (hours before the encounter, the two groups might be 20 miles apart or some such thing). So don't bother making any checks because they cannot succeed. (This is obvious but it leads to the next part.)
At some point the impossible become possible. Right at that point, that instant, the very first instant when at least one member of one of the two groups is capable of perceiving that other group, that's when the encounter starts. Where this point is, well, that's up to the GM. But there are some possible guidelines.
First, don't make checks if the chance of failure is negligible. If the PCs just came around a hill and the bad guys are just standing there, a couple hundred feet away, then boom, they see them, no rolls necessary. None for the bad guys either since the OP mentioned they were expecting the PCs, so it's not likely they're all busy playing Candy Crush on their iPads with nobody on lookout.
The DC is 0 before range increments and they are not at such extreme range to make it hard for people to see other people (over a mile, at least), so don't make a check
But if conditions suggest to the GM that there is a reason some of them might not see each other, then let's make a check. But this reason cannot be "They are a few hundred feet apart and the range increments can cause some failed perception checks". As noted, that's just silly and should only be applied when OTHER conditions create a chance of failure.
So the GM determines that specific instant when it become possible for one of them to see the others. That starts the encounter and now the GM knows the distance between the parties. He also knows if the base DC is zero (visible person) so that no check is needed, or above zero (distraction or unfavorable/terrible circumstances) which should require a check. If the check is required, then, and only then, apply distance modifiers.
That's a lot of typing for a very simple idea, but I hope that clears it up.
Also remember that if there is a group of people then they will be easier to spot than a single person. Look at the amount of frontage the group has and imagine that as a single creature. Then apply the size modifier of the creature to the check.
@CountOfUndolpho: "Where in the rules does it say you have to roll if someone isn't hiding? Edit: "or otherwise obscured" "
there ist a DC for it. Core Rulebook -> Perception
There is a DC for it, as mentioned before. If you wouldnt Need to roll it, there wouldnt be a DC for it i guess.
The DCs are Guidelines. The DC for a visible creature is a baseline for adding modifiers to, as the DC of 20 is for an invisible creature.
If your party was standing next to a battle would you make them roll to hear it? After all there is a DC for the noise of battle. Or would you only make them roll if they were asleep in a building 100' away etc.
DM_Blake has the right of it - if you don't need to check don't.
The DC is 0 before range increments and they are not at such extreme range to make it hard for people to see other people (over a mile, at least), so don't make a check
From "Scouting for Boys":At 150’ the mouth and eyes of a person can be distinguished.
At 300’ the eyes appear as dots
At 600’ the general details of clothing can be distinguished.
At 900’ faces can be seen
At 500yds colours of clothing can be seen.
At 800yds a man looks like a post.
At 1 mile (1760yds) the trunks of large trees can be seen.
2 1/2 miles Chimneys and windows can be distinguished
6 miles windmills, large houses and towers can be recognised
9 miles an average church steeple can be seen.A yard is 3 feet or roughly 92cm
Whilst it's from scouting for boys it is the same scale that the military used for determining range. "wait until you see the whites of their eyes" is not just bravado if you use a musket.
@ 800yds, which is less than half a mile, a man "looks like a post" so unless they are moving, on a horse etc. you could miss them quite easily.
I usually add approx 20% to the distances for a +2 racial bonus to perception.