Quote:
Originally Posted by
dascarletm
large and in plain sight. Large, not being used as a size category in that context, is relative to the viewer. I'd call all those examples technically in plain sight, as there is nothing in the way of it, but I wouldn't call them large.
Hmm, fair enough. Although spotting a tree trunk a mile away, or a house-sized rock on the other side of a wide canyon, is probably
still problematic.
Quote:
Ideally they'd simplify equations used in real life to determine size of objects at a distance, for long range objects (past X) distance. The current rules are still good for combat distances, or shall I say, dungeon distances.:smalltongue:
It would be quicker just to have a DM common sense what you need to roll a spot check on, and what not to. As they were currently meant to.
Indeed, except... why are they such horrible approximations in any case? A much better approximation is not hard, involving, say, a chart similar to the current carrying capacity (although obviously scaled slightly differently).
And, of course, I'm generally in favor of making the rules slightly more complex as long as they capture situations well. (That is, "the DM can just fudge it" is not much of an excuse IMO in the case of D&D.)