| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know the only reason why RAW seeing the sun doesn't work is because nobody bothered to make size rules past colossal size. I was having similar problems just now because I've been trying to find out exactly how big the Tarrasque is to solidify some house rules. Personally I think once it's past double 64-128ft then the monster should have some environmental rules so that you can interact with it as if it were not a creature sometimes (climb it like in Shadow of the Colossus.)
But anyways, if you extrapolate the size data to determine what penalties the sun would have then you can totally see the sun. In fact the fact that it sheds light makes the penalty irrelevant enough to scorch your eyballs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are meant to cover situations on a tactical war-gaming battlefield.
I think that it can be safely said that for most games, the Sun itself will not be a tactical element nor player, even if it's sunlight can make things inconvenient for certain creature types.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to dispute the statement that the Sun is Colossal. It's waaaaaay bigger than a Tarrasque.
Also, it's in plain sight, in bright light, you don't need a perception to see it! The rules are perfect!
Please find the size category larger than colossal, and I'll totally concede that point. I'd also be happy, because it means I learn something!
I mean, the size categories apply to creatures, items, and vehicles.
Size categories, where noted (which come from 3.5 instead of PF), indicate Colossal height and length is "64 ft. or more" which means "anything larger than 64 feet." (though it's worth noting that the elder elementals do not follow this convention strictly - they are huge at 40 ft. long, for example, while the gargantuan roc is only 30 ft. long).
(My own invention of "Titanic" doesn't really count, and the old "Colossal+" size isn't ever referenced in actual PF rules... and still doesn't cover the situation of the sun anyway; though it would help however little bit it counts for.)
Don't get me wrong. Saying "The sun is larger than colossal." is entirely reasonable, but it's not covered by the rules - it's covered by one's own internal decision-making that ignores the rules for the sake of a good gaming experience. And that's pretty great.
I'm going to start requiring players to roll Perception checks to hear their comrades speak.
This is actually a rule.
(The majority of the time, the DC is 0, though.)
But, okay, let's do something more legitimate. Let's make an actual case where a Perception check may well be needed.
This is a valid in-game scenario. It won't apply to all games, but let's just look at it in the game as a stand in for various similar (even in very broad terms) scenarios.
Previously, I've mentioned the problem with baseball.
With the penalty in question, looking at the actual rules to notice a visible creature - ignoring all arguments about fine detail v. not fine detail - you cannot actually "Notice a visible creature." who is up to bat.
Let me reiterate that: it requires a DC 40 Perception check to do nothing more than notice a man who's up to bat.
What does "notice" mean? "To become aware of." So... no becoming aware of a man that far out without a DC 40 Perception check.
But baseball doesn't usually apply to the game - I mean, it can, but it's probably rare. So where else would such things apply?
A composite longbow has a range of 110 feet, and ranged weapons can be targeted within five range increments, but take a -2 penalty for each increment beyond the first. At 400 feet, a person with a composite longbow can make attacks at a -4 penalty... but would also not be able to notice the person in the first place. That's actually pretty reasonable (considering expected dual wielding penalties), and could prove quite useful. But... is that really intended? Does anyone play that way? Yet that's the actual rules.
But, you know, that is making attacks at penalty. What about more commonly used rules? May I present what is most probably the most iconic spell. The range starts at 400+ feet.
This indicates something, at least to me. It indicates that the rules aren't meant to be a hard-coded matrix to which everything is applied.
The rules indicate X... but if X is untenable and not supported by the rules, then the rules either aren't meant to be as strictly interpreted as they often are, if taken at face-value; or they are fail to do what they are actually intended to do.
If the rules aren't meant to be as strictly interpreted as they are if taken at face value (which seems clear), that means that they do nothing but suffer from heavy complications and strict reading. In this case, the rules would generally (not universally) benefit most from a refinement and general clarification with less-strict wording and fewer strict elements.
If the rules fail to do what they are actually intended to do, they need to be heavily changed. The strict reading prevents the rules from doing what they say they do.
The thing is that I'm not really worried about applying Perception to conversations, to seeing most people in the middle of the road, or other such extremes. But learning where those limits are and learning what I can and cannot rely upon the rules to reasonably express is important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are meant to cover situations on a tactical war-gaming battlefield.
I think that it can be safely said that for most games, the Sun itself will not be a tactical element nor player, even if it's sunlight can make things inconvenient for certain creature types.
Agreed about the Sun.
I would dispute that the rules are only meant to cover a tactical battlefield. There's some level of thought to the strategic level as well.
At least in some games, you might want to be looking for things at a greater range than the standard hex map covers.
And common sense should rule how to handle them. It's reasonable to require no roll to find the Sun. It's also reasonable to require a Survival or Knowledge Geography (which subsumes Astronomy) to find stars to navigate by on a moonless night.
On the other hand trying to spot a hidden archer will involve a Perception Check...with the appropriate modifiers.
But what about a non-hidden archer coming down the road? There is a point at which you can't see him, and a point at which you can? At what point is that?
Does it change if it's a prairie? Hills? Desert? Flat or hilly lands?
(Yes. But the rules rarely make sense of that.)
But what about a non-hidden archer coming down the road? There is a point at which you can't see him, and a point at which you can? At what point is that?
Does it change if it's a prairie? Hills? Desert? Flat or hilly lands?
(Yes. But the rules rarely make sense of that.)
You know of course that the answer is highly dependent on the local lay of the land, which rarely takes the form of a tottally flat field. It's also worth noting that when the party can't see the archer, the archer generally can't see the party either.
What you said pretty much is an admission that the D20 rules generally don't make much of addressing things beyond the tactical range. They may give it some lip service in mass combat rules, but not much beyond that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what about a non-hidden archer coming down the road? There is a point at which you can't see him, and a point at which you can? At what point is that?
Does it change if it's a prairie? Hills? Desert? Flat or hilly lands?
(Yes. But the rules rarely make sense of that.)
Officially?
As Hitdice pointed out earlier, you roll based on the terrain for "encounter distance". Strangely, it apparently makes no difference whether the creature you're encountering is a tiny pixie or a colossal dragon. Starting encounter distance is the same.
Actually it does. The Pixie has a far better size stealth modifier than the colossal dragon. And that doesn't even factor in the Pixie quality you forgot to mention... it's permanent natural invisbility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being unable to see the sun is not a big deal... in PF the sun can see YOUR CHARACTER!
But what about a non-hidden archer coming down the road? There is a point at which you can't see him, and a point at which you can? At what point is that?
Does it change if it's a prairie? Hills? Desert? Flat or hilly lands?
(Yes. But the rules rarely make sense of that.)
You know of course that the answer is highly dependent on the local lay of the land, which rarely takes the form of a tottally flat field. It's also worth noting that when the party can't see the archer, the archer generally can't see the party either.
What you said pretty much is an admission that the D20 rules generally don't make much of addressing things beyond the tactical range. They may give it some lip service in mass combat rules, but not much beyond that.
... did I argue anything different in this thread? Has that ever been in contention? I mean that, seriously - I'll have to look at my posts, but I don't think I've stated they don't.
You might be conflating different peoples' arguments?
Specifically, Perception does only function "fairly well" within Tactical range.
And yet, it's right along side "life" skills like Craft, Profession, and similar.
Of course, long-range tactical combat makes no sense either.
(And if you don't use the sun as part of your tactical considerations, you're not using good tactical considerations. ... but "the rules rarely make sense of that" as-noted.)
EDIT 2: I also wish to clarify my use of terms, which might be causing problems as well. "But the rules rarely make sense of that." is pretty much exactly what I was referring to. There are distances, but the situations just give maximums, and have no impact to the actual DCs or elements that would actually apply that are at work within them. You have the ever-popular, ever-vague "favorable" and "unfavorable" conditions - but that's a drop in the bucket at the DCs/penalties we're actually talking about.
Officially?
As Hitdice pointed out earlier, you roll based on the terrain for "encounter distance". Strangely, it apparently makes no difference whether the creature you're encountering is a tiny pixie or a colossal dragon. Starting encounter distance is the same.
Exactly. There are rules, but they don't really work either within themselves or for what they're trying to achieve. And the implications of Perception rules (but not the rules themselves) apply rather directly to things beyond tactical ranges.
Nothing in aquatic.
Beach maximum: 6d6x20 -> 720. (Still can't notice a visible creature that far; 4d6x10 -> 240 on rocky beach.)
Bog/Marsh/Swamp maximum: 6d6x10 -> 360. (Within "reason" - DC 36 - but fireball still has a minimum starting distance farther than that.
Desert maximum: as beach.
Forest maximum: 3d6x10 -> 180. (Hey! That's crossbow range! 2d6x10 -> 120 in dense forest.)
Hills maximum: 2d10x10 -> 200. (Works for some, but a loooooot of ranges are needless.)
Mountainous maximum: 4d10x10 -> 400. (DC 40 to see, but at least that fireball can come in handy?)
Outer Space maximum: no information.
Plains maximum: 6d6x40 -> 1,440. (HOLY CRAP. DC 144 to notice. Good luck! But that fireball distances is reasonable!)
The rules blend a combination of "reasonable and realistic" with "nope" rules, and expect it all to make coherence within the rather conflicting paradigms they present themselves.
This doesn't actually mean the skills are bad and should feel bad. I mean, maybe they are. In that case they need revision. But if they're meant to be broadly indicative instead of absolutes, they need a little loosening compared to their current standard.
The problem is that, even with our current rules, the maximums don't make sense, the ranges don't make sense, and the DCs don't make sense. They're decent in certain ranges, but not that great even in the ranges that they're supposed to be used with.
The other problem is that they're presented along side skills that can make sense (at least can seem to) within its own paradigm of modeling normal life.
... but all of this blends together to poke holes, not in the base chassis, but within many of the presumptions the current iteration of that chassis makes.
I like PF. A lot.
It's just that it seems to complicate several aspects that were less complex and more accurate before in an attempt to simplify certain aspects that more accurately modeled what it was supposed to, and seems to overly simplify aspects that were supposedly simple but moderately complex before in order that more accurately modeled what it was supposed to.
(Perception is one of those things.)
... but only sometimes. In others, it does a bang-up job of both.
So... mixed bag of mostly-cool, I guess?
It's why I still like third and 3.5 - both do things better and worse than the other and PF (and, for that matter, the Blue Rose/True20 system). All neat in their own way, with unique strengths, and all with flaws and weaknesses.
Perception is an awesome skill and super-important. It's also one of the most misapplied skills, I'd guess - but because it's applied sensibly rather than literally (the latter of which is negated within its own word-choice and examples thereof).
EDIT: I didn't mention this before, but should have.
The point of the thing is, however, that reasonable house rules are reasonable.
The only way to make reasonable house rules for out of doors perception checks is to completely lose the concept of a linear modifier for a linear distance.
You need to go to some model where an exponential increase in distance maps to a linear modifier.
This is pretty accurate. :)
EDIT 2 and 3:
I do need to address one area that I am incorrect about. I've been equating penalties to Perception to the DCs of the thing. I don't know if I've actually written examples like that, but it's been part of my intent. Those are not actually the same thing, even though they're pretty similar for most purposes for most people. Similar (to some extent), but not the same. Sorry!
With the penalty in question, looking at the actual rules to notice a visible creature - ignoring all arguments about fine detail v. not fine detail - you cannot actually "Notice a visible creature." who is up to bat.
Let me reiterate that: it requires a DC 40 Perception check to do nothing more than notice a man who's up to bat.
What does "notice" mean? "To become aware of." So... no becoming aware of a man that far out without a DC 40 Perception check.
(apologies to all Americans if I mess up the terminology here)
I'd kind of hope that if you are about to pitch you would already be aware of the batsman...Which brings us back to: perception is there to notice things you might otherwise miss. It is not there to spot the blindingly obvious.
You do not need a perception check to see a door in front of you unless some effort is being made to conceal it.
With the penalty in question, looking at the actual rules to notice a visible creature - ignoring all arguments about fine detail v. not fine detail - you cannot actually "Notice a visible creature." who is up to bat.
Let me reiterate that: it requires a DC 40 Perception check to do nothing more than notice a man who's up to bat.
What does "notice" mean? "To become aware of." So... no becoming aware of a man that far out without a DC 40 Perception check.
(apologies to all Americans if I mess up the terminology here)
I'd kind of hope that if you are about to pitch you would already be aware of the batsman...
You missed what I was saying, I think, and either never followed links, did the math for the things that I was talking about, or didn't understand what you were looking at - that and, you know, I already accounted for the pitcher v. the batter.
For the vast majority of people, a Perception DC of 6 to notice the pitcher (the 60 foot and 6 inch distance from pitcher to batter could be construed as a DC 7, I suppose) is able to be (effectively) ignored by taking 10.
Point in fact, as I already pointed out, anything of a DC 7 or below is basically a "gimme" for all but the almost incalculably unobservant.
()
The DC 40 doesn't come into play until you're in the outfield or the far seats straining to look at the batter - but, uh, it's not actually that difficult.
But, let's look at a "real life" something where these rules make a lot more sense.
The thing that impresses me the most is the difficulty noticing number 16 until he suddenly
Notice a visible creature: DC 0
(Relative) Distance to source/object/creature/etc: DC +1/10 ft. (what's that - forty feet? Let's be generous and say 75? +8 DC? I'm bad at judging distances, but we can go with that.)
Terrible Conditions: DC +5
Creature Making Check is Distracted: +5 DC
(One supposes that I could be fascinated or something, for a need of an extra 4? Maybe... I was kind of sick.)
So, that's what, DC 18 Perception?
(Or 19 if I was dazzled, 22 if I was fascinated, and 23 if both. I don't know about those, but maybe?)
That's actually fairly reasonable, I think.
That's a pretty obscure situation for running Perception check through its paces, but it kind of works in that situation.
Which brings us back to: perception is there to notice things you might otherwise miss. It is not there to spot the blindingly obvious.
You do not need a perception check to see a door in front of you unless some effort is being made to conceal it.
... except it does.
That there is a DC for it, means that it falls under the purview of that skill, as a check. The check may be "automatic" for anything within 10 feet, but it's still a check, and certain things mean you can't make that check or DC, even if the person isn't actively using stealth, or should otherwise be "blindingly obvious" - it's why there are DCs that go to 0 in the first place.
What most people don't do - and this is quite reasonable, I'll remind - is apply that rule. I don't think they necessarily should. That doesn't change the nature of the rule itself.
And that's more or less what the OP was getting at, I think. It doesn't matter.
Apply the rule when reasonable. Don't when don't. Recognize when it's reasonable, and when it's not (but that "when" will differ from table to table, as different groups have different preferences). Not only is there nothing wrong with this, it's actually really important.
This rule set is awesome. It's not flawless. Sometimes it gets strangled by its own legalize or harmed by its own looseness and either way it prevents itself from accomplishing its goals. But either way, it's a robust, fascinating, and powerful rule set that functions pretty well for most purposes you might have for it, so long as you also recognize its limitations, and adjust for it to make sure.
As the rulebook tells us,
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
That, I think, is pretty awesome. And it's something that all-too-often people forget about, whether they're talking PF, or 3.5, or 3rd, or AD&D, or Basic, or 4E, or 5E, or any other system.
Sometimes the system fulfills its intended purpose. Sometimes it has unintentional issues. That's fine. Adjust it. It'll live.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the sun is a ranger, it's not allowed to hide in plain sight. This means it is fortunately unable to hide from you when you're in barren, unforested areas. Like plains. You must hunt the sun there. Bring your sword, and be careful, my son. It is all up to you now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I invite anyone who claims to be able to see this mythical "sun" to pinpoint it for me. Look at it. Stare into it. Stare long and hard. Prove that it can be seen. You can't. Liar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what about a non-hidden archer coming down the road? There is a point at which you can't see him, and a point at which you can? At what point is that?
Does it change if it's a prairie? Hills? Desert? Flat or hilly lands?
(Yes. But the rules rarely make sense of that.)
Nope. Unless they hide behind something, you can always see them. The world is flat, and all can be seen unless it finds a bush to hide behind first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the sun's glare is actually a Bluff check to distract us so it can Stealth? Just a thought.
Stop glaring at me like that, sun.
S-stop it.
*Averts eyes*
Wait, where'd it go?!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the sun's glare is actually a Bluff check to distract us so it can Stealth? Just a thought.
Stop glaring at me like that, sun.
S-stop it.
*Averts eyes*
Wait, where'd it go?!
You missed what I was saying, I think, and either never followed links, did the math for the things that I was talking about, or didn't understand what you were looking at - that and, you know, I already accounted for the pitcher v. the batter.
Blarg! Tone-deafness suuuuucks.
While this was meant as a friendly word with a smile and friendly gesture, it reads as sarcastic and harsh.
Sorry. Blugh.
:/
ALSO:
The thing that impresses me the most is the difficulty noticing number 16 until he suddenly
[sic]
"... obvious and visible when he throws that thing." was supposed to be the end of that sentence. Obviously. *Cough*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Yo, dawg, who is this big, round, white, foo'?!"Maybe the sun's glare is actually a Bluff check to distract us so it can Stealth? Just a thought.
Stop glaring at me like that, sun.
S-stop it.
*Averts eyes*
Wait, where'd it go?!
TWENTY THIRTEEN
A very good year. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing that impresses me the most is the difficulty noticing number 16 until he suddenly[sic]
"... obvious and visible when he throws that thing." was supposed to be the end of that sentence. Obviously. *Cough*
...and was there supposed to be one more word in the middle of that sentence?
The spectator is also aware of both the batter and pitcher.
Anyway, some ball park figures.
Assuming a flat plain the horizon is just over 3 miles away. The higher up your are and the fewer obstacles in your way the further you can see. If you are lower down or there are obstacles...
Under ideal conditions you can make out a human sized form at about 2 miles away or so. much further away and it just appears as a dot. The bigger the object, the further away it can be and still be distinguishable.
Identifying facial features tops out at 150-200 feet. At 500' the head is just a blob.
Perception is for identifying fine details and noticing things you might miss. Not for seeing something you are already aware of.
Per RAW:
The Sun is a colossal object (+8 perception to see it)
-1 perception for every 10 feet away it is (-49 billion perception to see it)
"Circumstance bonus" is used in printed adventures, but there is no actual rule for it in the Core RulebookConstructive point: The rules aren't perfect, and that's okay.
But they are close since Rule 0/the GM/Common sense makes up what is not explicitly printed in the game book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they are close since Rule 0/the GM/Common sense makes up what is not explicitly printed in the game book.Per RAW:
The Sun is a colossal object (+8 perception to see it)
-1 perception for every 10 feet away it is (-49 billion perception to see it)
"Circumstance bonus" is used in printed adventures, but there is no actual rule for it in the Core RulebookConstructive point: The rules aren't perfect, and that's okay.
By that notion, FATAL is a nearly perfect game.
Perception is for identifying fine details and noticing things you might miss. Not for seeing something you are already aware of.
You keep saying this. Why would the batter be obvious? Why the pitcher? If a viable creature has a non-stealth DC 0 to notice when would that ever come into play?
You keep insisting, but you have no clear rule support.
"Notice" means "become aware of" - there are no caveats given.
In the course of an actual game, people will probably apply Perception in a logical manner, i.e. what you're suggesting. But the rules indicate otherwise.
If one wants to be pedantic enough to hold "fine detail" as the term they cling to and not ignore the actual rules, I suppose one way out of the sun dilemma is by pointing out that the sun is an object and the rules don't actually cover an object, hence the sun doesn't fall into Perception rules.
But by that same logic, you can't ever lose an object that hasn't been hidden on purpose. I'd love that in real life: I'd stop always misplacing my pencils and sunglasses, my kids would always have both socks and their toys, and cleaning and organizing would be so much easier!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bluenose, that's awesome.
And, for ease of use, it's about right to consider a "pace" to be about 3 feet, then round down to the nearest 5 feet, so...
3340 feet to tell the difference between a group of medium humanoids and a group of large quadrupeds.
2640 feet to see an individual medium humanoid.
1845 feet to see a head on an individual medium humanoid. Light coloured items of clothing may be spotted.
1320 feet to see a light-coloured spot for a face, and some fine details - uniform, number of limbs, long weaponry - can be seen.
Between 525 & 660 feet greater details become visible (might be able to spot the difference between a lieutenant and a normal soldier).
And the 2640 feet to see an individual medium humanoid is about right with the calculation from physics for the mark 1 eyeball (about 2,500 feet).
And to really cheer people up, let's use the latest in reductio ad absurdum: The DC to notice an unmoving, affected by a silence spell, visible creature through a 1-foot thick solid stone wall is... 10.
The perception rules unequivocally do not cover every circumstance, and that's why there is a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Understanding the purpose of a rule is absolutely vital to interpretting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know the only reason why RAW seeing the sun doesn't work is because nobody bothered to make size rules past colossal size. I was having similar problems just now because I've been trying to find out exactly how big the Tarrasque is to solidify some house rules. Personally I think once it's past double 64-128ft then the monster should have some environmental rules so that you can interact with it as if it were not a creature sometimes (climb it like in Shadow of the Colossus.)
The Tarrasque can swallow a Brachiosaurus whole (gargantuan size) if that helps you judge its size.
Shadow of the Colossus has almost nothing that reaches 100' in height, so climbing something like that is probably best left as a feat rather than a monster's quality.
You know the only reason why RAW seeing the sun doesn't work is because nobody bothered to make size rules past colossal size. I was having similar problems just now because I've been trying to find out exactly how big the Tarrasque is to solidify some house rules. Personally I think once it's past double 64-128ft then the monster should have some environmental rules so that you can interact with it as if it were not a creature sometimes (climb it like in Shadow of the Colossus.)The Tarrasque can swallow a Brachiosaurus whole (gargantuan size) if that helps you judge its size.
Shadow of the Colossus has almost nothing that reaches 100' in height, so climbing something like that is probably best left as a feat rather than a monster's quality.
The Gigantean creature template actually does supply it as a feature of the monster. While that's by Green Ronin, it's a moderately solid template (thought it has a weird bit about sizes that can climb stuff).
That leaves climbing it to be a "character ability" akin to normal strength and constitution rules.
First off, Golarion's sun is definitely larger than Collosal size. Arguing otherwise makes no sense. Second, we do not know the exact distance between Golarion's sun and the planet itself. In order to find its actual Perception DC you'd have to know exactly how large it is and how far away it is, then extrapolate the size penalties to fit the correct size, calculate the DC increase, and give a huge penalty for the ridiculous amount of light it gives off. This argument is always grounded in absurdity and reduces the rules to non-functioning levels. Of course you'll never see the sun if you're only giving it -8 to Stealth for its size.
|
Is this a serious issue that people have? I mean...really. This is the first time I've ever heard of seeing the sun being a problem.
Look outside. Assuming it is daytime and you have a window in your house with no trees blocking it, you can see the sun. Pathfinder works no differently. The only check you have to make is lifting your head.
|
|
Is this a serious issue that people have? I mean...really. This is the first time I've ever heard of seeing the sun being a problem.
Look outside. Assuming it is daytime and you have a window in your house with no trees blocking it, you can see the sun. Pathfinder works no differently. The only check you have to make is lifting your head.
No. It's not actually a real issue.
It's a reductio ad absurdum example of a real issue. Which is itself fairly easy to handwave around.
It is a problem if you want to use Perception to spot things more than a short distance away.
"Reductio ad absurdum"
The only absurd thing is the point of the thread's point. If this is to show the rules don't work, you're picking a really poor point to argue. Because of course you can see the sun. And before you continue to argue the rules, let me ask you. What GM has made this an actual problem? Not some rules lawyer seeking to prove "Pathfinder is broken! I have proof!", an actual GM.
|
|
Is this a serious issue that people have? I mean...really. This is the first time I've ever heard of seeing the sun being a problem.
Look outside. Assuming it is daytime and you have a window in your house with no trees blocking it, you can see the sun. Pathfinder works no differently. The only check you have to make is lifting your head.
No. It's not actually a real issue.
It's a reductio ad absurdum example of a real issue. Which is itself fairly easy to handwave around.
It is a problem if you want to use Perception to spot things more than a short distance away.
"Reductio ad absurdum"
The only absurd thing is the point of the thread's point. If this is to show the rules don't work, you're picking a really poor point to argue. Because of course you can see the sun. And before you continue to argue the rules, let me ask you. What GM has made this an actual problem? Not some rules lawyer seeking to prove "Pathfinder is broken! I have proof!", an actual GM.
Have you read the rest of the thread, where we talk about more practical problems?
As I said, it's easy to handwave, but it does mean you're handwaving any cases where someone might or might not notice something more than a couple hundred feet away.
I've read enough of the thread. It's an absurd conclusion to come to however.
If there's something that's big (even Huge sized) flying high in the sky, I'd say people would probably notice it just like they notice planes in the sky. Handwaving a ridiculous issue like this doesn't cause any problems in game other than the problems created by the people who think this is an issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean? The sun is the SUN! I can see where it is!
Need to reply for the best use of a Flight of Dragons quote I've seen in ages that I didn't make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, Golarion's sun is definitely larger than Collosal size. Arguing otherwise makes no sense.
[citation needed]
Second, we do not know the exact distance between Golarion's sun and the planet itself.
We've got enough to get close enough that the remaining DCs don't matter.
In order to find its actual Perception DC you'd have to know exactly how large it is
... you've conveniently rejected the only rules category it could be.
and how far away it is,
... which is known.
then extrapolate the size penalties to fit the correct size, calculate the DC increase,
(So noted above.)
and give a huge penalty for the ridiculous amount of light it gives off.
Rules are needed.
This argument is always grounded in absurdity and reduces the rules to non-functioning levels. Of course you'll never see the sun if you're only giving it -8 to Stealth for its size.
... which is actually the point of the thread.
Constructive point: The rules aren't perfect, and that's okay.
Pathfinder is a game. The objective of the game is to have fun. The rules exist to create better communication and common expectations. The rules attempt to create balance so everyone has a fair chance to shine.
Is this a serious issue that people have? I mean...really. This is the first time I've ever heard of seeing the sun being a problem.
Look outside. Assuming it is daytime and you have a window in your house with no trees blocking it, you can see the sun. Pathfinder works no differently. The only check you have to make is lifting your head.
No. It's not actually a real issue.
It's a reductio ad absurdum example of a real issue. Which is itself fairly easy to handwave around.
It is a problem if you want to use Perception to spot things more than a short distance away.
"Reductio ad absurdum"
The only absurd thing is the point of the thread's point. If this is to show the rules don't work, you're picking a really poor point to argue. Because of course you can see the sun. And before you continue to argue the rules, let me ask you. What GM has made this an actual problem? Not some rules lawyer seeking to prove "Pathfinder is broken! I have proof!", an actual GM.
So, is your counter point, "Unless this is a real issue in a real game, one can never take anything useful or instructive from it?"
Because that's not true at all.
But, you know, showing that "the rules don't work" not the point of the thread at all (though it is the point of some posters).
I encourage anyone who thinks that this is the point of the thread to reread the OP and come to a different conclusion. It's okay if you disagree with that conclusion, but it's not, "The rules don't work." but rather, "The rules have holes in them. Use them where it makes sense to do so, but beware over-reliance upon them, as it could cause issues."
More to the point, I find the rules work quite well in many regards to create and maintain a functioning and internally consistent world. Sometimes, however, it doesn't work very well for certain purposes.
If something makes the game more fun, take the Core Rulebook's most important rule to heart, and do that instead.
So, another way to restate the point is, "The rules work where they work, and don't where they don't. Apply accordingly."
