# Darkvision through a telescope



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 20, 2007)

Looking at a pirate ship in the dark with only one lantern on deck, using a spyglass and darkvision.

Does the darkvision help?


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 20, 2007)

out to 60'


----------



## Jack Simth (Sep 20, 2007)

Why would a form of vision that doesn't use light benefit from a device that bends light such as a telescope?  No effect beyond the normal darkvision range.


----------



## Rhun (Sep 20, 2007)

I'd say it was the DM's call on this one. But once you make a ruling, make sure you stick with what you decide.


----------



## darthkilmor (Sep 20, 2007)

Jack Simth said:
			
		

> Why would a form of vision that doesn't use light benefit from a device that bends light such as a telescope?  No effect beyond the normal darkvision range.




But what DOES darkvision use? Infrared? X-ray? Superman-O-vision?

This is a fun argument when you start thinking about the physics of something thats pretty much make-believe.

I'd probably handle it as there's a special telescope that only works with darkvision, and increase the price 50%. but i could be considered a RBDM so...


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 20, 2007)

Actually through a telescope you see 0' with darkvision.

The lense is either black or white. Take your pick, but either way, you don't see through it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 20, 2007)

Darkvision doesn't say it is stopped by transparent objects. You'd think they'd mention that with darkvision you can't see through glass.

Or, y'know, water and air. I bet those aboleth love their darkvision.


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 20, 2007)

Through a telescope things look bigger. Using it in the dark, with darkvision then things within the range (60' for example) look bigger.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 20, 2007)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Darkvision doesn't say it is stopped by transparent objects. You'd think they'd mention that with darkvision you can't see through glass.
> 
> Or, y'know, water and air. I bet those aboleth love their darkvision.



Air and water do not seem to be consided objects in this rulset. If either were, rays and most other effects could not pass through them. Glass is an object, thus to darkvision it is either black or white.


----------



## Bagpuss (Sep 20, 2007)

I'd like to know what you are interpretting to get that darkvision is blocked by transparent objects.

SRD
_
Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature. Darkvision is black and white only (colors cannot be discerned). It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise—invisible objects are still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they seem to be. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to gaze attacks normally. The presence of light does not spoil darkvision._

from the Darkvision spell

_Darkvision is black and white only but otherwise like normal sight._

Normal sight is not blocked by transparent objects.

You could even read a book with 3rd's version of Darkvision (paper is white, ink is black). So I'm failing to see how glass blocks it.


----------



## Pyrex (Sep 20, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Looking at a pirate ship in the dark with only one lantern on deck, using a spyglass and darkvision.
> 
> Does the darkvision help?




[HouseRules]
I'd probably not allow it with a typical spyglass, but I'd allow for construction of (or an import from the Underdark) a spyglass with alchemically-treated crystal lenses to work just fine with Darkvision.
[/HouseRules]


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 20, 2007)

If the pirate ship is within the range of the darkvision (usually 60 feet, I think), it works, if not, it doesn't. Unlike lowlight vision which interacts with penalties from distance, darkvision has a clearly defined cutoff - to this point you see in spite of the dark, beyond this point you do not, the end. The spyglass is not magically moving your point of reference to another location like scrying would, it's just making the things you have line of sight to look bigger. I wouldn't prevent it from giving the normal benifits of darkvision in range, but I would not allow it to extend the range of darkvision either.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 20, 2007)

oops


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 20, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> I'd like to know what you are interpretting to get that darkvision is blocked by transparent objects.



Mainly because those objects are transparent to light which darkvision does not operate by. I feel interpreting in this way, _while it IS a bit of a stretch_, is not completely invalid and anything that takes darkvision down a notch is a good thing.


----------



## Matthias_Gloom (Sep 20, 2007)

If we step back a couple of E's, we find that darkvision used to be infravision. I don't think infrared light has a 60' range cap. But then, infravision had a 60' range too.

I suppose it isn't supposed to make sense?

Edit: Due to the index of refraction of glass, infrared is almost completely reflected anyway.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 21, 2007)

OK, the consensus sounds like, no matter what, it's not going to work, it's just a question of how badly it doesn't work.


----------



## Jack Simth (Sep 21, 2007)

darthkilmor said:
			
		

> But what DOES darkvision use? Infrared? X-ray? Superman-O-vision?
> 
> This is a fun argument when you start thinking about the physics of something thats pretty much make-believe.
> 
> I'd probably handle it as there's a special telescope that only works with darkvision, and increase the price 50%. but i could be considered a RBDM so...



Well, whatever it is, it's specifically not light (which, if you're using a scientific definition of light, includes infrared and x-ray, plus a lot of other stuff).  It works great for a fixed distance and suddenly cuts off.  Can't say "it's magic" though, as it's specifically an extraordinary ability.  It might be a form of blindsense, except that it operates by different rules (it doesn't discern illusions, and doesn't location invisible things, for instance) and still relies on having sight.

It's imaginary - it doesn't really have physics attached.  A telescope does (it's based on bending light) and darkvision specifically does not use light.  Thus, a telescope is useless (in theory, at least).


----------



## Pagan priest (Sep 21, 2007)

I rather like that idea about a darkvision telescope.  Now the question is to decide just how far out it extends the darkvision, and does it effect regular vision at all.


----------



## Pyrex (Sep 21, 2007)

[HouseRules]
I'd say no.  You need different scopes for regular vision and Darkvision.

The cheapest Darkvision Spyglass would double vision ranges (just like a regular Spyglass) and would cost 2,000gp (Twice the cost of a standard spyglass).

A x5 range-multiplier would probably be the best I'd allow for portable equipment and would probably cost around 10,000gp.

Anything better than that would be fantastically expensive and would be fixed in place in an tower/observatory.
[/HouseRules]


----------



## Zurai (Sep 21, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Glass is an object, thus to darkvision it is either black or white.




There is absolutely NO rules support for this in any way, shape, or form. Further, you seem to be completely misunderstanding the term "black and white" as it relates to vision. Darkvision is greyscale - they presumably didn't use "greyscale" because it's a technical term and everyone at least gets the gist of "black and white".


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 22, 2007)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> from the Darkvision spell
> 
> _Darkvision is black and white only but otherwise like normal sight._




I think this quote covers it quite well. If a spyglass enhances normal sight, then Darkvision is similarly enhanced.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 22, 2007)

"Objects viewed through a spyglass are magnified to twice their size." combined with darkvision being "otherwise like normal vision" says to me that you can see twice the distance you normally can using a spyglass.  So if your normal vision range using darkvision is 60 feet, you can see 120 feet while looking through the spyglass (though in a very limited field of vision).



			
				Jack Simth said:
			
		

> It's imaginary - it doesn't really have physics attached.  A telescope does (it's based on bending light) and darkvision specifically does not use light.  Thus, a telescope is useless (in theory, at least).




Arguing physics seems silly.  



			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> Mainly because those objects are transparent to light which darkvision does not operate by. I feel interpreting in this way, _while it IS a bit of a stretch_, is not completely invalid and anything that takes darkvision down a notch is a good thing.




As does finding artificial reasons to justify a desire to reduce the usefulness of darkvision (just house rule it if it's bugging you).


----------



## Jhulae (Sep 24, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> There is absolutely NO rules support for this in any way, shape, or form. Further, you seem to be completely misunderstanding the term "black and white" as it relates to vision. Darkvision is greyscale - they presumably didn't use "greyscale" because it's a technical term and everyone at least gets the gist of "black and white".




Exactly.  SKR mentioned a while back that Darkvision was supposed to act like "Black and white TV vision".  A creature with darkvision sees the world as everything would be seen in a black and white TV show.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 24, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> There is absolutely NO rules support for this in any way, shape, or form.



Yup. Darkvision is supposed to work exactly like normal vision except it's black & white only.


----------



## TYPO5478 (Sep 24, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Air and water do not seem to be considered objects in this ruleset.



Meaning they're creatures?  (Sorry, couldn't resist! )

Count me among those who thinks darkvision operates the way normal vision would through a telescope.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 24, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> "Objects viewed through a spyglass are magnified to twice their size." combined with darkvision being "otherwise like normal vision" says to me that you can see twice the distance you normally can using a spyglass.



funny, it tells me that objects within your darkvision range are magnified to twice their size.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 24, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> funny, it tells me that objects within your darkvision range are magnified to twice their size.




Well sure, but if you take that to the logical conclusion, it means you can see twice as far.  Because the point of your vision where it ordinarily became too difficult to see the necessary details are now twice as big, making it easier to see.  Which means you should be able to see roughly twice as far as you could without it (which is generally how 2x Magnification works).  At least, that is the rule of thumb I would use based on the item description and vision rules.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 24, 2007)

But things beyond the normal darkvision range are not more difficult to see with darkvision, they are impossible to see with darkvision. Looking at a blank, featureless wall from 60' away or 30' away yields the same information, none.

With normal vision I believe you are able to see an infinite distance or until something that you cannot see through blocks vision. If darkvision had that range as well then I could see the argument for seeing twice as well with the telescope, but as written it looks like darkvision stops after a certain number of feet regardless of optical tricks.

I do not know if I would allow darkvision to gain any benefit at all from a telescope or not in a game I was running but it certainly would not extend the range of darkvision unless it was specially made to do just that. That would probably require magic though.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 24, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> BWith normal vision I believe you are able to see an infinite distance or until something that you cannot see through blocks vision.




In your game, your characters can read 1 inch letters on the side of a barn from a range of 10,000 yards, assuming no obstruction?  

Vision rules are in the spot skill I believe.  All vision is limited.  Per 10 feet of distance you have a –1 to a spot check.  Which means at some distance you are unable to see things even without an obstruction, with normal vision.  This item however would help, by providing x2 magnification, thus extending your sight by x2.

Much like normal vision should be extended by x2 using this item, darkvision should as well since it functions like normal vision.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 24, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> In your game, your characters can read 1 inch letters on the side of a barn from a range of 10,000 yards, assuming no obstruction?
> 
> Vision rules are in the spot skill I believe.  All vision is limited.  Per 10 feet of distance you have a –1 to a spot check.  Which means at some distance you are unable to see things even without an obstruction, with normal vision.  This item however would help, by providing x2 magnification, thus extending your sight by x2.
> 
> Much like normal vision should be extended by x2 using this item, darkvision should as well since it functions like normal vision.



There is a difference between things getting harder to see as they get farther away and a sense mode with an explicit hard edged range. A telescope enlarges things within your visual range, thus making small items easier to spot or details easier to distinguish. Which, imo, it would do for darkvision as well, for anything within the darkvision's range. But an item in total darkness 65 feet away is not at a distance penalty to a dwarf's spot check, it isn't harder to see than an item twice as big would be, it isn't easier to see than an item half as big would be - it is outside the range of the dwarf's visual senses. A telescope makes things look twice as big, which, in normal vision is the same as seeing twice as far *in terms of how easily you can see something*. But easily doesn't play into the range of dark vision. It's a range, not a range increment.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 24, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> In your game, your characters can read 1 inch letters on the side of a barn from a range of 10,000 yards, assuming no obstruction?
> 
> Vision rules are in the spot skill I believe.  All vision is limited.  Per 10 feet of distance you have a –1 to a spot check.  Which means at some distance you are unable to see things even without an obstruction, with normal vision.  This item however would help, by providing x2 magnification, thus extending your sight by x2.
> 
> Much like normal vision should be extended by x2 using this item, darkvision should as well since it functions like normal vision.




I do not believe that there are any rules in the game that actually state how hard it is to see things that are not hiding based on range. If you have line of sight on something and it is not trying to hide then you see it, no spot check involved.

Reading at a distance, or noticing small things, does not appear to actually fall directly under any particular skill. The game designers seem to feel that it should be obvious. I suppose that means they never go to any rules forums.   

Darkvision is very different though. I like to imagine it as walking around a wall of impenetrable darkness at a certain distance. Everything within that distance is like black and white television, but that moving wall is always there whenever there is sufficient space to see it. Darkvision simply has a limit to how far it extends, beyond which nothing is visible via its power. You can make the objects that are there look 10 times as large if you like, but you still can not see them.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 25, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Much like normal vision should be extended by x2 using this item, darkvision should as well since it functions like normal vision.



Darkvision only goes out to 60'. No matter how _large_ something is, past 60', it is outside the range of darkvision.


----------



## Jhulae (Sep 25, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Darkvision only goes out to 60'.




Technically, Darkvision goes out to a specific distance per race/creature that has it, with 60' being the most common, but not the only distance.



			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> No matter how _large_ something is, past 60', it is outside the range of darkvision.




And I agree with this part (except for the 60' as noted above).  Darkvision does have a specified distance and anything beyond that distance is beyond the creature's ability to see with Darkvison.  A telescope might provide a circumstance bonus to spot (since it magnifies things) but wouldn't allow seeing past the Darkvision limit.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 25, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> There is a difference between things getting harder to see as they get farther away and a sense mode with an explicit hard edged range. A telescope enlarges things within your visual range, thus making small items easier to spot or details easier to distinguish.




My telescope let's me see the rings of Saturn.  The rings of Saturn are not within my normal visual range, despite there being no obstruction between me and the planet.  Telescopes can extend your normal visual range.



> Which, imo, it would do for darkvision as well, for anything within the darkvision's range. But an item in total darkness 65 feet away is not at a distance penalty to a dwarf's spot check, it isn't harder to see than an item twice as big would be, it isn't easier to see than an item half as big would be - it is outside the range of the dwarf's visual senses. A telescope makes things look twice as big, which, in normal vision is the same as seeing twice as far *in terms of how easily you can see something*. But easily doesn't play into the range of dark vision. It's a range, not a range increment.




I just see it differently (pun sorta intended).  I think the "darkvision works like normal vision" rule applies here, and thus if normal vision would be *effectively* extended by x2, darkvision would be as well.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 25, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I do not believe that there are any rules in the game that actually state how hard it is to see things that are not hiding based on range. If you have line of sight on something and it is not trying to hide then you see it, no spot check involved.




I disagree.  Spot skill is often used with an opposed hide check, but not always (and that is explicit in the rule).  It's used for all sorts of things, from "Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see" to "Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins".  As far as game rules go, if you ask your DM "Can I see any details on the side of that barn that is a mile away" your DM is likely going to ask you to make a spot check versus a fixed DC adjusted for distance.  It's the skill used to make such determinations.



> Reading at a distance, or noticing small things, does not appear to actually fall directly under any particular skill. The game designers seem to feel that it should be obvious. I suppose that means they never go to any rules forums.




It's obvious though isn't it? I mean, elves get a bonus to spot checks specifically because they have good eyesight.  I mean, the skill is called SPOT 



> Darkvision is very different though.




Other than being black and white, it's otherwise like normal sight.  It's specifically called out in the rules as not being very different than normal sight.



> I like to imagine it as walking around a wall of impenetrable darkness at a certain distance. Everything within that distance is like black and white television, but that moving wall is always there whenever there is sufficient space to see it. Darkvision simply has a limit to how far it extends, beyond which nothing is visible via its power. You can make the objects that are there look 10 times as large if you like, but you still can not see them.




And I look at it as normal vision, with a shorter normal range.  Normal vision has a maximum range as well (under the spot rules).  Darkvision has a shorter maximum range.  However, because the two are supposed to function the same otherwise (except for black and white part), both can be extended by a spy glass (x2 extended) beyond their normal maximum ranges.  That is the purpose of a spy glass - to extend your vision beyond your normal maximum range.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 25, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Darkvision only goes out to 60'. No matter how _large_ something is, past 60', it is outside the range of darkvision.




It's outside the normal range of Darkvision.  Much like things can be outside the normal range of normal vision.  But when using a spy glass, the normal range of both should extend, because both function the same except for color.

I think we are at the point where there are reasonable arguments on both sides of this debate, and it's a DMs call.


----------



## Branduil (Sep 25, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> My telescope let's me see the rings of Saturn.  The rings of Saturn are not within my normal visual range,




Sure they are. You merely lack the capacity to resolve and identify them with your naked eye. 

I don't think the intent behind Darkvision's range was that it's like normal vision except extremely near-sighted. If it was there would be penalties by the foot for vision-based skills and checks. Of course you can do whatever you want in your own game, but it's basically a house-rule.


----------



## ElectricDragon (Sep 25, 2007)

You are not required to use only normal vision to use Spot and Search checks. A Spot check using darkvision has the same penalties "by the foot*" as normal vision.

*Actually by every 10 feet.

Extraordinary abilities are not magical. They do not go away in an antimagic field. They can't be dispelled or suppressed. They are not affected by spell resistance. Why should it take magic to affect normal darkvision?

Ciao
Dave


----------



## Slaved (Sep 25, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Spot skill is often used with an opposed hide check, but not always (and that is explicit in the rule).  It's used for all sorts of things, from "Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see" to "Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins".  As far as game rules go, if you ask your DM "Can I see any details on the side of that barn that is a mile away" your DM is likely going to ask you to make a spot check versus a fixed DC adjusted for distance.  It's the skill used to make such determinations.




All of the uses in the spot skill from the players handbook are for various forms of hiding or being hidden, disguise, and reading lips. I do not see anything at all about reading at a distance or judging how well you can make something out aside from what I mentioned above.

A dungeon master is free to use whatever he feels is appropriate, of course, but I do not see anything explicit about it. It looks like anything that you have line of sight on that is not trying to be hide, and was not hidden, you can simply see.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Other than being black and white, it's otherwise like normal sight.  It's specifically called out in the rules as not being very different than normal sight.




Actually, there is another major difference, darkvision stops at a specified range. Beyond that range nothing can be seen.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> And I look at it as normal vision, with a shorter normal range.  Normal vision has a maximum range as well (under the spot rules).




Where is this maximum range under the spot rules???

Everything I have read so far says that your normal sight goes until something blocks it.

I did find this while looking around though..


			
				SYSTEM RESOURCE DOCUMENT said:
			
		

> Blinded
> The character cannot see. He takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), moves at half speed, and takes a -4 penalty on Search checks and on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Spot checks) automatically fail.




Which at least says reading and spot are different.


----------



## Zurai (Sep 25, 2007)

That's pretty funny. You quote the SRD on one hand and ignore it on the other?

FROM THE SRD:



> Spot (Wis):
> 
> Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant).


----------



## Slaved (Sep 25, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> That's pretty funny. You quote the SRD on one hand and ignore it on the other?




Are you talking to Mistwell? Because I already accounted for that in my post implicitly by something being hidden from sight via a blocking mechanism such as trees, hills, or whatever other type of terrain happens to be blocking view.

I see nothing about the maximum distance a creature can see with no intervening obstacles nor anything about reading at a distance.

Unless you are implying that with no intervening obstacles the distance a person can see is random?


----------



## Zurai (Sep 25, 2007)

You stated that the only rules for spot were for hidden or difficult to see creatures, and that anything else was an automatic success. The SRD says otherwise (as does every single module that includes a spot check to notice something).

You're also making the classic mistake of "Spot defines how far my eyes are capable of seeing". This is not true. Spot defines how well you are capable of interpreting what you see. This is why a telescope helps Spot checks - because, at a larger magnification, it's much easier to see details that help you interpret what you see.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 25, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> You stated that the only rules for spot were for hidden or difficult to see creatures, and that anything else was an automatic success. The SRD says otherwise (as does every single module that includes a spot check to notice something).




I do not understand. I stated what the rules say and quoted them, you put up a quote that supports what I said. Where are we having the disconnect?



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> You're also making the classic mistake of "Spot defines how far my eyes are capable of seeing". This is not true. Spot defines how well you are capable of interpreting what you see. This is why a telescope helps Spot checks - because, at a larger magnification, it's much easier to see details that help you interpret what you see.




So you are speaking to Mistwell and not me. Ok! That makes more sense.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 25, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Sure they are. You merely lack the capacity to resolve and identify them with your naked eye.




Lacking capactiy to resolve and identify something with the naked eye is beyond my visual range, in game terms.  I either can see it with the naked eye or not.  If I can't, it's beyond my visual range.  That's all that beyond visual range means as far as being able to see things for a game.



> I don't think the intent behind Darkvision's range was that it's like normal vision except extremely near-sighted.




And I think the intent was precisely that, which is why they put the line about it being just like normal vision except for color.  So, we disagree on intent, and maybe that is what is "coloring" both our views (pun intended).



> If it was there would be penalties by the foot for vision-based skills and checks. Of course you can do whatever you want in your own game, but it's basically a house-rule.




We disagree on interpreting the rules as written regarding the spy-glass, normal vision, spot checks, and the dark vision description. Just because we don't see this issue the same way doesn't mean it's a house-rule to go with one interpretation over the other.  Given we don't know the answer from WOTC, and probably never will, either interpretation seems fair, and both are drawn from the rules as written.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 25, 2007)

But where is your rules source Mistwell? The spot skill does not support your stance, what does?

We know that darkvision only works out to a certain range, that is how it is defined after all. You would need to find something which directly states that there are exceptions or modifications to that range.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 25, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> All of the uses in the spot skill from the players handbook are for various forms of hiding or being hidden, disguise, and reading lips.




Given I just quoted you two items from the spot check that are not that, I am not sure how you can come to that conclusion.  The distance an encounter begins at has nothing to do with hiding, disguising, or reading lips.  And when it said not hidden just hard to spot, how did you conclude that meant hidden, disguised, or reading lips?  Come on Slaved, the skill is clearly used for purposes other than just the three you named.  It's spelled out as such.



> I do not see anything at all about reading at a distance or judging how well you can make something out aside from what I mentioned above.




No that part is just logic.  If your characters can read any size writing at any distance in your games because you couldn't find a rule on it, and the skill titled "spot" wasn't enough for you, then I guess you and I have very different games.  For me, and probably 99% of people playing this game, we would use a spot check (and we would not consider it a house rule to do so).  Call it the distance at which the encounter of reading words on the sign of a barn a mile away begins, if you must, to use the skill.



> A dungeon master is free to use whatever he feels is appropriate, of course, but I do not see anything explicit about it. It looks like anything that you have line of sight on that is not trying to be hide, and was not hidden, you can simply see.




So when it said sometimes things are just hard to see but not hiding, that sentence had no meaning for you?



> Actually, there is another major difference, darkvision stops at a specified range. Beyond that range nothing can be seen.




So does normal vision, if you account for the spot rules.



> Where is this maximum range under the spot rules???




When you get to such a high negative that no check can succeed, you have reached the maximum range.



> Everything I have read so far says that your normal sight goes until something blocks it.




So your players can see around the curvature of the planet and spot the back of their head with equal degree of difficulty and detail as their own hand in front of them?



> I did find this while looking around though..
> 
> 
> Which at least says reading and spot are different.




I think they mean normal reading does not require any skill check.  Reading something at a distance I think requires a spot check.  Your game might vary, but that seems a logical and normal use of the skill.  They shouldn't have to include every conceivable use of the skill in the text to be able to draw a natural conclusion from the text without calling it a house rule.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 25, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> But where is your rules source Mistwell? The spot skill does not support your stance, what does?




I cited them.  You not quoting me back and then claiming I didn't is a bit silly, don't you think? The spot skill does support my stance in my opinion, and I laid it out pretty plainly I think.  You might disagree, but let's not pretend I didn't lay it out with rules.



> We know that darkvision only works out to a certain range,




As does normal vision, per the spot rules.  And we know that darkvision functions just like normal vision, except for color.



> that is how it is defined after all. You would need to find something which directly states that there are exceptions or modifications to that range.




I did.  Spyglasses magify things to twice their size.  Whatever effect that has on normal vision, it also has on darkvision.  I contend it doubles your normal vision range, and therefore your darkvision range.  You disagree, but I have yet to hear your explanation for what a spyglass does for normal vision, given in your game apparently you don't need a spyglass to see anything any any distance.


----------



## Zurai (Sep 25, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I do not understand. I stated what the rules say and quoted them, you put up a quote that supports what I said. Where are we having the disconnect?




My quote very specifically does NOT support your position. Your position, and I quote, is that "anything that you have line of sight on that is not trying to be hide, and was not hidden, you can simply see."



> So you are speaking to Mistwell and not me. Ok! That makes more sense.




I don't see how such a conclusion is possible. At this point I must assume that you are simply trolling, and will cease responding to you.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 25, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> My quote very specifically does NOT support your position. Your position, and I quote, is that "anything that you have line of sight on that is not trying to be hide, and was not hidden, you can simply see."




It actually supports my position very well!   

If something is out of line of sight because it is hidden behind something then you cannot see it.

In the case of terrain something would be sometimes partially in sight, sometimes not. In effect, it is hidden by the terrain, but not enough that a spot check cannot be made.

If something is completely behind an obstacle then it can not be spotted using the spot check. If something is completely out in the open with no obstacles at all in the way then it is always seen.

That is all supported from what I have seen in the rules.

Mistwells position, so far, seems to be outside of the rules.



			
				Zurai said:
			
		

> I don't see how such a conclusion is possible. At this point I must assume that you are simply trolling, and will cease responding to you.




But the part that I quoted was what Mistwell was doing, not what I was doing. Hence the confusion.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 25, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Given I just quoted you two items from the spot check that are not that, I am not sure how you can come to that conclusion.  The distance an encounter begins at has nothing to do with hiding, disguising, or reading lips.  And when it said not hidden just hard to spot, how did you conclude that meant hidden, disguised, or reading lips?  Come on Slaved, the skill is clearly used for purposes other than just the three you named.  It's spelled out as such.




But not being able to see something because it is hidden partially behind something else, such as encounter distance based on terrain, is perfectly in the rules!

Reading something at a distance however, is not mentioned. In fact, I quoted a rules bit which says that spot and reading are different things!

How do you reconcile that??



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> No that part is just logic.  If your characters can read any size writing at any distance in your games because you couldn't find a rule on it, and the skill titled "spot" wasn't enough for you, then I guess you and I have very different games.  For me, and probably 99% of people playing this game, we would use a spot check (and we would not consider it a house rule to do so).  Call it the distance at which the encounter of reading words on the sign of a barn a mile away begins, if you must, to use the skill.




I am a-ok with saying that the rules have holes in them, because they do. But to say that it is a rule because it is not stated seems very bad to me!   



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> So does normal vision, if you account for the spot rules.




Where does it say the maximum distance a character can see with no obstacles in the way????????



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> When you get to such a high negative that no check can succeed, you have reached the maximum range.




That no spot check can succeed? We know what the penalties to spot are, but what is the difficulty class that we are trying to hit? Is it set by a hide check? If so, then for a creature who cannot hide because there is nothing nearby then ANY spot check would either be considered to be automatic success or automatic failure since the target number is a -!

If we use something else what is it? Where is it defined??



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> So your players can see around the curvature of the planet and spot the back of their head with equal degree of difficulty and detail as their own hand in front of them?




The curvature of the planet, if the world being adventured on was something like a globe, would block line of sight itself because it is a solid object.

I am not saying that it makes sense to be able to see something at 50 feet as well as you can see something at 500 feet, I am simply saying that the rules are silent on the issue from what I can tell!


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 26, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> But not being able to see something because it is hidden partially behind something else, such as encounter distance based on terrain, is perfectly in the rules!




It's not "based on terrain".  You have repeatedly claimed that is a rule, but it's not.  The spot rule says you need a spot check to determine when an encounter begins.  

Page 22 of the DMG further states, under "Starting an Encounter" section: 


> "When you decide that it is possible for either side to become aware of the other, use Spot checks, Listen checks, sight ranges, and so on to determine which of the three above cases (One side becomes aware of the other side and thus can act first; Both sides become aware of each other at the same time; or Some but not all creatures on one or both sides become aware of the other side) comes into play."




See how that works? And see how it's not about hide checks or obstructions? Just like the Spot rule says, you can use a spot check to determine when an encounter begins, and it's not necessarily involving any sort of obstructions or hiding or terrain issues at all.  



> Reading something at a distance however, is not mentioned. In fact, I quoted a rules bit which says that spot and reading are different things!




If reading at a distance is an encounter, then it's mentioned in the spot rule.



> How do you reconcile that??




You know how.  You're playing a semantics game right now, but if you answer that question honestly you already know how.



> I am a-ok with saying that the rules have holes in them, because they do. But to say that it is a rule because it is not stated seems very bad to me!




Then you should DM more often.  Hundreds of things happen in a game that you need to actually interpret the rules to use them.  The rules are not going to spoon feed you every single potential type of thing that might come up.  You need to be able to view the rules for what they are - basic outlines for the game, and not totally inclusive tomes that cover all situations for the game in exacting detail.  If something comes up that requires a character to try and see something at a distance, it's a spot check.  Even if the spot check doesn't say "use this rule to be able to see a small bird on a tree branch a mile away", if a character is trying to see a small bird on a tree branch a mile away they need to make a spot check.  That's not a house rule - that is the spot rule.  ALL the rules require some level of interpretation like that to function fully.



> Where does it say the maximum distance a character can see with no obstacles in the way????????




In the spot rule.  It's clear to me.  It's clear to many others.  It also matches logic, that you cannot see around the planet and spot the back of your head if there are no obstructions, or a hundred miles away, for example.  You know that's what that rule means, but semantically you are having fun right now with the rule (which is fine, though it will get tiresome after a while).



> That no spot check can succeed? We know what the penalties to spot are, but what is the difficulty class that we are trying to hit? Is it set by a hide check?




No, it's set by the DM based on the circumstances.  How large is the object, are there obstructions, what is the distance, what is the lighting, and is there anything about the target that would cause it to blend in with the background.  A DM has to think about the encounter and come up with a DC for the spot check.  That's it, that's all it requires.  It's not a house rule, it's just how the rules operate.  I'm sorry not every conceivable situation is spelled out to your satisfaction in the rules, but that doesn't mean there are not rules for that kind of situation.



> If so, then for a creature who cannot hide because there is nothing nearby then ANY spot check would either be considered to be automatic success or automatic failure since the target number is a -!




Like all checks, it's set by the circumstances.



> If we use something else what is it? Where is it defined??




The PHB and DMG give guidelines, and ultimately the DM defines it.  Like they define all skill check DCs.



> The curvature of the planet, if the world being adventured on was something like a globe, would block line of sight itself because it is a solid object.




So you're characters can see any distance, provided there is no obstruction, even if that distance is a thousand miles, provided the curvature of the planet does not obstruct their vision?  You see how silly this is, right.  You're instinct tell you that you must be wrong, so why won't you follow those instincts at all?



> I am not saying that it makes sense to be able to see something at 50 feet as well as you can see something at 500 feet, I am simply saying that the rules are silent on the issue from what I can tell!




They are not, they just are not as detailed as you would like.  I suspect it's because you more often play than DM.  We could be having this discussion about ANY skill.  Skills are broad categories and not nearly as specific as you seem to think they are.  That's why the DM has circumstance modifiers at hand, and a host of other guidelines to help set DCs.


----------



## Neverwill (Sep 26, 2007)

*The same except different...*

Darkvision does function like normal vision except for color...and limited range.  Since the discussion is about the spyglass affecting the range of vision, let's make darkvision and normal vision more equatable.

A human is surrounded in complete darkness with a torch.  His vision is limited to 40' (like darkvision).  Give him a spyglass.  What is his range of vision now?


----------



## Zurai (Sep 26, 2007)

Neverwill said:
			
		

> Darkvision does function like normal vision except for color...and limited range.  Since the discussion is about the spyglass affecting the range of vision, let's make darkvision and normal vision more equatable.
> 
> A human is surrounded in complete darkness with a torch.  His vision is limited to 40' (like darkvision).  Give him a spyglass.  What is his range of vision now?




80'. Shadowy Illumination (such as from a torch or, ironically, the _Darkness_ spell) isn't an on/off switch. There's not a line in the sand where you can see objects on one side and everything on the other side is sheer inpenetrable blackness. There's still some light that reaches beyond that 40' radius... not enough to change the concealment of objects to the naked eye, but enough that with a *light amplification device* such as a spyglass, you can see farther. Otherwise a spyglass is completely useless in many, many classic scenarios.


----------



## Jhulae (Sep 27, 2007)

Neverwill said:
			
		

> Darkvision does function like normal vision except for color...and limited range.  Since the discussion is about the spyglass affecting the range of vision, let's make darkvision and normal vision more equatable.
> 
> A human is surrounded in complete darkness with a torch.  His vision is limited to 40' (like darkvision).  Give him a spyglass.  What is his range of vision now?




The comparison is flawed.  The range of "normal" vision is completely dependent on the light source.  The brighter the light, the longer the 'effective' range.  Darvision has an absolute cutoff by creature type that possesses it.   A Dwarf will *never* see a Drow standing 61' feet away with her darkvision.  A human will *never* see a Drow standing 61' away with a torch or even a lantern, but *will* be able to see one 61' away (or up to 120' away) with a Bullseye Lantern (and so can the Dwarf with 'normal' sight).


----------



## Elethiomel (Sep 27, 2007)

Also, note that the range of Darkvision doesn't say "60 feet, +5 feet for each +5 of the character's spot score". If it had, a spyglass would help. It doesn't. It says 60 feet.

Also, for those of you arguing that since the spyglass doubles the size of things looked at it will double the darkvision range: How come you can't see an ogre at double darkvision distance, a forest giant at triple darkvision distance, and so on? These creatures are about double and more than triple the size of a human, yet you can't see them if they stand outside your basic darkvision range. How would a spyglass help you see a human outside your darkvision range when you can't see something double the size of a human outside your darkvision range in the first place?


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 27, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> The comparison is flawed.  The range of "normal" vision is completely dependent on the light source.




It's not.  The spot rules and DMG rules on encounters state that there is a maximum range for normal vision regardless of light source.  As your ranks and bonus in spot goes up, your maximum range extends.  However, you will always have a maximum range (because there will always be a point where your negative on your spot modifier is so high as to make spotting anything at that distance impossible - hence a maximum range).



> Darvision has an absolute cutoff by creature type that possesses it.




And Normal Vision has an absolute cutoff by spot skill modifier.

And both can be extended by a spy glass.



> A Dwarf will *never* see a Drow standing 61' feet away with her darkvision.




Unless they use a spy glass.



> A human will *never* see a Drow standing 61' away with a torch or even a lantern, but *will* be able to see one 61' away (or up to 120' away) with a Bullseye Lantern (and so can the Dwarf with 'normal' sight).




And if it is bright sunlight out, and there are no obstructions of any sort (including any type of terrain obstruction), a human with a spot modifier of 10 will still never be able to see something 300 feet away (unless they use a spy glass).  Their maximum spot check is a 30 (with a roll of a natural 20), and they have a -30 on their check for the distance.

For you guys who think there is no maximum distance for normal vision, and that it is only determined by light source, what exactly is it you think a spy glass does for a character? What effect is the x2 magnification, in terms of game rules, for your game?


----------



## chriton227 (Sep 27, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> And if it is bright sunlight out, and there are no obstructions of any sort (including any type of terrain obstruction), a human with a spot modifier of 10 will still never be able to see something 300 feet away (unless they use a spy glass).  Their maximum spot check is a 30 (with a roll of a natural 20), and they have a -30 on their check for the distance.
> 
> For you guys who think there is no maximum distance for normal vision, and that it is only determined by light source, what exactly is it you think a spy glass does for a character? What effect is the x2 magnification, in terms of game rules, for your game?




Actually, it is easy to see something beyond 300' with a +10 spot.  Creatures larger than Medium have a penalty to hide (up to -16 for colossal creatures) and creatures moving have a penalty to hide (up to -20 for running or attacking).  So a Colossal dragon with a 10 dex and no ranks in hide running across the featureless plains would be a DC -35 (assuming a 1 on the hide roll).  The Spot +10 character would have a chance to see it as far away as 650'.

By what you are saying, playing american rules football in D&D, the QB standing in one end zone (probably only a spot of +3 or +4 for an amature) would not be able to see the wide receiver (probably a dex of +1 or +2) on the opposite 25 yd line waiting for the hail mary pass.  A soccer player probably wouldn't be able to see the soccer ball (tiny or smaller, at least a +8 hide) about 1/2 down the field.  An adventurer with a +0 spot would have 50/50 odds be able to spot a meatball (diminuitive, +16 hide, -5 dex, total +11) on the plate in front of them in the tavern. That also means that a character looking up at noon on a clear day couldn't see the sun, as it is so far away that no one could have a spot check high enough.  Obviously characters can see the sun regardless of their spot skill, so the spot must not rigidly limit their sight range in all situations.

Your interpretation means that the rule that projectile weapons can shoot at targets up to 10 range increments away is useless, as noone will ever be able to see that far.  An archer with Far Shot and a composite longbow has a maximum range of 2400', and can have that at 1st level.  I'm not saying that an archer would be able to descern details at that range, but picking out a target that isn't hiding would be possible.  If something were to be hiding at that range, it would be pretty much impossible to see them, but then the target is making an active effort to avoid being seen by getting behind something (hiding requires concealment or cover). 

If someone were using a spyglass in my game, I would allow it to reduce the spot penalties to -1 per 20'.  I would use my descretion as a DM regarding descerning fine details like how far away a character would be able to read 1 inch tall letters on the side of a barn or seeing and identifying a person not trying to hide.  For a quick rule of thumb, I would use the size bonus/penalty to spot (+16 for diminuitive) as a rough guideline, then apply a liberal dose of common sense and life experience. In my experience, I can identify specific friends at about 200', and they would have a size bonus of +0.  Using the -1 per 10', that would be about 40' to read 1" letters.  I can identify that there is a "person" there (as opposed to a gorilla or a pony) roughly 3-4 times farther away than that, say 600'-800' away.  Since I could distinguish the actual letters at 40', I would say that you would be able to say that there was writing there (although not what it said) at about 120'-160' feet.  If someone were using a spyglass, I would double those distances. IIRC, the 2nd Ed. DM Screen or DMG actually listed distances at which you could descern "something is there", descern "type", and descern "individual identity" in various conditions.

As far as using spot for encounter distance, that works great when following the rules listed in spot.  Assuming that there is plenty of illumination and no concealment (a drill field, a recently harvested flat field), neither side would be able to make hide checks, so there is no chance of the hide check being greater than the spot check, regardless of what the results of the spot check are.  A roll of -400 beats a roll of "I'm not allowed to do that" in my game.  So the parties would become aware of each other as soon as they had a clear line of sight and initiative would be rolled, and the initiative roll would represent who was the quickest to notice and react to the other party.  If the situation allowed for both parties to have concealment, opposed spots vs. hides would be appropriate, the party that spots at the longer distance would have surprise.  If only one party had concealment, the other party would be able to make spot vs. hide, if the distance was greater or equal to the line of sight distance they would spot each other at the same time, otherwise the concealed party would have surprise.  I could also see someone arguing that if there is no hiding/concealment, just make opposed spot checks and the winner gets surprise.

The DMG lists under terrain guidelines for what the maximum spotting distance is for each terrain, beyond that the line of sight is obstructed by the terrain, whether it be due to trees, rocks, sand dunes, heat shimmers, or the contours of the land.  Exceptional terrain and situations (like a mirror smooth plane or looking out from the edge of a 1000' mesa) may require exceptions to the normal guidelines, but that is why there is a DM.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 27, 2007)

chriton227 said:
			
		

> Actually, it is easy to see something beyond 300' with a +10 spot.  Creatures larger than Medium have a penalty to hide (up to -16 for colossal creatures) and creatures moving have a penalty to hide (up to -20 for running or attacking).




It's not a hide check however.  I am referring to the rules for when an encounter starts, and it is based on a spot check (and listen check where appropriate).  Hide doesn't come into play.



> By what you are saying, playing american rules football in D&D, the QB standing in one end zone (probably only a spot of +3 or +4 for an amature) would not be able to see the wide receiver (probably a dex of +1 or +2) on the opposite 25 yd line waiting for the hail mary pass.  A soccer player probably wouldn't be able to see the soccer ball (tiny or smaller, at least a +8 hide) about 1/2 down the field.




They have a higher spot check I assume.  Not sure what those comparisons are relevant.  Everyone in this thread has been arguing "it's gotta be in the rules or else it doesn't exist".



> An adventurer with a +0 spot would have 50/50 odds be able to spot a meatball (diminuitive, +16 hide, -5 dex, total +11) on the plate in front of them in the tavern.




If seeing the meatball is an encounter, then yes.  The rule regards encounters.



> Your interpretation means that the rule that projectile weapons can shoot at targets up to 10 range increments away is useless, as noone will ever be able to see that far.  An archer with Far Shot and a composite longbow has a maximum range of 2400', and can have that at 1st level.  I'm not saying that an archer would be able to descern details at that range, but picking out a target that isn't hiding would be possible.  If something were to be hiding at that range, it would be pretty much impossible to see them, but then the target is making an active effort to avoid being seen by getting behind something (hiding requires concealment or cover).




There is a reason archers require good sight.  Indeed, according to the rules, they need to make a spot check against a creature that far away, and if they fail then they cannot target that specific creature.



> If someone were using a spyglass in my game, I would allow it to reduce the spot penalties to -1 per 20'.




After arguing against the spot penalty for virtually all uses, you now would apply a x2 magnification bonus to the spot penalty? For what purpose? Your archer can already see 2400 feet without any problem apparently in your game, so what's the purpose of the spy glass?



> I would use my descretion as a DM regarding descerning fine details like how far away a character would be able to read 1 inch tall letters on the side of a barn or seeing and identifying a person not trying to hide.  For a quick rule of thumb, I would use the size bonus/penalty to spot (+16 for diminuitive) as a rough guideline, then apply a liberal dose of common sense and life experience. In my experience, I can identify specific friends at about 200', and they would have a size bonus of +0.  Using the -1 per 10', that would be about 40' to read 1" letters.  I can identify that there is a "person" there (as opposed to a gorilla or a pony) roughly 3-4 times farther away than that, say 600'-800' away.  Since I could distinguish the actual letters at 40', I would say that you would be able to say that there was writing there (although not what it said) at about 120'-160' feet.  If someone were using a spyglass, I would double those distances. IIRC, the 2nd Ed. DM Screen or DMG actually listed distances at which you could descern "something is there", descern "type", and descern "individual identity" in various conditions.




None of that seems to match the earlier interpretation of not needing to make a spot check unless something is hiding.



> As far as using spot for encounter distance, that works great when following the rules listed in spot.  Assuming that there is plenty of illumination and no concealment (a drill field, a recently harvested flat field), neither side would be able to make hide checks, so there is no chance of the hide check being greater than the spot check, regardless of what the results of the spot check are.




Not all uses of spot are opposed by a hide check, and the encounter rules specifically are not opposed by a hide check unless someone is trying to hide.  You still use the spot encounter rules however.

Seriously, it's time to re-read the spot rule, and the encounter rule in the DMG.  It's NOT just about opposed spot vs. hide checks.  Sometimes it's about opposed spot checks, and sometimes it's just a set DC based on the circumstances, and sometimes it's against disguise, etc...



> A roll of -400 beats a roll of "I'm not allowed to do that" in my game.  So the parties would become aware of each other as soon as they had a clear line of sight and initiative would be rolled, and the initiative roll would represent who was the quickest to notice and react to the other party.




Well, I hate to say it, but that is a house rule.  The rules are pretty clear on this subject.  If the parties are at a decent distance from each other, each side makes a spot check (or listen check where appropriate, all modified by the distance rules in the spot skill description, see DMG page 22), and it isn't versus a hide check.  I quoted the rule above, and it's found in the encounters section of the DMG, and in the spot skill rules.



> If the situation allowed for both parties to have concealment, opposed spots vs. hides would be appropriate, the party that spots at the longer distance would have surprise.  If only one party had concealment, the other party would be able to make spot vs. hide, if the distance was greater or equal to the line of sight distance they would spot each other at the same time, otherwise the concealed party would have surprise.  I could also see someone arguing that if there is no hiding/concealment, just make opposed spot checks and the winner gets surprise.




Again, you are overly focused on hide checks concerning spot.  They two are sometimes related, but not always.  



> The DMG lists under terrain guidelines for what the maximum spotting distance is for each terrain, beyond that the line of sight is obstructed by the terrain, whether it be due to trees, rocks, sand dunes, heat shimmers, or the contours of the land.  Exceptional terrain and situations (like a mirror smooth plane or looking out from the edge of a 1000' mesa) may require exceptions to the normal guidelines, but that is why there is a DM.




Which is why I quoted the "when an encounter begins" rule instead of the terrain rule.  There might be other modifiers for terrain, but there is a rule for when an encounter begins, and it often involves a spot check, and that spot check is not always going to be against a hide check.


----------



## werk (Sep 27, 2007)

While it is fun to argue real world physics or 'how things really work' the rules are somewhat clear on "Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it."

Spot would only be opposed (and presumably harder to succeed) if the viewed party was attempting to hide.  I view spot as a passive skill while hide is the active skill in this scenario.
You have to actively hide, but creatures are always 'on the lookout' with varying modifiers to simulate real world conditions.

"Objects viewed through a spyglass are magnified to twice their size."
Magnifying objects does not make them fall within the range of the darkvision.  THis seems to be a description of a magnifying glass, rather than a spyglass...but magifying glasses have a much better description.

If it said, spyglasses double viewing distance, that would be different...I can think of several ad hoc ways to describe a spyglass mechanically that are much better than what we have.  

But what the description we have is specifically saying to do is to reduce the penalties to spot DC.  You can do that for darkvision, but it simply won't make a difference if the object is outside the darkvision's range.

Really bad wording there, IMHO, which is unfortunate, I'd say it's up to the DM to decide.  As a DM, I'd say no.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Sep 27, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> Really bad wording there, IMHO, which is unfortunate, I'd say it's up to the DM to decide.  As a DM, I'd say no.



it would be nice if the spyglass said that it added a set bonus to spot checks, or halved the penalty for distance, or something concrete....

On the other hand, since nothing about the way it is currently written supports it extending the range of darkvision, clearer writing wouldn't actually help the current argument.


----------



## chriton227 (Sep 28, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Looking at a pirate ship in the dark with only one lantern on deck, using a spyglass and darkvision.
> 
> Does the darkvision help?




First off, I apologize to the OP for getting off topic in my previous post.

Let me make sure I understand the situation correctly: A character with darkvision is observing a pirate ship using a spyglass.  The pirate ship has a lantern on deck.

Here is how I would rule if it were my game:  The character would be able to observe just fine within the light radius of the lantern, and would be limited as normal for the area in shadowy illumination.  If the character's darkvision range was enough to reach the ship, they could use that to negate the shadowy illumination and to observe into the dark areas.  If the character needed to make spot checks for any reason (reading lips, noticing a hiding creature, noticing something with an arbitrary spot DC), I would allow the spyglass to reduce the range penalties to spot to -1 per 20'.  

I would not allow the spyglass to enhance the range of their darkvision, and likewise I would not allow a spyglass to enhance the range of normal vision for a character without darkvision in the dark carrying a sunrod.  It would just allow for better inspection of details of items that were already illuminated.

As an aside, if I were going for a highly realistic game, I would hesitate to allow a spyglass to grant any sort of bonus or reduction of penalties for most spot checks unless the character was looking at a specific area or object.  I've used low magnification rifle scopes and it was much easier for me to spot a target with the naked eye and then use the scope than it was to try to locate a target without first eyeballing the general location.  This was because while the scope allowed me to descern far more detail than I could with the naked eye, it greatly limited my field of vision.  You can try this yourself, go out into a field with a small ball (softball or mini soccer ball size).  Throw it over your shoulder so it lands behind you.  Turn around an you will spot the ball pretty quickly because you can take in a large amount of the scene at one time.  Then try doing the same thing, but this time look through a paper towel tube.  On average it will take much longer to find the ball because you can survey a much smaller area at a time.   This effect gets worse when you start adding magnification, as the field of vision tends to narrow as the magnification increases.


----------



## Neverwill (Sep 28, 2007)

werk said:
			
		

> But what the description we have is specifically saying to do is to reduce the penalties to spot DC.  You can do that for darkvision, but it simply won't make a difference if the object is outside the darkvision's range.
> 
> Really bad wording there, IMHO, which is unfortunate, I'd say it's up to the DM to decide.  As a DM, I'd say no.




Would you say the same thing for a human with a spyglass and a torch in complete darkness?

I think the question becomes how much real world vision and optics do you let into the game.  My view is to keep it simple and ignore any possibility of range increases for both normal vision and darkvision.  I need to think about what scenarios this would affect.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 28, 2007)

I think I have decided on how telescopes will work in my own game.

Specifically, they will allow a character to ignore spot penalties within a certain range. If they have a telescope or spyglass that is rated between 500' and 1000' then they can treat the distance penalties as starting anywhere within that range but for anything less than 500' it will make viewing impossible with that item.

This makes it possible to have different types of telescopes and spyglasses based on the use that they are intended for and it gives a pretty easy way to tell exactly how they are working mechanically.


----------



## werk (Sep 28, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I think I have decided on how telescopes will work in my own game.




I think I did too, but I'm going to try to stick close to the description and salt liberally with other rules.

House Rules Spoiler 



Spoiler



I'm going to treat it like a reach weapon   If you have darkvision 60', using a spyglass changes that to a zone to 60'-120' from the viewer, but while using it you can't see in the adjacent 60'.  (Which is not to say that darkvision doesn't work in that range, just that they can't see inside it while using the spyglass.)

This would, of course, start the distance penalties to spot at 60' from the viewer.


----------



## GreatLemur (Sep 28, 2007)

I think I'd make more distinction between "impossible to see" and "impossible to discern" than Mistwell does.  The fact that most creatures' Darkvision ends at 60 feet, and also the fact that is _works in complete darkness_ strongly suggest to me that the ability has nothing whatsoever to do with light.

However, since the rules don't mention anything about transparent materials being opaque to Darkvision (although, really, that'd be an extremely cool houserule), it also seems reasonable to assume that whatever force Darkvision detects, it passes through glass just as readily as light does.  It also seems fair to say that it could be bent in the same way light is as it passes through such substances, so a telescope could very possibly magnify objects detectable by Darkvision just as it does objects detectable by normal sight.

This, however, would not _extend the range_ of Darkvision any more than it allows people with normal sight to see through walls.  The range limit of Darkvision, according to the rules, seems to be a hard, absolute limit.  If it was an effect similar to nearsightedness, I'd think it would merely impose Spot and attack penalties towards the limits of its range.


----------



## SlagMortar (Sep 28, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> My telescope let's me see the rings of Saturn. The rings of Saturn are not within my normal visual range, despite there being no obstruction between me and the planet. Telescopes can extend your normal visual range.



But you can see Saturn, because it is big enough.  It is not the distance that makes seeing Saturn's rings impossible with the naked eye.  

A dwarf with darkvision can not see a Tarrasque that is 61 feet away.  Why should the dwarf be able to see a human "magnified to twice its size" that is 61 feet away?


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 28, 2007)

so people that think dark vision is 0%Black only and 100%Back only, Do you see it in the form of stippling, and thus giving the illusion of gray, or is it like an Ipod commercial? really if its ONLY black and ONLY white, their would be no way to accurately see the world. You might as well be blind.

Frank, could you photoshop something up thats black and white only, because i am having a really hard time seeing it....

I think a magnifying glass would not enhance darkvision. Darkvision is a set distance. I think that objects within 60 feet would appear larger. 

Visualy I think Dark Vision is grayscale of sorts, much like z channels. 














this last one is wrong though and should go from light to dark starting from the foreground to background.


----------



## Branduil (Sep 28, 2007)

Wait, who said it was black and white only? That's not what we're arguing about right now.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 28, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Wait, who said it was black and white only? That's not what we're arguing about right now.





oops, sorry, something on the first page... eh


----------



## Jhulae (Sep 29, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> so people that think dark vision is 0%Black only and 100%Back only, Do you see it in the form of stippling, and thus giving the illusion of gray, or is it like an Ipod commercial? really if its ONLY black and ONLY white, their would be no way to accurately see the world. You might as well be blind.
> 
> Frank, could you photoshop something up thats black and white only, because i am having a really hard time seeing it....
> 
> ...




While those pictures are really cool, they have nothing to do with how Darkvision was described by one of the designers, as "Black and White TV Vision".  When I watch a B&W TV show, it doesn't look anything like those pictures.  It looks just how I'd see things normally, except without color.  In other words, "just like normal vision, except in black and white".


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 29, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> While those pictures are really cool, they have nothing to do with how Darkvision was described by one of the designers, as "Black and White TV Vision".  When I watch a B&W TV show, it doesn't look anything like those pictures.  It looks just how I'd see things normally, except without color.  In other words, "just like normal vision, except in black and white".




well its just a rationalization of what a world would look like without light. I realize that its supposed to be like black and white tv, but I also know, everything we see on tv (even black and white tv) is lit with light. So how can something look like it does on tv without any light? Everything on tv uses 3 point lighting of some sorts.

I also know this is just a game, but its just fun to think about how it would visually work. Its the curiosity of my art side that likes playing with this kind of thing. As for black and white tv, it doesen't work, but something very close could be possible. 

What set of rules do you think something is chosen to be lighter and something else is chosen to be darker. I chose lighter in the foreground and darker and the background so the background can fade out at 60 feet. Almost as if artificial light is emanating from the eye. I guess their could be variance in value of things that reflect light diffrently, so one could read pages of a spell book in the dark.


----------



## Branduil (Sep 29, 2007)

I think it would look similar to the images Moon-Lancer posted, although color and texture would have to be visible as well, so you could read spells, as was said.


----------



## Jhulae (Sep 29, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> well its just a rationalization of what a world would look like without light. I realize that its supposed to be like black and white tv, but I also know, everything we see on tv (even black and white tv) is lit with light. So how can something look like it does on tv without any light? Everything on tv uses 3 point lighting of some sorts.
> 
> I also know this is just a game, but its just fun to think about how it would visually work. Its the curiosity of my art side that likes playing with this kind of thing. As for black and white tv, it doesen't work, but something very close could be possible.
> 
> What set of rules do you think something is chosen to be lighter and something else is chosen to be darker. I chose lighter in the foreground and darker and the background so the background can fade out at 60 feet. Almost as if artificial light is emanating from the eye. I guess their could be variance in value of things that reflect light diffrently, so one could read pages of a spell book in the dark.




Well, seeing as Darkvison as presented in the game has no real world correlation at all, and since we get "Black and White TV vision" as a descriptor, it doesn't matter whether there's light or not.  Creatures with Darkvision see things as if they were watching the world as a Black and White TV show up to the limit of their darkvision. After that, if it's pitch black (such as underground) they see absolutely nothing.


----------



## Jhulae (Sep 29, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's not.  The spot rules and DMG rules on encounters state that there is a maximum range for normal vision regardless of light source.  As your ranks and bonus in spot goes up, your maximum range extends.  However, you will always have a maximum range (because there will always be a point where your negative on your spot modifier is so high as to make spotting anything at that distance impossible - hence a maximum range).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Except that your comparison is flawed again.  

A dwarf in complete darkness with a +10, +100, or even +1000 to spot will *never* be able to see a Drow standing 61' away, regardless of whether the Drow is hiding or standing and jumping up and down.  Darkvision range is absolute.

A Dwarf in complete darkness with a +10, +100, or even +1000 to spot will *never* be able to see the unlit ruins of a metropolis 61' away from where she's standing.  Darkvision range is absolute.

A human with a bullseye lantern will be able to see something 61' away, even with a +0 to spot.

A human (or any race) will be able to see the ruins of a metropolis *miles* away, regardless of their ranks in spot.

The comparison between humans (or any kind of normal sight) versus darkvision is specious.

Note too what the SRD has to say about the Spot skill:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> The Spot skill is used primarily to detect characters or creatures who are hiding. Typically, your Spot check is opposed by the Hide check of the creature trying not to be seen. Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it.
> 
> Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant).




Nowhere does spot have any direct correlation between noticing creatures that aren't trying to be stealthy.  Also, they *may* be called for, but not necessarily, especially in open terrain. 



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Page 22 of the DMG further states, under "Starting an Encounter" section:
> 
> 
> > "When you decide that it is possible for either side to become aware of the other, use Spot checks, Listen checks, sight ranges, and so on to determine which of the three above cases (One side becomes aware of the other side and thus can act first; Both sides become aware of each other at the same time; or Some but not all creatures on one or both sides become aware of the other side) comes into play."
> ...




I'd also like to point out how you conveniently miss the "Listen checks, sight ranges, and so on" part of your DMG quote.  Sight ranges are specifically called out in terrain types.  For instance, the 'maximum' sighting distance given by the DMG (or SRD) in a plains encounter is 1440'.

Now, I just feel I have to quote this part again.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> And if it is bright sunlight out, and there are no obstructions of any sort (including any type of terrain obstruction), a human with a spot modifier of 10 will still never be able to see something 300 feet away (unless they use a spy glass).  Their maximum spot check is a 30 (with a roll of a natural 20), and they have a -30 on their check for the distance.




Even common sense says that your interpretation of maximum distance visible being based completely on Spot Skill is spurious.  I must personally have a tremendous spot skill because I can see airplanes flying in the sky, and I know they're much further away than 300'... And trying to say that this particular real world logic wouldn't apply to the game is sophistic as well, because I personally would hate to play in a campaign where my character has a +10 spot check and is standing 301' away from the gates of Waterdeep and I can't even see the city...

Now, if something is *hiding* (or attempting to hide), I completely agree with you.  A character with a spot check of +10 isn't going to be spotting hiding things at any great distance.  Otherwise, see above.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 29, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> Frank, could you photoshop something up thats black and white only, because i am having a really hard time seeing it....



3.0 DMG had a fine example of a mindflayer in normal and darkvision. All contrast was accomplished with the changing from black to white.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 29, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> really if its ONLY black and ONLY white, their would be no way to accurately see the world. You might as well be blind.



While I don't agree that darkvision is truly black/white only (i.e. I think it includes greyscale) you are wrong on this one.

I recommend you check out the Renaissance movie. It's true black&white but you can still see everything accurately, especially if things are in motion.


----------



## Khuxan (Sep 29, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> While I don't agree that darkvision is truly black/white only (i.e. I think it includes greyscale) you are wrong on this one.
> 
> I recommend you check out the Renaissance movie. It's true black&white but you can still see everything accurately, especially if things are in motion.




They went through a lot of steps to make Renaissance work. When you take a standard image and reduce it to black and white (not greyscale), it loses enough of its quality that it would be all but useless.

For example, compare the attached image to the image it was sourced from. At night, someone with darkvision would walk straight into the buildings just as someone with normal vision would.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 29, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Except that your comparison is flawed again.
> 
> A dwarf in complete darkness with a +10, +100, or even +1000 to spot will *never* be able to see a Drow standing 61' away, regardless of whether the Drow is hiding or standing and jumping up and down.  Darkvision range is absolute.
> 
> ...




I disagree.  According to the rules, unless you are dealing with a hidden thing, any situation which would be deemed to be an encounter uses the spot, listen, and sight range rules to be able to see it, and the spot rules say that a human has a maximum range they can see (regardless of the size of the object, though you are free to offer a circumstance bonus for object size).  

Given that a human has a maximum range they can see (as determined by their spot bonus), and if in your game a spy glass could extend that range (which I think is a reasonable thing to do with a x2 magnification effect), then in that same game I would extend the maximum range of darkvision using a spy glass.  The human hard-line limit (as rated by spot checks) should not get an exception using a spyglass that the darkvision hard-limit (as rated by the race of the creature in question) doesn't get, because darkvision otherwise functions just like normal vision.  

That's the argument.  You can disagree with it, but it's not a specious comparison.  It's one of two competing rationale interpretations of the rules.



> Note too what the SRD has to say about the Spot skill:
> 
> 
> Nowhere does spot have any direct correlation between noticing creatures that aren't trying to be stealthy.  Also, they *may* be called for, but not necessarily, especially in open terrain.




In my opinion, there is no purpose to the clause about starting an encounter with spot checks, and things not being hidden but still sometimes calling for a spot check, if it is only about being stealthy.  And if you combine it with the DMG rules that I quoted above for when an encounter starts, it becomes even more clear to me that the spot skill is to be used to start encounters even when nobody is trying to be stealthy or hide.  They spell out the three scenarios, and they can involve competing spot checks and not a hide check vs. a spot check.



> I'd also like to point out how you conveniently miss the "Listen checks, sight ranges, and so on" part of your DMG quote.  Sight ranges are specifically called out in terrain types.  For instance, the 'maximum' sighting distance given by the DMG (or SRD) in a plains encounter is 1440'.




Your maximum range for sight is in the spot checks as well.  And I didn't leave anything out, I quoted it, and I repeated back all three factors.  It's just that listen didn't apply in the examples we were using, and sight ranges in the terrain is just an additional limitation, and not the only place where a maximum range is discussed (such as the spot rules).



> Now, I just feel I have to quote this part again.
> 
> 
> 
> Even common sense says that your interpretation of maximum distance visible being based completely on Spot Skill is spurious.




If it is for WHEN AN ENCOUNTER STARTS it makes some sense (and is the rules).  Most encounters are not involving seeing a big city in the distance, an airplane in the air, or the rings of Saturn.  Seeing a city in the distance is a role playing color aspect of the game usually, and doesn't require encounter rules.



> I must personally have a tremendous spot skill because I can see airplanes flying in the sky, and I know they're much further away than 300'... And trying to say that this particular real world logic wouldn't apply to the game is sophistic as well, because I personally would hate to play in a campaign where my character has a +10 spot check and is standing 301' away from the gates of Waterdeep and I can't even see the city...




If seeing the city is part of an encounter, the rules call for a spot check.  Now I agree with you it's not logical, but then having the encounter start when you see the city isn't logical either.  In addition, you guys are trying to argue the logic of a spy glass and darkvision and seeing through glass as well.  Pick a friggen position already - either we use real world logic, in which case you cannot use a spyglass with darkvision at all because darkvision should have nothing to do with light, or we just use the rules and not logic, in which case you need a spot check to start an encounter with something distant.  If you want to combine logic and the rules, I am fine with that as well, but then quit being a strict constructionist on the rules when it comes to trying to figure out what x2 magnification does to a type of vision that normal extends 60'.



> Now, if something is *hiding* (or attempting to hide), I completely agree with you.  A character with a spot check of +10 isn't going to be spotting hiding things at any great distance.  Otherwise, see above.




"Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see, so a successful Spot check is necessary to notice it....Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups...When you decide that it is possible for either side to become aware of the other, use Spot checks, Listen checks, sight ranges, and so on to determine which of the three above cases"

Spot is used to begin an encounter, even if one side is not hiding or obstructed.  I think it's pretty clear.  You disagree, and that's fair.  But I hope we can back down some of the "specious" claims.  You can disagree without that sort of stuff.

Let me again also say that we have reached an impasse.  We have two competing rationale interpretations of the rules.  It's up to individual DMs to determine which interpretation they will go with.  Some people think it makes sense in the rules as written to allow a spyglass to extend the maximum range of Darkvision by x2, and others do not.  Discussing these same points further will only result in more repetition, and if trends hold it will also result in an increasingly aggressive stance by folks trying to "win" an argument that cannot be won.


----------



## Jhulae (Sep 29, 2007)

Khuxan said:
			
		

> They went through a lot of steps to make Renaissance work. When you take a standard image and reduce it to black and white (not greyscale), it loses enough of its quality that it would be all but useless.
> 
> For example, compare the attached image to the image it was sourced from. At night, someone with darkvision would walk straight into the buildings just as someone with normal vision would.




If that's how Darkvision worked, but it's not.  It's Black and White TV vision (ie it includes greyscale).

And day or night have nothing to do with darkvision, as it's the ability to see with no light at all.


----------



## Branduil (Sep 29, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I disagree.  According to the rules, unless you are dealing with a hidden thing, any situation which would be deemed to be an encounter uses the spot, listen, and sight range rules to be able to see it, and the spot rules say that a human has a maximum range they can see (regardless of the size of the object, though you are free to offer a circumstance bonus for object size).
> 
> Given that a human has a maximum range they can see (as determined by their spot bonus), and if in your game a spy glass could extend that range (which I think is a reasonable thing to do with a x2 magnification effect), then in that same game I would extend the maximum range of darkvision using a spy glass.  The human hard-line limit (as rated by spot checks) should not get an exception using a spyglass that the darkvision hard-limit (as rated by the race of the creature in question) doesn't get, because darkvision otherwise functions just like normal vision.
> 
> ...




Well, you can do whatever you want in your own games, of course. But I think an interpretation of the rules which results in my character not being able to see the sun or the moon is utterly ludicrous.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 30, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> While I don't agree that darkvision is truly black/white only (i.e. I think it includes greyscale) you are wrong on this one.
> 
> I recommend you check out the Renaissance movie. It's true black&white but you can still see everything accurately, especially if things are in motion.




You forget, In order to make such an effect possible, you need to deliberately add contours so shape is not lost. Its not a natural effect. In other words darkvision would need some type of edge finding. darkvision would be like detecting shapes and adding an outline. The artest making shots like this carefully considers what the background is in relation to the figure. 

Although i do thank you for the link. It looks very awesome, and i'm going to watch it. I love stuff like this.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 30, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> 3.0 DMG had a fine example of a mindflayer in normal and darkvision. All contrast was accomplished with the changing from black to white.




do you have a link? i don't have 3.0 dmg. I remember seeing it once, but i forget what it really looks like. I'm sort of in the dark here.


----------



## Jhulae (Sep 30, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> do you have a link? i don't have 3.0 dmg. I remember seeing it once, but i forget what it really looks like. I'm sort of in the dark here.




It's of a mindflayer that's been poorly photoshopped so it's white and the background is black.

SKR stated, in effect, that he disliked that picture immensely because that's *not* how darkvision was supposed to be portrayed.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 30, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Well, you can do whatever you want in your own games, of course. But I think an interpretation of the rules which results in my character not being able to see the sun or the moon is utterly ludicrous.




If seeing the sun or the moon is an encounter, it's probably ludicrous.

The rules for using spot to see something are for when an encounter starts, not when role playing aspects of your game come into play.


----------



## Branduil (Sep 30, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If seeing the sun or the moon is an encounter, it's probably ludicrous.
> 
> The rules for using spot to see something are for when an encounter starts, not when role playing aspects of your game come into play.




So basically you separate "spot" from "actually being able to see things"? Sorry but I'm having a hard time seeing how that's either desirable or logical.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 30, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> So basically you separate "spot" from "actually being able to see things"? Sorry but I'm having a hard time seeing how that's either desirable or logical.




Now that's funny...since YOU guys are the ones advocating that spot is not to be used to see distant things regardless of whether or not those things are an encounter, unless that thing is hiding.  I'm only saying it's used for distant things that are hiding OR which are an encounter.  Take a position already...is spot used to see things that are not hiding, or not?

I separate "spot check to determine when an encounter starts" from "ability to see distant things that are not a challenge themselves".  

The rules do this in more than one place.  Overland movement to get from one city to another is not the same as overland movement to get from your starting square to the opponents square after initiative starts, for example.  

Is it really that illogical that the rules treat things that happen during initiative different from things that happen outside of initiative? To me, it's logical.  If it's part of the challenge, it requires a check.  If it is not part of a challenge, it does not require a check.  What's so weird about that?


----------



## Slaved (Sep 30, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Now that's funny...since YOU guys are the ones advocating that spot is not to be used to see distant things regardless of whether or not those things are an encounter, unless that thing is hiding.  I'm only saying it's used for distant things that are hiding OR which are an encounter.  Take a position already...is spot used to see things that are not hiding, or not?




This seems very illogical.

First it starts off with saying that others are advocating not using spot to see distant things.

Next you say that you are only talking about using spot for hiding things or encounters.

After that you make up a question that does not look connected to any point that you were trying to contend with.

Along with that it looks like you still have not actually quoted the sources you are supposedly using and you seem to have changed your stance that was given at the beginning without a post about it, unless I missed a post somewhere.

In total it looks very disjointed.

From earlier


			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Spot skill is often used with an opposed hide check, but not always (and that is explicit in the rule). It's used for all sorts of things, from "Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see" to "Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins". As far as game rules go, if you ask your DM "Can I see any details on the side of that barn that is a mile away" your DM is likely going to ask you to make a spot check versus a fixed DC adjusted for distance.




I am still waiting to see where in the rules it says what these set difficulty classes are for seeing objects that are far away but are not hiding nor hidden. I have looked at the spot skill and at page 22 in the dungeon masters guide, neither say what you have implied that they said.


Without the very important link you are trying to make, namely that sight has a fixed range, there is no reason to believe that darkvision gains any good benefit from a telescope. We know that darkvision goes a maximum preset specific distance before it simply does not work, regular sight does not have such a limitation. Although even if it did that still would not prove that darkvision range would be doubled through a telescope. The logic countering that stance has been shown a few times.


----------



## Jhulae (Oct 1, 2007)

I'd probably leave a game where I'm walking toward a city that suddenly disappears because there's a guard I'm going to 'encounter' and suddenly my character can't see beyond 300'....

I wouldn't leave a game where my character is underground in total darkness but can't see anything beyond the specified range of her darkvision.

I see lots of quotes of the rules, but I also see you missing lots of the nuances of the words.

"Sometimes things aren't intentionally hiding *but are difficult to see*".  If something is *not* intentionally hiding and is *not* difficult to see, then no spot checks are even needed, whether it's an encounter or not.

The fact that you *may* use a spot check, listen check, or spotting distances to determine beginning encounter range also means you *may not* choose to use all or any of those things.

Regardless, (and to stay on topic) Darkvision rules state that there is a "Specified" range for a creature's darkvision (as given per the creature's stat block).  That means that the range given is the maximum distance that creature can see with it.  I don't see how that can be interpreted any other way.


----------



## ElectricDragon (Oct 2, 2007)

How do you start an encounter?


----------



## werk (Oct 2, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> "Sometimes things aren't intentionally hiding *but are difficult to see*".  If something is *not* intentionally hiding and is *not* difficult to see, then no spot checks are even needed, whether it's an encounter or not.




Everything is difficult to see, or rather, has a difficulty to see, it's just the severity of difficulty that changes.  It's like: there is no cold, only varying degrees of heat.

If something has a spot difficulty of -30...it's pretty hard to not see, but it is still difficult in the purest sense of the term.  



> The fact that you *may* use a spot check, listen check, or spotting distances to determine beginning encounter range also means you *may not* choose to use all or any of those things.




You need to back this up somehow, because I disagree.  The only way I see you can start without using those things is to be surprised constantly...both sides...


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> This seems very illogical.
> 
> First it starts off with saying that others are advocating not using spot to see distant things.
> 
> ...





Not going to spoon feed it to you if you accuse me of not citing my source, which I have done multiple times at this point (and you well know it, because you repeat it below).

Can spot be used to see someone not hiding, or not? That's the question I am posing to you.  You can dodge the question, or not.  Right now you seem to be dodging.



> From earlier
> 
> "Spot skill is often used with an opposed hide check, but not always (and that is explicit in the rule). It's used for all sorts of things, from "Sometimes a creature isn’t intentionally hiding but is still difficult to see" to "Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins". As far as game rules go, if you ask your DM "Can I see any details on the side of that barn that is a mile away" your DM is likely going to ask you to make a spot check versus a fixed DC adjusted for distance."
> 
> ...




Well then you and I are reading the same sentences and coming to a different conclusion.  The spot skill says it can be used to see things that are not hiding but are still difficult to spot.  To me, that would include distant things (which would be hard to see, but which are not hiding).  It also gives spot modifiers for seeing things at a distance, without mentioning hiding, which again implies to me that it is used to see distant things that are not hiding.  The DMG then says you use spot, listen and sight ranges to determine when an encounter begins, without any mention of hiding, which again implies spot can be used to see distant things that are not hiding.  

All of that to me says you can use spot to see distant things that are not hiding.  If you don't read it that way, I'm not sure what else I can do to help you out.  Can you at least admit that it is one reasonable interpretation of those three rules I just cited that you can use spot to see things at a distance which are not hiding, or are you still convinced that your interpretation is the only possible reasonable one?



> Without the very important link you are trying to make, namely that sight has a fixed range,




It's in the spot skill. I've said that before, given examples, and spelled it out.  You're going in circles.



> there is no reason to believe that darkvision gains any good benefit from a telescope. We know that darkvision goes a maximum preset specific distance before it simply does not work, regular sight does not have such a limitation. Although even if it did that still would not prove that darkvision range would be doubled through a telescope. The logic countering that stance has been shown a few times.




There is some logic to that stances, but it's not irrefutable, and it's been refuted.  We have two competing reasonable interpretations of how it would work.  Your continuing repetition of your position and assertion that anyone who disagrees with your conclusion cannot possibly be right is less than compelling.   I understand that yo think you have it right.  I don't understand that you think you MUST be right and that there is no chance at all that you are wrong.  It's an unhelpful attitude at best.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> I'd probably leave a game where I'm walking toward a city that suddenly disappears because there's a guard I'm going to 'encounter' and suddenly my character can't see beyond 300'....




The guard is the encounter, not the city.  And the guard DOES get a chance to spot you before you spot him.  In fact, that is one of the examples given in the DMG.



> I wouldn't leave a game where my character is underground in total darkness but can't see anything beyond the specified range of her darkvision.
> 
> I see lots of quotes of the rules, but I also see you missing lots of the nuances of the words.




What you read as nuances I see as you inferring things not written there to further your preconceive notion of how the game should work.  Which is fair, but it's also something one should be cautious about.



> "Sometimes things aren't intentionally hiding *but are difficult to see*".  If something is *not* intentionally hiding and is *not* difficult to see, then no spot checks are even needed, whether it's an encounter or not.




Things which are distant are difficult to see.  Which is why a check is called for to determine when an encounter begins, when the two parties are distant.  One party might see the other party first, and the DMG is specific about that being something that happens.  Are you really denying that a character 5000 feet from you (out in the open) is more difficult to see than a character 5' in front of you (out in the open)?



> The fact that you *may* use a spot check, listen check, or spotting distances to determine beginning encounter range also means you *may not* choose to use all or any of those things.




Sure it depends on the circumstances.  In other words, are they circumstances where it would be more difficult to see, such as a great distance? That seems to be how the DMG handles it.



> Regardless, (and to stay on topic) Darkvision rules state that there is a "Specified" range for a creature's darkvision (as given per the creature's stat block).  That means that the range given is the maximum distance that creature can see with it.  I don't see how that can be interpreted any other way.




And there is a maximum range of normal sight as well.  The question is, what does x2 magnification mean in your game?  If it would extend the maximum distance you can see with normal vision in your game (which I think is one reasonable way to handle it), then because darkvision functions like normal vision but in black and white I would suggest that you have a spy glass extend the maximum distance you can see with darkvision as well.

So, what effect does a spy glass have in your game on normal vision?


----------



## Slaved (Oct 2, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's in the spot skill. I've said that before, given examples, and spelled it out.




I have asked you again and again and again and again and again and again to tell me where exactly, quote it, tell me the difficulty class numbers that you are saying it gives. Over and over and over again I keep asking you to actually show these things that you say are there in ways that we can actually use here.

But you keep refusing. At this point I am just going to assume that means nothing in the rules actually support your stance and that you are just trying to waste peoples time.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I have asked you again and again and again and again and again and again to tell me where exactly, quote it, tell me the difficulty class numbers that you are saying it gives. Over and over and over again I keep asking you to actually show these things that you say are there in ways that we can actually use here.
> 
> But you keep refusing. At this point I am just going to assume that means nothing in the rules actually support your stance and that you are just trying to waste peoples time.




I hope the aggression can be toned down a bit in this debate.

Here is the link to one of the responses I offered to your question:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3799138&postcount=56

and here is a repeat of the relevant portion:



> And if it is bright sunlight out, and there are no obstructions of any sort (including any type of terrain obstruction), a human with a spot modifier of 10 will still never be able to see something 300 feet away (unless they use a spy glass). Their maximum spot check is a 30 (with a roll of a natural 20), and they have a -30 on their check for the distance.




Here is again the spot rule:



> Spot checks may be called for to determine the distance at which an encounter begins. A penalty applies on such checks, depending on the distance between the two individuals or groups, and an additional penalty may apply if the character making the Spot check is distracted (not concentrating on being observant).
> Condition	Penalty
> Per 10 feet of distance	–1
> Spotter distracted	–5




As for the DC itself, like almost all DCs for skill checks, it's determined by the DM based on the circumstances.  Here is the DC chart for skills, from Page 63 and 64 of the PHB, 



> Table 4-3: Difficulty Class Examples   Difficulty (DC)  	Example (Skill Used)
> *Very easy (0) 	Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)*
> Easy (5) 	Climb a knotted rope (Climb)
> Average (10) 	Hear an approaching guard (Listen)
> ...




The very first check is *"Notice something large in plain sight"* and it uses a *Spot Check with a DC of 0*, which should leave no remaining question that there are DCs for spot checks of things that are not hidden and in plain sight.  That DC is 0, but per the spot rules it would be reduced by -1 for each 10 feet (and further if the spotter is distracted).  It would get easier (as implied by "large" in the DC check description) if the thing you are spotting gets very large, and harder if it gets smaller, and that would involved a circumstance modifier depending on the size.  But regardless, at some point you will not hit that (possibly modified) DC 0 spot check if it is too distant, because of the spot modifiers.  Hence, for all characters, there is a maximum distance they can see things using normal vision (just like there is a maximum distance you can see things using darkvision).

When it is light out, the max distance a human with no ranks or bonuses in spot can notice something large in plain sight is 200 feet (natural 20 rolled, -20 for distance).  On average however, with a roll of a 10, they will only notice things out to 100 feet. 

When it is dark out, the max distance a drow (120 foot darkvision) with no ranks or bonuses in spot can notice something large in plain sight is 120 feet (a spot check of 12 or better, -12 for distance). On average however, with a roll of a 10, they will only notice things out to 100 feet. 

Now, to see what effect the spy glass has, we just need to decide what "Objects viewed through a spyglass are magnified to twice their size" does for these distances, if anything.


----------



## werk (Oct 2, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I have asked you again and again and again and again and again and again to tell me where exactly, quote it, tell me the difficulty class numbers that you are saying it gives. Over and over and over again I keep asking you to actually show these things that you say are there in ways that we can actually use here.




I have a hard time understanding why you are so passionately arguing the spot rules without referencing those rules.

If you glance at the rules for spot (this is the rules forum, no?) you'll find many of your own answers...I hope.


www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm 
and
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm 

I find it improbable that you have looked at the rules relevant to this debate and feel a need to carry on so.


----------



## Piratecat (Oct 2, 2007)

Slaved said:
			
		

> I have asked you again and again and again and again and again and again to tell me where exactly, quote it, tell me the difficulty class numbers that you are saying it gives. Over and over and over again I keep asking you to actually show these things that you say are there in ways that we can actually use here.
> 
> But you keep refusing. At this point I am just going to assume that means nothing in the rules actually support your stance and that you are just trying to waste peoples time.



Instead of getting angry at people, it's generally good form in the Rules forum to make sure you've gone to the PHB or the SRD and have read the relevant section yourself. That stops a lot of arguments and confusion.


----------



## werk (Oct 2, 2007)

I still don't think you could extend the range of darkvision with a spyglass though, regardless of the effect one may have on spot dynamics.


----------



## Slaved (Oct 2, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> As for the DC itself, like almost all DCs for skill checks, it's determined by the DM based on the circumstances.  Here is the DC chart for skills, from Page 63 and 64 of the PHB,




FINALLY! You actually posted something that might substantiate your position. I am glad that it happened eventually but saddened that it took so very long.

It still does not mention reading at a distance but at least it is a good start at seeing things at a distance!!   

Unforutnately this still does not put an absolute limit on sight ranges in the way that Darkvision does. That means that your linking the two is still missing important steps. Do not give up yet! You might find something.



			
				Werk said:
			
		

> I have a hard time understanding why you are so passionately arguing the spot rules without referencing those rules.




The Spot skill does not mention the topic of debate. The best information so far has actually come from a place completely outside of the Spot skill description. It is still vague and left in the hands of dungeon master arbitration rather than having rules set for consistancy but at least it is a start.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> The very first check is *"Notice something large in plain sight"* and it uses a *Spot Check with a DC of 0*, which should leave no remaining question that there are DCs for spot checks of things that are not hidden and in plain sight.  That DC is 0, but per the spot rules it would be reduced by -1 for each 10 feet (and further if the spotter is distracted).  It would get easier (as implied by "large" in the DC check description) if the thing you are spotting gets very large, and harder if it gets smaller, and that would involved a circumstance modifier depending on the size.  But regardless, at some point you will not hit that (possibly modified) DC 0 spot check if it is too distant, because of the spot modifiers.  Hence, for all characters, there is a maximum distance they can see things using normal vision (just like there is a maximum distance you cam see things using darkvision).




I am glad that you found something to help support your case! Unfortunately it does not give any guidelines or help us know what the difficulty classes will actually be. That section of the rules tells us to use the rules in the skill to determine the difficulty class but there are no rules given to determine how difficult the task will be in the spot skill description. We also do not know what type of action it takes. If looking for a particular building among other buildings is reactive then we know what it takes to perform the action. Using the skill in the way that you suggest and that part of the rules state vaguely then very strange things can happen such as a ranger spotting a favoured enemy but not the hill it is standing on!

Also if a party uses aid another then someone could suddenly see twice as far as they could before. One moment there is nothing but open space and the next moment there is a building all because the guy next to you is looking around as well. Unless the dungeon master says that a Spot check can not be aided or if the players handbook has an example or two that the system resource document lacks.



			
				Piratecat said:
			
		

> Instead of getting angry at people, it's generally good form in the Rules forum to make sure you've gone to the PHB or the SRD and have read the relevant section yourself. That stops a lot of arguments and confusion.




Oh I have! That is the problem!! Spot does not have the text that would be needed nor does page 22 of the dungeon masters guide. I was not angry merely frustrated that a claim was being made and was not being supported. Since this is the rules forum after all a rules claim should be backed up by rules I would think. After asking who knows how many times Mistwell finally put up a rules quote that helps back part of his-her position. Progress!!   It is still incomplete though. Perhaps more progress will be made eventually.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 2, 2007)

There are, I fear, limits to the amount of condescension we will tolerate.  

Those limits are back there somewhere.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Branduil (Oct 3, 2007)

The example of noticing something large in plain sight obviously already takes into account distance modifiers... it's simply referring to something anyone would notice. Putting aside a strict reading of the rules, which I still don't agree you are right on, someone can obviously see large city a mile away from a hilltop, or the moon on a cloudless night. There is no such thing as a limit to how far you can see with normal vision. None. You could theoretically see something on the other side of the universe if it was large enough.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> The example of noticing something large in plain sight obviously already takes into account distance modifiers... it's simply referring to something anyone would notice. Putting aside a strict reading of the rules, which I still don't agree you are right on, someone can obviously see large city a mile away from a hilltop, or the moon on a cloudless night. There is no such thing as a limit to how far you can see with normal vision. None. You could theoretically see something on the other side of the universe if it was large enough.




Retreading seeing cities and planets again (fourth time now)?  It's a strawman, and I don't see the value in that.  The rules in question are for encounters only.  Seeing a city, the moon, or a star is not an encounter.  For situations involving initiative, and when it starts, and whether you can notice something that is part of an actual encounter itself, we use these rules.  For situations involving role playing aspects and campaign color you don't need any rules at all.

So for encounters, large is a defined term in this game.  We know what a large creature or object is (it occupies a 10'  square), and it's different from a small creature or object, or a gargantuan one.  The DC to see a large object that is part of an encounter that is in plain view is 0, modified by circumstances, the spot rules for seeing things, sight distances, etc..  The DC to see a small sized creature or object would be higher, and lower for a gargantuan one.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 3, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> So for encounters, large is a defined term in this game.  We know what a large creature or object is (it occupies a 10'  square), and it's different from a small creature or object, or a gargantuan one.  The DC to see a large object that is part of an encounter that is in plain view is 0, modified by circumstances, the spot rules for seeing things, sight distances, etc..  The DC to see a small sized creature or object would be higher, and lower for a gargantuan one.




So when you're describing the 'absolute limit' of distance for normal vision, that limit varies depending on the size of what you're looking at, right?

Let's say the DC to see a Large object that is part of an encounter that is in plain view is 0; for the untrained, Wis 10 creature, the 'absolute limit' of how far away he can see that Large object that is part of an encounter that is in plain view is 200 feet.

Let's say the DC to see a Medium object that is part of an encounter that is in plain view is 1; for the untrained, Wis 10 creature, the 'absolute limit' of how far away he can see that Medium object that is part of an encounter that is in plain view is 190 feet.

Allowing for variation in what DC you'd call the Medium object, does that fit with what you're advocating?

Does that mean that with a spyglass, the creature can potentially see the Medium object that is part of an encounter that is in plain view up to 200 feet away (but no further), since it is magnified to twice its size, becoming effectively Large?

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So when you're describing the 'absolute limit' of distance for normal vision, that limit varies depending on the size of what you're looking at, right?
> 
> Let's say the DC to see a Large object that is part of an encounter that is in plain view is 0; for the untrained, Wis 10 creature, the 'absolute limit' of how far away he can see that Large object that is part of an encounter that is in plain view is 200 feet.
> 
> ...




Yes, to all of the above.



> Does that mean that with a spyglass, the creature can potentially see the Medium object that is part of an encounter that is in plain view up to 200 feet away (but no further), since it is magnified to twice its size, becoming effectively Large?
> 
> -Hyp.




That's the issue (for me).  I am not sure what effect x2 magnification should have.  

One reasonable interpretation is to enlarge the relative size of the object, changing the DC to make it easier.  That view is more accurate, but it's also a lot more complicated (since doubling the size of an object doesn't necessarily easily translate into the next larger size up).  If you go with that view, I would *not* extend the distance you can see with darkvision while using a spyglass (beyond modifying the spot DC, if that comes into play).

Another reasonable interpretation is to double the maximum distance you can see objects.  That version is easier to adjudicate, but probably less accurate than the first one.  If you go with that interpretation, then I would extend the maximum distance darkvision works while using a spyglass.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 3, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> That's the issue (for me).  I am not sure what effect x2 magnification should have.
> 
> One reasonable interpretation is to enlarge the relative size of the object, changing the DC to make it easier.  That view is more accurate, but it's also a lot more complicated (since doubling the size of an object doesn't necessarily easily translate into the next larger size up).  If you go with that view, I would *not* extend the distance you can see with darkvision while using a spyglass (beyond modifying the spot DC, if that comes into play).




That's how I see it.  It doesn't make sense to me to take "magnified to twice its size" to mean the one that doesn't treat the object as twice its size.

As far as doubling the size goes, it either becomes the next size category up, or it doesn't... and in most cases, it does.  If it does, change the DC.  If it doesn't, don't change the DC.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's how I see it.  It doesn't make sense to me to take "magnified to twice its size" to mean the one that doesn't treat the object as twice its size.
> 
> As far as doubling the size goes, it either becomes the next size category up, or it doesn't... and in most cases, it does.  If it does, change the DC.  If it doesn't, don't change the DC.
> 
> -Hyp.




I might go that route as well.  But, I don't think it's completely illogical to use the other method, and it's the method the original poster seems to be looking for. If you take x2 magnification to the logical conclusion, it means you can see twice as far. Because the point of your vision where it ordinarily became too difficult to see the necessary details are now twice as big, making it easier to see. Which means you should be able to see roughly twice as far as you could without it (which is generally how 2x Magnification works with things like telescopes).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 3, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Which means you should be able to see roughly twice as far as you could without it (which is generally how 2x Magnification works with things like telescopes).




But if we say that a Large object is DC 0 and a Medium object is DC X to Spot, this model falls down... because we can have a Large object which is an exact 2x replica of a Medium object (therefore every necessary detail is twice as big), and yet the maximum Spotting distances will not be double for everyone, based on the values of X and the respective Spot bonuses.

-Hyp.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 3, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Retreading seeing cities and planets again (fourth time now)?  It's a strawman, and I don't see the value in that.  The rules in question are for encounters only.  Seeing a city, the moon, or a star is not an encounter.  For situations involving initiative, and when it starts, and whether you can notice something that is part of an actual encounter itself, we use these rules.  For situations involving role playing aspects and campaign color you don't need any rules at all.
> 
> So for encounters, large is a defined term in this game.  We know what a large creature or object is (it occupies a 10'  square), and it's different from a small creature or object, or a gargantuan one.  The DC to see a large object that is part of an encounter that is in plain view is 0, modified by circumstances, the spot rules for seeing things, sight distances, etc..  The DC to see a small sized creature or object would be higher, and lower for a gargantuan one.




Okay.

So by your interpretation, I couldn't see a Dragon attacking a city 1 mile away, and he couldn't see me, even if I was on fire and holding up a huge sign that said "Hey Dragon, I'm coming to kill you!" 

Is this correct?


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Okay.
> 
> So by your interpretation, I couldn't see a Dragon attacking a city 1 mile away, and he couldn't see me, even if I was on fire and holding up a huge sign that said "Hey Dragon, I'm coming to kill you!"
> 
> Is this correct?




If seeing the Dragon was the start of the encounter (it isn't by the way in most games - unless you actually go to the melee grid to move a mile until you arrive, all while in initiative).  Unless your spot check was high enough, if it were the encounter, then absolutely correct.

See for example the DMG rule that specifies when an encounter starts and how one party sees another party, and what rules you use to determine who sees who when.

Honestly, we have ALWAYS played using spot checks to know when one party sees another party (even if nobody is hiding).  It's not a house rule, it's right out of the DMG and the spot rules and the skills DC chart.  I'm kinda surprised people assume their characters can see anything at any distance assuming no obstructions.  I mean poor half-elves once again! They get keen eyesight, which the rules specifically say translates into a bonus to their spot check, but EVERYONE apparently has extraordinarily fantastic eyesight in some games that can see anything at any distance provided there is no obstruction! Look, an ant on the ground at 1000 yards!


----------



## Branduil (Oct 3, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If seeing the Dragon was the start of the encounter (it isn't by the way in most games - unless you actually go to the melee grid to move a mile until you arrive, all while in initiative).  Unless your spot check was high enough, if it were the encounter, then absolutely correct.
> 
> See for example the DMG rule that specifies when an encounter starts and how one party sees another party, and what rules you use to determine who sees who when.
> 
> Honestly, we have ALWAYS played using spot checks to know when one party sees another party (even if nobody is hiding).  It's not a house rule, it's right out of the DMG and the spot rules and the skills DC chart.  I'm kinda surprised people assume their characters can see anything at any distance assuming no obstructions.  I mean poor half-elves once again! They get keen eyesight, which the rules specifically say translates into a bonus to their spot check, but EVERYONE apparently has extraordinarily fantastic eyesight in some games that can see anything at any distance provided there is no obstruction! Look, an ant on the ground at 1000 yards!




If your interpretation is correct, can you tell me why it's possible to shoot 1000 feet with a normal longbow? If there is a maximum distance to spot of only a few hundred feet, what's the point of having a weapon that can shoot father? Why would the far shot feat even exist? And wouldn't it mention somewhere that even though you can shoot this far, it doesn't matter since you can't see your enemies?


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> If your interpretation is correct, can you tell me why it's possible to shoot 1000 feet with a normal longbow?




Because with a high enough spot check, a large enough target, and circumstance bonuses (like knowing the character went in that direction), you can hit things at 1000 feet.



> If there is a maximum distance to spot of only a few hundred feet,




Who said that? There is a maximum distance for any given character and target and circumstances, but given the right character and target and circumstances it can extend quite far (particularly with a spy glass, if you choose the interpretation I suggested).



> what's the point of having a weapon that can shoot father? Why would the far shot feat even exist?




Most folks I know that take far shot use it for things with a shorter range to begin with (like a dagger).  It would be pretty silly to take far shot with a composite longbow, as you cannot see the target, and frankly even if you could the opportunity to have a target that far is so rare that it would be a waste of a feat.



> And wouldn't it mention somewhere that even though you can shoot this far, it doesn't matter since you can't see your enemies?




It does.  It's in the spot rules, and the chart for DCs for skills, and the DMG. 

Tell me, what does DC 0 to notice a large object in plain sight mean to you, if there is no need to hit a DC at all? How can there be any question that you need to roll a spot check for things in plain sight, once you saw that chart?

And I'll ask again...can your character notice an ant in plain view 1000 yards away? If not, why not, given you believe there are no rolls necessary to spot something in plain view, regardless of distance and size?


----------



## Branduil (Oct 3, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It does.  It's in the spot rules, and the chart for DCs for skills, and the DMG.
> 
> Tell me, what does DC 0 to notice a large object in plain sight mean to you, if there is no need to hit a DC at all? How can there be any question that you need to roll a spot check for things in plain sight, once you saw that chart?
> 
> And I'll ask again...can your character notice an ant in plain view 1000 yards away? If not, why not, given you believe there are no rolls necessary to spot something in plain view, regardless of distance and size?




Notice that the PHB chart does not specify a distance for the check to notice a large object in plain sight. It's deliberately vague, because the distance is irrelevant. It's merely saying that, unless you're basically blind, you cane see large objects in plain sight. Noticing the moon on a cloudless night would be a DC 0 spot check. 

Now you are the one making up straw men. I never said anything about spotting an ant. The only point I've been trying to make is there is no such thing as an absolute limit to normal sight, so to try and compare it to Darkvision in that aspect is wrong, and a Telescope can no more extend the range of Darkvision than it can make Darkvision technicolor. Frankly the Spot skill is a red herring to this discussion. There are only two important factors:

1)There is no absolute limit to normal vision.

2)There is an absolute limit to Darkvision.

We can therefore decisively state that Darkvision is NOT like normal vision in this respect.

Furthermore, telescopes do not work by extending your range of vision, as that is a meaningless concept for normal vision. They merely make things twice as large, and thus easier to see. Therefore, telescopes cannot extend the range of Darkvision; that's not how telescopes work. I guess you could see the nothingness past 60 feet twice as large.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 3, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Furthermore, telescopes do not work by extending your range of vision, as that is a meaningless concept for normal vision. They merely make things twice as large, and thus easier to see. Therefore, telescopes cannot extend the range of Darkvision; that's not how telescopes work. I guess you could see the nothingness past 60 feet twice as large.




Mistwell has already said that if we consider a telescope to effectively double the size of what you're looking at, he wouldn't let it increase Darkvision's range.  He also said that if we consider a telescope to double the distance you can see, he would.

So as long as you consider a telescope to effectively double the size of what you're looking at, you're in agreement with Mistwell.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 3, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Notice that the PHB chart does not specify a distance for the check to notice a large object in plain sight. It's deliberately vague, because the distance is irrelevant.




No it's deliberately vague because, just like everything else on that chart, it's just an example and you have to look to the skill description itself for the details.  Distance is not irrelevant for spot checks.  That much is clear in the spot skill description.



> It's merely saying that, unless you're basically blind, you cane see large objects in plain sight. Noticing the moon on a cloudless night would be a DC 0 spot check.




Again, please, no more moon, planet, star, or city references.  You know, I know, and everyone knows this is a rule for encounters and not role playing color.

Your intepretation of that rule does not match the DMG description or the spot skill description.  The weight of the evidence is on my side that a spot check is called for to start an encounter at a distance.  Simply trying to fiat over all those rules without responding to it isn't compelling (at least it's not to me).



> Now you are the one making up straw men. I never said anything about spotting an ant.




It's not a straw man and I never said you brought it up.  *I* brought it up as a counter example to your examples.  Could you answer the question, like I have patiently answered yours?  If an ant is in plain view, 1000 yards away, can you see it without a spot check or can't you?  The logical extension of your view is that no check is required, or the check is against a DC 0, because it's in plain view regardless of distance or size (hence the DC would be 0 in your view).  If that is not correct, explain why.



> The only point I've been trying to make is there is no such thing as an absolute limit to normal sight,




But there is.  I understand that's the point you were trying to make, I just disagree with it, and have presented rules as to why I disagree with it.  I'm really not sure at this point why you think there is a maximum sight limit to see someone hiding, but not a maximum sight limit to start an encounter.



> so to try and compare it to Darkvision in that aspect is wrong, and a Telescope can no more extend the range of Darkvision than it can make Darkvision technicolor. Frankly the Spot skill is a red herring to this discussion. There are only two important factors:
> 
> 1)There is no absolute limit to normal vision.




There is, however.  And it's in the spot skill.  You can call it a red herring all you want, but it's the issue at hand.  The -1 to checks per 10' has some meaning.  The DC to spot something in plain sight has some meaning.  The DMG rule that calls for spot checks to determine when an encounter starts has some meaning.



> 2)There is an absolute limit to Darkvision.
> 
> We can therefore decisively state that Darkvision is NOT like normal vision in this respect.




Except it is, in the respect that you still need to deal with the maximum range for normal vision part of this debate.



> Furthermore, telescopes do not work by extending your range of vision, as that is a meaningless concept for normal vision.




It's not a meaningless concept for game rules however.  We need to decide if it makes things larger, and thus the spot check easier, or it extends the maximum distance, which effectively makes the spot check easier for objects in closer range.



> They merely make things twice as large, and thus easier to see. Therefore, telescopes cannot extend the range of Darkvision; that's not how telescopes work. I guess you could see the nothingness past 60 feet twice as large.




I understand that part of your position, and I agree it's one reasonable interpretation of how to apply the x2 magnification effect of the spy glass.  I just think there is another reasonable interpretation, and the OP seemed to be asking if anyone could think of a reasonable interpretation of the existing rules that would allow that sort of thing to work.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 3, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> No it's deliberately vague because, just like everything else on that chart, it's just an example and you have to look to the skill description itself for the details.  Distance is not irrelevant for spot checks.  That much is clear in the spot skill description.




Distance is irrelevant if the object is large relative to your viewpoint and in plain sight. That's why it's DC 0.



> Again, please, no more moon, planet, star, or city references.  You know, I know, and everyone knows this is a rule for encounters and not role playing color.




What if I wanted to make a check for the PCs to notice something like the moon changing color because it's a cursed night, or something similar? By your interpretation it is impossible.



> It's not a straw man and I never said you brought it up.  *I* brought it up as a counter example to your examples.  Could you answer the question, like I have patiently answered yours?  If an ant is in plain view, 1000 yards away, can you see it without a spot check or can't you?  The logical extension of your view is that no check is required, or the check is against a DC 0, because it's in plain view regardless of distance or size (hence the DC would be 0 in your view).  If that is not correct, explain why.




No, unless it is a large dire ant or something. It is a strawman because you're making up a ridiculous example instead of addressing my claim, which is that you can see relatively large things at any distance.



> But there is.  I understand that's the point you were trying to make, I just disagree with it, and have presented rules as to why I disagree with it.  I'm really not sure at this point why you think there is a maximum sight limit to see someone hiding, but not a maximum sight limit to start an encounter.




You have not shown that Spot can only be used for encounters. What if I want to know if any of the PCs notice a glow on the night horizon from a town several miles away that's being burned and sacked by goblin raiders?



> There is, however.  And it's in the spot skill.  You can call it a red herring all you want, but it's the issue at hand.  The -1 to checks per 10' has some meaning.  The DC to spot something in plain sight has some meaning.  The DMG rule that calls for spot checks to determine when an encounter starts has some meaning.




Give me book and page number where they ever mention anything about an absolute range limit to normal vision. Distance modifiers are countered by size modifiers.



> I understand that part of your position, and I agree it's one reasonable interpretation of how to apply the x2 magnification effect of the spy glass.  I just think there is another reasonable interpretation, and the OP seemed to be asking if anyone could think of a reasonable interpretation of the existing rules that would allow that sort of thing to work.




I disagree in that I do not think it is reasonable to interpret the rules in such a way that results in it being impossible for PCs to notice a burning town miles way or the moon changing color slightly. Distance modifiers are always countered by size modifiers, so there's no such thing as an absolute limit to normal vision.


----------



## Elethiomel (Oct 4, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If seeing the Dragon was the start of the encounter (it isn't by the way in most games - unless you actually go to the melee grid to move a mile until you arrive, all while in initiative).  Unless your spot check was high enough, if it were the encounter, then absolutely correct.




Combine seeing the mile-distant city-attacking Dragon to the ability for people to shoot 1500+ feet with Far Shot and a Composite Longbow.

And where does verisimilitude go when you remember that common people in the Age of Exploration were able to see the sails of an incoming ship *before the hull was over the horizon*?

I have a really hard time accepting the rules on spot checks as the maximum distance you can see something that is in plain view unless the size of the object alter the DC in a multiplicative fashion.

[Edit: ]
("there isn't an absolute limit on normal vision")


			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> There is, however.  And it's in the spot skill.  You can call it a red herring all you want, but it's the issue at hand.  The -1 to checks per 10' has some meaning.  The DC to spot something in plain sight has some meaning.  The DMG rule that calls for spot checks to determine when an encounter starts has some meaning.




That's a variable limit. The limit on a given character's Darkvision is absolute, not variable.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 4, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Distance is irrelevant if the object is large relative to your viewpoint and in plain sight. That's why it's DC 0.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Enough with the point by point, given you avoided my question a second time.

What is the DC to spot a fine sized creature a mile away out in the open and not hiding.  Creatures can be fine sized, and be a foe.  So forget the ant and insert your favorite fine sized creature.  Now please, answer the question.  It's relevant to both our positions.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 4, 2007)

Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Combine seeing the mile-distant city-attacking Dragon to the ability for people to shoot 1500+ feet with Far Shot and a Composite Longbow.
> 
> And where does verisimilitude go when you remember that common people in the Age of Exploration were able to see the sails of an incoming ship *before the hull was over the horizon*?
> 
> ...




Yes, it's variable from character to character, and object to object, and circumstance to circumstance (which I said earlier).  However, for any given character, object/creature, and circumstances, there is a fixed maximum range you can notice something.  Same goes for many uses of Darkvision as well.  I gave the example of the drow vs. the human, and BOTH could only see 100' for their average roll, regardless of whether they used darkvision or normal vision.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 4, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Enough with the point by point, given you avoided my question a second time.
> 
> What is the DC to spot a fine sized creature a mile away out in the open and not hiding.  Creatures can be fine sized, and be a foe.  So forget the ant and insert your favorite fine sized creature.  Now please, answer the question.  It's relevant to both our positions.




As the rules are fairly ambiguous on spotting things out in the open, I would start from the one rule we do have: DC 0 check to see something large out in the open. Large is not defined in this context, so I'd have make an assumption. Something like a full moon on a cloudless night would be DC 0. So things smaller than that would be harder to see. We're basically in DM fiat territory here.  Let's say it's a black bug on a while wall 1 mile away. The way I would adjust the DC for size is this: A creature or object 1/4 the size of a DC 0 object would have a +4 bonus to DC for DC 4, while a creature or object 4 times as large would have a -4 modifier, for DC -4. For every quartering or quadrupling of size, I would multiply by 4. So if a creature is 1/4 of 1/4 the size of a DC 0 object, it would be a DC 16 spot check to see. 

Rather unscientifically, I would guess that a Colossal-sized creature not hiding a mile away would be DC 0. Also unscientifically, I'll simplify and say that each step down in size is equal to being a creature or object 1/4 smaller. So, 4x4x4x4x4x4x4= 4^7= DC 16,384 to see a fine sized creature a mile away. Sounds about right. 

Of course in reality I would never have my players makes such a spot check anyway. And it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is such a thing as a maximum range for normal vision.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 4, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> As the rules are fairly ambiguous on spotting things out in the open, I would start from the one rule we do have: DC 0 check to see something large out in the open. Large is not defined in this context, so I'd have make an assumption. Something like a full moon on a cloudless night would be DC 0. So things smaller than that would be harder to see. We're basically in DM fiat territory here.  Let's say it's a black bug on a while wall 1 mile away. The way I would adjust the DC for size is this: A creature or object 1/4 the size of a DC 0 object would have a +4 bonus to DC for DC 4, while a creature or object 4 times as large would have a -4 modifier, for DC -4. For every quartering or quadrupling of size, I would multiply by 4. So if a creature is 1/4 of 1/4 the size of a DC 0 object, it would be a DC 16 spot check to see.




OK, so finally, we both agree that a spot check can be used for things out in the open that are not hiding, and that the DC varies based on size and is not just a fixed DC of 0.  Glad we got that out of the way.  I don't think it is ambiguous like you do, or DM fiat (we know what a large sized object is - it is defined in the rules as anything taking up a 10' square), and we know the modifiers for sized (you can find the chart in multiple places), so it's just the same analysis and DM does for any skill check with a high variety of potential uses.  But regardless, we both agree that spot is used to see objects out in the open, and the check is modified by size.

The other question however is the fact that the creature is a mile away as opposed to a foot in front of you.  Is it harder to see a fine sized creature a mile away than a fine sized creature in the square next to you, or isn't it? I think the answer to that is obvious, as are the rules (in the spot skill - which is the skill we both agree is used to make the check).



> Rather unscientifically, I would guess that a Colossal-sized creature not hiding a mile away would be DC 0. Also unscientifically, I'll simplify and say that each step down in size is equal to being a creature or object 1/4 smaller. So, 4x4x4x4x4x4x4= 4^7= DC 16,384 to see a fine sized creature a mile away. Sounds about right.
> 
> Of course in reality I would never have my players makes such a spot check anyway. And it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is such a thing as a maximum range for normal vision.




It's relevant once we get to the spot rules for making those checks, which include a modifier for distance.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 4, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> OK, so finally, we both agree that a spot check can be used for things out in the open that are not hiding, and that the DC varies based on size and is not just a fixed DC of 0.  Glad we got that out of the way.  I don't think it is ambiguous like you do, or DM fiat (we know what a large sized object is - it is defined in the rules as anything taking up a 10' square), and we know the modifiers for sized (you can find the chart in multiple places), so it's just the same analysis and DM does for any skill check with a high variety of potential uses.  But regardless, we both agree that spot is used to see objects out in the open, and the check is modified by size.
> 
> The other question however is the fact that the creature is a mile away as opposed to a foot in front of you.  Is it harder to see a fine sized creature a mile away than a fine sized creature in the square next to you, or isn't it? I think the answer to that is obvious, as are the rules (in the spot skill - which is the skill we both agree is used to make the check).
> 
> ...




Looking more closely at the rules, it says "a penalty applies on such checks." What does it mean by such checks? Spot checks to determine the beginning of an encounter. In other words, only in this specific use of the spot skill does the penalty apply. It says nothing about a penalty for opposed Hide checks, or spotting things father in the distance. And it seems this use of spot checks is entirely optional: "The Dungeon Master MAY call for spot checks." 

So really I don't see how this optional use of the spot skill relates to the telescope argument at all.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 4, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Looking more closely at the rules, it says "a penalty applies on such checks." What does it mean by such checks? Spot checks to determine the beginning of an encounter.




Yes, which is one of the two reasons I keep saying "encounter" in our debate, and why I stress that a city or the moon is not generally an encounter.



> In other words, only in this specific use of the spot skill does the penalty apply. It says nothing about a penalty for opposed Hide checks,




EXACTLY my point.  It's NOT about hide checks.  It's about starting an encounter, in general, regardless of hiding or out in the open.  Same stuff as in the DMG.



> or spotting things father in the distance.




Now that part makes no sense.  The rule is a distance rule.  Of course it is about spotting things at a distance.  That's all the rule is about in fact.



> And it seems this use of spot checks is entirely optional: "The Dungeon Master MAY call for spot checks."




No, sorry, may in that context is not an "this rule is optional".  It's an alert to be prepared for such an happenstance, and how it is adjudicated.  Optional rules are pretty well spelled out, and are usually in a sidebar.  That's a skill check rule right there, so it is no more optional than any other rule.  "May" is in fact used in a LOT of places in the rules, where the context is that it's not an option just a normal use of the word "May".  



> So really I don't see how this optional use of the spot skill relates to the telescope argument at all.




If your argument is that the spot rule about distance is optional, I think you will be all alone in that one.  It's not a strong argument in my opinion (and I suspect in just about everyone else's as well).


----------



## Branduil (Oct 4, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yes, which is one of the two reasons I keep saying "encounter" in our debate, and why I stress that a city or the moon is not generally an encounter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's possible I'm wrong, however that's still irrelevant to the main argument, which is whether or not there is a maximum range to normal vision. Unless you can point to a rule which states the maximum range for normal vision it's simply incorrect to compare it to Darkvision.

I think this thread does show that the rules for spot are extremely poorly written. They really should be clear enough that debate like this isn't necessary.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 4, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Looking more closely at the rules, it says "a penalty applies on such checks." What does it mean by such checks? Spot checks to determine the beginning of an encounter. In other words, only in this specific use of the spot skill does the penalty apply. It says nothing about a penalty for opposed Hide checks, or spotting things father in the distance.




Huh... I've never noticed that before.

The Listen DC modifiers look to be globally applicable, but the way the Spot description is written, the distance penalty and distraction penalty are specifically for determining encounter distance.

-Hyp.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 4, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Huh... I've never noticed that before.
> 
> The Listen DC modifiers look to be globally applicable, but the way the Spot description is written, the distance penalty and distraction penalty are specifically for determining encounter distance.
> 
> -Hyp.




Well, I think they do mean for them to be universally applicable. It's just poorly written.

In any case I don't think the distance rules make much sense. The difference between 10 and 20 feet is many magnitudes larger than the difference between 200 and 210 feet. It really doesn't make sense to have a linear penalty, though I guess a more realistic system would require more computation. Hopefully 4e will make spot both logical and easy to use.


----------



## Elethiomel (Oct 4, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yes, it's variable from character to character, and object to object, and circumstance to circumstance (which I said earlier).  However, for any given character, object/creature, and circumstances, there is a fixed maximum range you can notice something.  Same goes for many uses of Darkvision as well.  I gave the example of the drow vs. the human, and BOTH could only see 100' for their average roll, regardless of whether they used darkvision or normal vision.




Of course there's a fixed maximum for a given character, object/creature, and circumstance. That describes a situation. That doesn't make the "fixed distance" in any way comparable to the maximum range of Darkvision, which only depends on one variable - your Darkvision range. For a given object (I'm using the grammatical sense of object here, rather than the rules sense of it, because I find the "object/creature" grammatical construct to be inelegant.) in a given situation, the maximum distance at which you can spot that object may be less than your Darkvision range. As long as it is dark, however, the maximum distance that you can spot any object is *never larger* than your Darkvision range.


----------



## chriton227 (Oct 4, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> If seeing the Dragon was the start of the encounter (it isn't by the way in most games - unless you actually go to the melee grid to move a mile until you arrive, all while in initiative).  Unless your spot check was high enough, if it were the encounter, then absolutely correct.




Here is where this interpretation of the rules breaks down for me.  Take the following situation:

Colossal Red Dragon is circling a keep blasting it with its fire breath every chance it gets.  The keep is in a clear area.  Standing 2000' away is a L20 wizard with Alertness, Skill Focus(Spot), max ranks in spot (11 due to cross-class), and a +3 wisdom.  That would be a +19 spot, which is just about as good as you could reasonably expect from a pure class wizard.  If I understand your interpretation of the rules, since we are not in an encounter, at that distance it should be easy for the wizard to see the dragon attacking the keep.  That makes sense to me, it is a flame-spitting creature the size of a medium commercial jet airplane less than half a mile away.

The wizard player decides that he needs to distract the dragon and save the keep, and tries to cast his prepared Enlarged Ice Storm (range is 800' + 80'/caster level, or 2400').  Since we are now in an encounter, the wizard needs to make a spot check at a -200 penalty for distance.  Even with his +19 spot, the DM would have to give him a +161 circumstance bonus to be able to see the dragon that he could already see on a natural 20 (by the spot rules there are no bonuses or penalties for size, those are only in the hide rules, and the dragon isn't hiding).  Had he been using an Enlarged Acid Arrow, he would have had the same spell range, but would need to make an attack roll at no range penalty.  

If I were the GM in this situation and told the player to make a spot check when they declared they wanted to cast the spell, then told them they suddenly couldn't see the dragon, I would expect to be on the receiving end of a lot of yelling and the proud GM of a game looking for a replacement player.  I would also feel the need to call for spot checks all the time.  Hasted fighter with a move of 60' wants to charge an orc shaman standing 120' away casting a summon monster spell?  He would have to make a spot check (I hope he can make a DC12).  4th level sorcerer casting Acid Arrow?  It doesn't matter that his range on the spell is 560', he would be lucky to have a +15 spot assuming he spent both feats, 12 skill points, and put an 18 in Wisdom, which would limit him to effectively 250' reliable range on the spell (taking 10 on spot, it would take 20 rounds to take 20).  In fact, at 20th level the sorcerer still would have trouble seeing far enough to take advantage of the range of a 3rd caster level wand of Acid Arrow.  

That interpretation of the spot rules may be debatably correct (I am not saying it is, but that it is debatable), but I would never enforce that interpretation on my players, nor would I play in a game where that interpretation was enforced.  If that works well for your group, more power to you, that just means that your group's priorities and preferences are different than mine.  For my group, requiring spot checks only for seeing creatures that are hiding or concealed, or for noticing fine details (I have seen plenty of "Spot DC 20 to notice this detail" in published material) is both more realistic and more fun.

I personally feel that your position is presenting a false dichotomy, either you have to make spot checks for everything, or everything is visible at any distance.   My viewpoint is that there is a middle ground.  It requires the DM to use good judgement, but it has worked so far for me.  In the case of the red dragon attacking the keep, I might call for a spot check and based on the result, give a varying level of information.  A DC 5 would easily see that there is a creature attacking the keep.  A 15 would identify the creature as a red dragon (it's a distinctive creature, assuming the character would recognize one when he saw one).  It might be a DC 35 or 40 to identify the dragon as Pyroflex, the dragon plaguing the area that the party has encountered before who has a distinctive patterning on his wings.  A DC 60 might catch a glint off the amulet of natural armor that the dragon is wearing, although I'd only tell the player that the catch a glint from something around its neck.  In this way there is value to the spot skill, but it also passes my internal "does this make sense" check.


----------



## werk (Oct 4, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> The example of noticing something large in plain sight obviously already takes into account distance modifiers... it's simply referring to something anyone would notice. Putting aside a strict reading of the rules, which I still don't agree you are right on, someone can obviously see large city a mile away from a hilltop, or the moon on a cloudless night. There is no such thing as a limit to how far you can see with normal vision. None. You could theoretically see something on the other side of the universe if it was large enough.




I love this (distracting) argument because you can't see those things using darkvision, which is what the OP is about.  If it is outside the range of darkvision you can't see it, no matter how easy it is to see using another mode of vision.

I work with xrays to see (and measure) bones.  When using 'xray vision' I can see bones, but I can't see skin or hair...when using regular vision I can't see bones...  This does not seem to be a contradiction to me, specialized modes for specialized purposes.


----------



## Jhaelen (Oct 4, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as a limit to how far you can see with normal vision. None. You could theoretically see something on the other side of the universe if it was large enough.



What kind of 'theoretically' is that? Theoretically within the D&D rules or within the rules of real-world physics?

I'm definitely with Mistwell, btw. regarding spotting distances for encounters.

As you've been pointing out earlier, the situations where the far shot feat is actually useful are pretty limited. Unless you have access to a scrying spell/device or you have spotted a creature from a closer range and later retreated back to make use of your extended firing range (without losing sight to the creature), it'll be practically useless.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 4, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> It's possible I'm wrong, however that's still irrelevant to the main argument, which is whether or not there is a maximum range to normal vision. Unless you can point to a rule which states the maximum range for normal vision it's simply incorrect to compare it to Darkvision.




We are discussing that very rule.

If you are a human with a +0 bonus to spot, and there is a large creature in plain sight in good lighting that is a foe, the maximum range for normal vision to be able to notice that creature for purposes of an encounter is 200 feet (a natural 20 on your spot check).  That is that character's maximum range for normal vision for that encounter.  That is what the spot rules say, and what the DMG says about starting an encounter as well, and what the DC chart says.

If you do not agree, why not? How is that not a maximum range? Maximums can vary depending on the circumstances (they do with lots of skill checks).  It doesn't make them any less a maximum however because of those potential modifiers.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 4, 2007)

Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Of course there's a fixed maximum for a given character, object/creature, and circumstance. That describes a situation. That doesn't make the "fixed distance" in any way comparable to the maximum range of Darkvision, which only depends on one variable - your Darkvision range.




No it doesn't.  Darkvision range is just another limit on the check along with many others.  Darkvision has the same variable modifiers as normal vision for spotting things. I gave the example of the drow and the human, and both had an average range of 100' to start the encounter, and the maximum range of darkvision played no role despite darkvision being used by the drow.



> For a given object (I'm using the grammatical sense of object here, rather than the rules sense of it, because I find the "object/creature" grammatical construct to be inelegant.) in a given situation, the maximum distance at which you can spot that object may be less than your Darkvision range. As long as it is dark, however, the maximum distance that you can spot any object is *never larger* than your Darkvision range.




Correct, unless you use a spy glass and the interpretation I have offered.  In my view, the maximum range for darkvision is no different than the maximum range of normal vision, despite Normal Vision being variable based on the creature and object in question more often than Darkvision is variable based on the creature or object in question.  Heck, the darkvision range itself is variable based on the character in question as well, since there are all sorts of things that can modify your darkvision range.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 4, 2007)

chriton227 said:
			
		

> Here is where this interpretation of the rules breaks down for me.  Take the following situation:
> 
> Colossal Red Dragon is circling a keep blasting it with its fire breath every chance it gets.  The keep is in a clear area.  Standing 2000' away is a L20 wizard with Alertness, Skill Focus(Spot), max ranks in spot (11 due to cross-class), and a +3 wisdom.  That would be a +19 spot, which is just about as good as you could reasonably expect from a pure class wizard.  If I understand your interpretation of the rules, since we are not in an encounter, at that distance it should be easy for the wizard to see the dragon attacking the keep.  That makes sense to me, it is a flame-spitting creature the size of a medium commercial jet airplane less than half a mile away.
> 
> ...




Well sure you should go with your instincts in any given situation.  I was only discussing what it seems the rules say, to help out a guy that was looking for a rules interpretation that would allow darkvision to be extended a bit through a spy glass.  If your instincts tell you a given situation shouldn't need a spot check then by all means don't call for one.  This is one of those rules that is usually specific to DMs, since the DM is the one calling for the check to be able to start an encounter the DM is presenting.


----------



## Elethiomel (Oct 4, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Elethiomel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"No it doesn't"? That doesn't seem to have any bearing at all on what I'm saying here. Let me try to put it another way - I might have been unclear.

The distance at which you can spot something because of spot modifiers has no bearing on your maximum Darkvision range.
"Your maximum Darkvision range" is the range of your Darkvision given by race, feat, spell, item, or other source. It remains the same even if you can't spot a Medium creature with a +50 hide modifier at that range. You still won't be able to see that creature, but that doesn't mean that the range of your Darkvision has decreased.





			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> Correct, unless you use a spy glass and the interpretation I have offered.  In my view, the maximum range for darkvision is no different than the maximum range of normal vision, despite Normal Vision being variable based on the creature and object in question more often than Darkvision is variable based on the creature or object in question.  Heck, the darkvision range itself is variable based on the character in question as well, since there are all sorts of things that can modify your darkvision range.




Yes, it's variable based on the character, but *only* on that. I'm trying to say here that the maximum range at which you can spot something and the maximum range of Darkvision are orthogonal, and from my interpretation I see the spyglass as only affecting the maximum range at which you can spot things, not the maximum range of Darkvision.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 4, 2007)

I was responding to "only depends on one variable - your Darkvision range." with "no it doesn't".  As in "No, it does not depend on one variable, but instead depends on a lot of variables".



			
				Elethiomel said:
			
		

> The distance at which you can spot something because of spot modifiers has no bearing on your maximum Darkvision range.




It has bearing if in your game a spy glass would extend the maximum normal vision range of a creature, in my opinion.  I believe that, if you would extend the maximum range of normal vision with a spy glass, then because darkvision is supposed to be treating exactly like normal vision except for color, you should give the same treatment to darkvision and extend it's maximum range.  And it doesn't matter what the source of those maximum ranges might be, whether it is a fixed number or a variable number or based on a skill check or a racial ability or whatever.



> Yes, it's variable based on the character, but *only* on that.




I disagree.  It's variable based on the size of the object/creature you are trying to view, your spot check which is directly influenced by your race, the distance of that object/creature, the terrain, the lighting, and circumstantial modifiers such as fog or your prior knowledge of the location of the creature/object relative to you.  There are a lot of variables.



> I'm trying to say here that the maximum range at which you can spot something and the maximum range of Darkvision are orthogonal, and from my interpretation I see the spyglass as only affecting the maximum range at which you can spot things, not the maximum range of Darkvision.




Ooo orthogonal! I have not used that word since math classes in high school.

I understand your view of the rules is that it would extend the range of normal vision but not darkvision, and I disagree for the reasons I just gave.  Darkvision should be treated just like normal vision, except for color.  Yes, darkvision has a maximum range.  But so what? Normal vision does as well (variable as that limit might be), and both are impacted by a variety of modifiers.  So if your human character at day can normally notice something at 200 feet, but can notice things at 400 feet with a spy glass, then I think your drow character at night that can normally notice something at 120 feet with darkvision can instead see 240 feat with a spy glass.  That would be a more consistent reading of the rules in my opinion.


----------



## Elethiomel (Oct 4, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> II understand your view of the rules is that it would extend the range of normal vision but not darkvision, and I disagree for the reasons I just gave.  Darkvision should be treated just like normal vision, except for color.  Yes, darkvision has a maximum range.  But so what? Normal vision does as well (variable as that limit might be), and both are impacted by a variety of modifiers.  So if your human character at day can normally notice something at 200 feet, but can notice things at 400 feet with a spy glass, then I think your drow character at night that can normally notice something at 120 feet with darkvision can instead see 240 feat with a spy glass.  That would be a more consistent reading of the rules in my opinion.




Excepting colour, Darkvision and normal vision work the exact same way when it comes to spotting things... until you hit Darkvision's maximum range. That's how I see it. I see Darkvision's maximum range as fundamentally different from the maximum range at which a particular character can spot a particular object due to the character's spot skill. That's what I meant when I said orthogonal. Orthogonal isn't only used in maths, either. I suppose at this point we will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> We are discussing that very rule.
> 
> If you are a human with a +0 bonus to spot, and there is a large creature in plain sight in good lighting that is a foe, the maximum range for normal vision to be able to notice that creature for purposes of an encounter is 200 feet (a natural 20 on your spot check).  That is that character's maximum range for normal vision for that encounter.  That is what the spot rules say, and what the DMG says about starting an encounter as well, and what the DC chart says.
> 
> If you do not agree, why not? How is that not a maximum range? Maximums can vary depending on the circumstances (they do with lots of skill checks).  It doesn't make them any less a maximum however because of those potential modifiers.




Actually, if they can be modified, they are no longer a maximum range. A character could receive a wide variety of bonuses or penalties to spot depending on circumstances. A DM could someone a +20 circumstance bonus to notice someone 200 feet away out in the open, waving a red flag. Or they could give them a -5 penalty if they're staring at a book in their hands. It does grave injury to the concept of "maximum range" to call something that can vary wildly depending on each circumstance a "maximum range." 

To be more precise, Darkvision has a FIXED maximum range. It can not be more than it is based on circumstance. Even if an opponent was on fire, waving a red flag and dancing, if he was 61 feet away, a character with 60 ft Darkvision could not see him. That is the clear difference between Darkvision and normal vision. I really think you can only compare them if you twist language until it's meaningless. A maximum range is a maximum range. It is one number and it applies to everything concerning that type of vision. Regular vision does not have one maximum range that cannot be extended based on circumstances and that you cannot see anything beyond.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 5, 2007)

Elethiomel said:
			
		

> Excepting colour, Darkvision and normal vision work the exact same way when it comes to spotting things... until you hit Darkvision's maximum range. That's how I see it. I see Darkvision's maximum range as fundamentally different from the maximum range at which a particular character can spot a particular object due to the character's spot skill. That's what I meant when I said orthogonal. Orthogonal isn't only used in maths, either.




Don't get me wrong...I like the word.  I just had not used it since then.  I liked your use of it though, and will pick it up probably hereafter.



> I suppose at this point we will just have to agree to disagree.




Indeed.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 5, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Actually, if they can be modified, they are no longer a maximum range.




For that event, it is a maximum range.  I think you mean it's not an absolute range.  But it certainly is a maximum range at that moment.  At the point where the negative modifier exceed your best possible modified roll, you have gone beyond your maximum range.

By the way, there are things that extend darkvision's range as well.  Does that mean it doesn't have a maximum range because things can modify it's range?



> A character could receive a wide variety of bonuses or penalties to spot depending on circumstances. A DM could someone a +20 circumstance bonus to notice someone 200 feet away out in the open, waving a red flag. Or they could give them a -5 penalty if they're staring at a book in their hands. It does grave injury to the concept of "maximum range" to call something that can vary wildly depending on each circumstance a "maximum range."




I don't think anyone is decrying that grave injury.  Maximum range for an event doesn't mean absolute range for all time.  The maximum range my vehicle can travel on a half a tank of gas is 175 miles.  Give me another gallon of gas however and my maximum range extends.  Give my vehicle a hybrid engine and it extends even moree.  You can have a maximum range that can be modified.  It's not an absolute limit like the speed of light, just a maximum range given that event.



> To be more precise, Darkvision has a FIXED maximum range. It can not be more than it is based on circumstance.




Unless you use a spy glass 

Or unless you cast a spell, use a magic item, take a prestige class that has an ability to extend darkvision, or any of the other things that change darkvisions range.

And again, just because circumstance modifiers apply to spot and not to darkvision, it doesn't mean spot suddenly doesn't have a maximum range for any given event. 



> Even if an opponent was on fire, waving a red flag and dancing, if he was 61 feet away, a character with 60 ft Darkvision could not see him.




But he could.  He's on fire.  That's a light source, and normal vision kicks in. 



> That is the clear difference between Darkvision and normal vision. I really think you can only compare them if you twist language until it's meaningless. A maximum range is a maximum range.




Until it is changed by something.  Maximum /= absolute.  Neither normal vision nor darkvision have an absolute range.  Both can be modified by various things in the game to extend their range.  I feel a spy glass may be one of them, depending on your interpretation. 



> It is one number and it applies to everything concerning that type of vision. Regular vision does not have one maximum range that cannot be extended based on circumstances and that you cannot see anything beyond.




Who cares if it has more than one maximum range? If in any given event you have a maximum range, then they should be treated equally for that event, because they are supposed to be treated equally (except for color).


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 5, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Even if an opponent was on fire, waving a red flag and dancing, if he was 61 feet away, a character with 60 ft Darkvision could not see him.




Of course, if he's on fire, you probably don't _need_ Darkvision to see him 

-Hyp.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> For that event, it is a maximum range.  I think you mean it's not an absolute range.  But it certainly is a maximum range at that moment.  At the point where the negative modifier exceed your best possible modified roll, you have gone beyond your maximum range.
> 
> 
> By the way, there are things that extend darkvision's range as well.  Does that mean it doesn't have a maximum range because things can modify it's range?
> ...




This is all a lot of concept-mangling. You're trying to make this more complicated than it is.

It's actually quite simple:

1) There is a maximum range for Darkvision. It applies in all circumstances. This can be modified by certain prestige classes, spells, and magic items, but it cannot be extended according to circumstance. You can see clearly up to the maximum and then your vision just cuts off.

2) There is no maximum range for normal vision. You can effectively see up to an infinite distance provided an object is large enough and in plain sight. You may not be able to see some things due to environmental effects, concealment, distance, and general awareness, but these are all circumstantial events and vary wildly from situation to situation. There is never a situation in normal vision where you can clearly see something, it moves a foot farther away, and it just disappears, assuming magic or concealment is not involved. 

If you can't understand these clear and obvious differences I really don't know what to say.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 5, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> This is all a lot of concept-mangling. You're trying to make this more complicated than it is.




Not my fault they didn't define what x2 magnification does.  Heck, even your opinion is contrary to the majority of people here (most seem to think it increases the size category of objects seen by one size, which decreases the DC and hence extends the maximum range for normal vision but would have no impact on darkvision).



> It's actually quite simple:




If there is anything we know for certain about this issue, it's that it isn't quite simple.



> 1) There is a maximum range for Darkvision. It applies in all circumstances. This can be modified by certain prestige classes, spells, and magic items, but it cannot be extended according to circumstance. You can see clearly up to the maximum and then your vision just cuts off.
> 
> 2) There is no maximum range for normal vision. You can effectively see up to an infinite distance provided an object is large enough and in plain sight.




False.  There is a maximum range for normal vision.  The maximum size modifier in the rules has a set DC modifier to it.  Which means all creatures (ALL of them) have a maximum range for vision.  There is no "infinite vision" for starting an encounter, unless you have an infinite spot check. 



> You may not be able to see some things due to environmental effects, concealment, distance,




If you cannot see something for distance, then your statement of "You can effectively see up to an infinite distance" is false.



> and general awareness, but these are all circumstantial events and vary wildly from situation to situation. There is never a situation in normal vision where you can clearly see something, it moves a foot farther away, and it just disappears, assuming magic or concealment is not involved.




But there is.  It's right there in the spot rules.  What is not making sense with that? The human with a +0 bonus to spot looking at a large sized object in plain sight can see that object at 200 feet if they roll a 20.  But, if that thing is at 210 feet next turn, the human cannot see it (unless the DM decides to grant some sort of spot modifier...but such modifiers can only do so much, and at some point even those won't help).



> If you can't understand these clear and obvious differences I really don't know what to say.




I understand what you are saying, I simply disagree.  There is a difference.
But really, we are going in circles.  You are retreading ground others have already tread in this very thread several times.  What is the point?  We obviously simply disagree.  Why not leave it at that?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> But there is.  It's right there in the spot rules.  What is not making sense with that? The human with a +0 bonus to spot looking at a large sized object in plain sight can see that object at 200 feet if they roll a 20.  But, if that thing is at 210 feet next turn, the human cannot see it (unless the DM decides to grant some sort of spot modifier...but such modifiers can only do so much, and at some point even those won't help).




Let's say the human rolls his 20, and sees the large creature in plain sight 200 feet away, starting the encounter.  He shoots an arrow from his composite longbow with a -2 penalty (since the opponent is in the second range increment).

The opponent moves 10 feet back - he is now a large creature in plain sight 210 feet away.

The encounter has started.  Can the human see the large creature?

-Hyp.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Not my fault they didn't define what x2 magnification does.  Heck, even your opinion is contrary to the majority of people here (most seem to think it increases the size category of objects seen by one size, which decreases the DC and hence extends the maximum range for normal vision but would have no impact on darkvision).




Magnification does what it does in real life. It makes things appear larger.



> If there is anything we know for certain about this issue, it's that it isn't quite simple.




We don't know that. Sure, you _can_ make anything complicated if you try to redefine what common sense definitions mean, but there's no need to do that.



> False.  There is a maximum range for normal vision.  The maximum size modifier in the rules has a set DC modifier to it.  Which means all creatures (ALL of them) have a maximum range for vision.  There is no "infinite vision" for starting an encounter, unless you have an infinite spot check.




Who said anything about encounters? There is no maximum range to vision. My character can see stars billions of light years away. Vision encompasses all aspects of seeing, not just encounters.



> If you cannot see something for distance, then your statement of "You can effectively see up to an infinite distance" is false.




But I can, unless you tell me I can't see the stars.



> But there is.  It's right there in the spot rules.  What is not making sense with that? The human with a +0 bonus to spot looking at a large sized object in plain sight can see that object at 200 feet if they roll a 20.  But, if that thing is at 210 feet next turn, the human cannot see it (unless the DM decides to grant some sort of spot modifier...but such modifiers can only do so much, and at some point even those won't help).




Quite honestly, I would walk out of a game where the DM told me I could no longer see an opponent just because he moved 10 feet back, without hiding behind cover. Surely you can see the ludicrousness of following such an interpretation of the rules to the letter? I think the spot rules are deliberately vague on what kind of bonuses can be applied to spot because the designers realized following the rules to the letter would result in inane situations like this one.



> I understand what you are saying, I simply disagree.  There is a difference.
> But really, we are going in circles.  You are retreading ground others have already tread in this very thread several times.  What is the point?  We obviously simply disagree.  Why not leave it at that?




Because this is exactly the kind of rules lawyering I can't stand. It's the same kind of logic that leads to things like the bag of rats trick- ignoring logic in favor of mechanical benefits. You can argue that it's technically correct according to the rules, but only a poor DM would allow such nonsense.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Let's say the human rolls his 20, and sees the large creature in plain sight 200 feet away, starting the encounter.  He shoots an arrow from his composite longbow with a -2 penalty (since the opponent is in the second range increment).
> 
> The opponent moves 10 feet back - he is now a large creature in plain sight 210 feet away.
> 
> ...




Yes.  The encounter started and he made his spot check.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yes.  The encounter started and he made his spot check.




But if the creature was 60 feet away in the dark, starting the encounter when he came in range of the human's darkvision (Belt of Dwarvenkind, say), and he moves 10 feet back, can the human still see him?

If 200 feet is the maximum range of the human's vision, but he can still see the creature at 210 feet, then 200 feet is not the maximum range of the human's vision.

How far back could the large creature move on this flat open plain after the start of the encounter before the human loses sight of him?  Another hundred feet?  Another thousand feet?

-Hyp.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 5, 2007)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Magnification does what it does in real life. It makes things appear larger.




Thanks for that.  :\   Now, what does it mean in game rules terms.



> We don't know that. Sure, you _can_ make anything complicated if you try to redefine what common sense definitions mean, but there's no need to do that.




We know for sure that my opinion is a minority one that has some support, and that your position is a minority one that has some support, and that neither you nor I hold the majority position in this thread.  So if it's so friggen simple, how come you disagree with most people on it?  Face it, this is a complicated question, and reasonable minds differ on it.



> Who said anything about encounters?




When you notice something to begin an encounter is what is being discussed.  That's been made clear, to you, twice already.  Even if you disagree, you pretending nobody said anything about encounters is disingenuous.



> There is no maximum range to vision. My character can see stars billions of light years away. Vision encompasses all aspects of seeing, not just encounters.




See earlier response on stars and planets.  And that's it for our discussion.  I'm not trying to be rude, and I have nothing against you and will be happy to discuss things in other threads with you.  But, the whole stars and planets argument was rehashed so many times that I just cannot see anything useful coming out of our conversation anymore.  You've just been repeating the thread for a while now, and that was the ultimate thread repeat.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 5, 2007)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But if the creature was 60 feet away in the dark, starting the encounter when he came in range of the human's darkvision (Belt of Dwarvenkind, say), and he moves 10 feet back, can the human still see him?




Nope.  The spyglass can only extend darkvision to start an encounter.



> If 200 feet is the maximum range of the human's vision, but he can still see the creature at 210 feet, then 200 feet is not the maximum range of the human's vision.




200 feet is the maximum range to notice something for that event to start the encounter.  The example given of a guy on a ship trying to spot the enemy with a spy glass so he can start the encounter is what I was addressing.



> How far back could the large creature move on this flat open plain after the start of the encounter before the human loses sight of him?  Another hundred feet?  Another thousand feet?




No idea. What do you think?


----------



## Branduil (Oct 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Thanks for that.  :\   Now, what does it mean in game rules terms.




If there is no rules-specific definition for a term, assume the real-world definition applies. Simple.



> We know for sure that my opinion is a minority one that has some support, and that your position is a minority one that has some support, and that neither you nor I hold the majority position in this thread.  So if it's so friggen simple, how come you disagree with most people on it?  Face it, this is a complicated question, and reasonable minds differ on it.




What is the majority position? I don't remember a poll being taken.



> When you notice something to begin an encounter is what is being discussed.  That's been made clear, to you, twice already.  Even if you disagree, you pretending nobody said anything about encounters is disingenuous.
> 
> See earlier response on stars and planets.  And that's it for our discussion.  I'm not trying to be rude, and I have nothing against you and will be happy to discuss things in other threads with you.  But, the whole stars and planets argument was rehashed so many times that I just cannot see anything useful coming out of our conversation anymore.  You've just been repeating the thread for a while now, and that was the ultimate thread repeat.




You've never addressed it in the first place. The Darkvision range limit applies always, not just in encounters. If there is an equatable range limit for normal vision it should also apply at all times, not just in encounters. Please explain how this not relevant before you dismiss it out of hand once again.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Nope.  The spyglass can only extend darkvision to start an encounter.




So by using the spyglass, the dwarf can start an encounter in the dark at 120 feet, but once the encounter starts, he can't actually see what it was that the encounter has started with, even with the spyglass, until it gets within 60 feet?

Are you even suggesting that he actually _sees_ whatever-it-is at 120 feet at all, or he merely starts an encounter with something he can't see, by virtue of making a Spot check at double his darkvision range?

-Hyp.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Oct 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Well sure, but if you take that to the logical conclusion, it means you can see twice as far.  Because the point of your vision where it ordinarily became too difficult to see the necessary details are now twice as big, making it easier to see.  Which means you should be able to see roughly twice as far as you could without it (which is generally how 2x Magnification works).  At least, that is the rule of thumb I would use based on the item description and vision rules.




Really? So if you're in the Underdark and your only light source is a torch that illuminates out to 40 feet, you'd allow someone to use a telescope to see out to 80 feet?


----------



## ElectricDragon (Oct 5, 2007)

In an earlier edition there was a table that listed the maximum distances things could be spotted according to their size, contrast, and distance. Some things far away could be seen but few details could be made out. For example: (note that these numbers are made up and are not from this half-remembered table from a [I think] 2e book) 

A Medium humanoid moving at 1000 feet is visible, but is it a human, gnoll, orc, bugbear, dwarf, elf, etc? You can't tell.

A Medium creature moving at 1500 feet, you can't tell its classification (humanoid, ooze, dragon, etc.) but you can tell some creature is there (just a moving dot on the horizon, but visible). You might could attack this creature with arrows or spells, but not knowing what it was, would you?

A castle, a keep, and a city can be seen for far longer distances.

The sun, the moon, the stars are special cases because they are extremely large and they provide their own light. A black hole is enormous but who has seen one with the naked eye? Even one closer and larger than some stars.

Alas, contrast was dropped for 3.xe to simplify things and for Spot, size is just hinted at with no size mods given for this case (which should we use: Hide, Grapple, or AC/Attack size mods).

Nevertheless, a maximum distance for Spotting something is given in the rules for each type of terrain. For example, plains is: 







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> In plains terrain, the maximum distance at which a Spot check for detecting the nearby presence of others can succeed is 6d6×40 feet, although the specifics of your map may restrict line of sight.



 So, 1,440 feet in plains terrain (less is more likely). This upper limit depends less on individual stats and skills than on the terrain, it seems.

Also, with darkvision, it can also be modified by a turn in the corridor ahead, thus limiting your 60 ft. darkvision to only 10 feet. Thus a monster 15 feet away is not visible to you despite your 60 ft. unwavering range. Thus with spells, PrCs, magic items, and specific conditions Darkvision range is variable, too without using the telescope.

Ciao
Dave


----------



## Elethiomel (Oct 5, 2007)

ElectricDragon said:
			
		

> Also, with darkvision, it can also be modified by a turn in the corridor ahead, thus limiting your 60 ft. darkvision to only 10 feet. Thus a monster 15 feet away is not visible to you despite your 60 ft. unwavering range. Thus with spells, PrCs, magic items, and specific conditions Darkvision range is variable, too without using the telescope.



That's not what's being discussed. This will hold true for any sort of vision (except things like blindsight through tremorsense), and is what I already pointed out - circumstance modifiers to vision range doesn't affect maximum Darkvision range. You can spot something in the dark at the shorter of the two ranges, but maximum Darkvision range remains the same, even if you can't see that far due to other circumstances.


----------



## ElectricDragon (Oct 5, 2007)

Really?

Then 







			
				Beginning of the End said:
			
		

> So if you're in the Underdark and your only light source is a torch that illuminates out to 40 feet, you'd allow someone to use a telescope to see out to 80 feet?




This also is not being discussed.

But the maximum distance for normal vision is being discussed. And I found it in the SRD.

Ciao
Dave


----------



## Matthias_Gloom (Oct 5, 2007)

Going back to the OP, I'm curious which boat had the lantern? If the lantern was on the same boat as the character, would his darkvision be active at all? If the lantern was on the boat he was looking at with his spyglass, why would he need darkvision to see it?


----------



## Elethiomel (Oct 5, 2007)

ElectricDragon said:
			
		

> But the maximum distance for normal vision is being discussed.




Yes, it is. Which means that things like an obstruction 10' away are pretty irrelevant to the discussion. That obstruction will be there no matter if it's dark, sunlight, or if the character uses a spyglass. The situation has no bearing on maximum ranges of vision (other than blindsight through tremorsense), it only has bearing on whether you can see through solid, opaque matter.


----------



## Slaved (Oct 6, 2007)

Elethiomel said:
			
		

> This will hold true for any sort of vision (except things like blindsight through tremorsense), and is what I already pointed out - circumstance modifiers to vision range doesn't affect maximum Darkvision range. You can spot something in the dark at the shorter of the two ranges, but maximum Darkvision range remains the same, even if you can't see that far due to other circumstances.




Exactly.


----------



## ElectricDragon (Oct 7, 2007)

Ignore the quote from the SRD if you want. It still applies as an example of what the maximum distance is for Spot checks to notice the nearby presence of others, by terrain type. Listed in the SRD.

Ciao
Dave


----------



## Jhulae (Oct 9, 2007)

I tend to think the crux of the issue at this point is that Mistwell refuses to acknowledge (via specious arguements involving the Spot skill) that even if 'normal vision' does have a *variable* limit on its range, Darkvision has an *absolute* limit via creature type that posesses it.

Even the example given about a human and a Drow spotting things at 100' spurriously avoids the issue.  

Even this example is meh, but:  Can a human spot something with a spot check of 20 at 100' in broad daylight?  Yes.  Can a dwarf spot something with a 1000 spot check at 100' in complete darkness? No.

I actually made that point waaaaaaaay back in post 54, but, of course, it was ignored by arguements and counterpoints that have *nothing* to do with Darkvision having an absolute limit.

The point is, even if Mistwell's interpretation is correct about spot and 'normal vision' (which I don't believe it is, but again, not the point here), Mistwell has not given any real reply on *Darkvision* (which should really be the whole point of the thread), instead obscuring the issue with an unrelated Spot skill discussion.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Oct 9, 2007)

Interesting thread..

 Back at the start of this I read the 'darvision works like normal vision' as a reason for the spyglass working with darkvision.

Since then, I have been swayed to the side of 'darkvisin has an absolute limit', so while a spyglass *can* be used with darkvision, but that use does not extend that absolute limit.

I think this thread points to a mechanic that should be redone to better take into account the interaction of light and distance on the types of vision.

 I use an alternate spot rule thought up by Kerrick that changes the RAW spot concepts for normal vision and can easily give a mechanic to the spyglass {it would treat the target as 2 sizes larger, which provides a couple mechanical benefits}

 But these rules don't address darkvision


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 9, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> I tend to think the crux of the issue at this point is that Mistwell refuses to acknowledge (via specious arguements involving the Spot skill) that even if 'normal vision' does have a *variable* limit on its range, Darkvision has an *absolute* limit via creature type that posesses it.




It's not that I don't acknowledge it, it's that it's not relevant to my position.  Who cares if one is variable and one is absolute? Why does it have any impact on the debate? x2 magnification shouldn't be dependent on whether or not you reached the maximum through a variable or fixed calculation.  It modifies the result, and not how you got to that result.  So if the modification you choose for your game is to double the range (regardless of whether that range was arrived at through a variable or fixed equation) then it should double the range for other versions of sight as well.




> The point is, even if Mistwell's interpretation is correct about spot and 'normal vision' (which I don't believe it is, but again, not the point here), Mistwell has not given any real reply on *Darkvision* (which should really be the whole point of the thread), instead obscuring the issue with an unrelated Spot skill discussion.




It's not obscuring the issue, you simply disagree with my position and are pretending I have not responded to it.

Here, I will break it down for you in easy bites:

1) Darkvision and Normal Vision are treated the same as far as vision, except for color;

2) Both darkvision and normal vision have a maximum range.  The method of computing that maximum range differs such that darkvision more often has a fixed maximum range while normal vision more often has a variable maximum range.  

2a) Sometimes, darkvision has a variable maximum range if the spot check required results in a shorter distance than the fixed range of that darkvision.  For example, a Drow in the dark has a fixed range of 120' for darkvision, but if they roll a modified 10 on their spot check they can still only spot something 100' a way for an encounter.

2b) Sometimes normal vision has a fixed range for the terrain type. For example, a human in sunlight with a +20 spot modifier usually has a variable range from 200 to 400 feet normal vision, but if they are in dense forest they still have a fixed maximum range (20 to 190 feet, depending on the 2d6×10 die roll the DM made before you made your spot check).

Regardless, for any given situation both have a maximum range.  

3) If in your game you interpret the x2 magnification effect of a spy glass to extend the maximum range you can see things by x2 (instead of increasing the size category of the thing seen by one category for spot checks, which is the other competing proposed method), then because darkvision and normal vision are treated the same except for color, you should also double the maximum range of darkvision when using a spy glass.

That's the contention.  You might not agree with it, but I definitely am offering the reason why darkvision would be extended by a spy glass, and why it's related to normal vision maximum ranges through the "treated the same" rule for normal and darkvision.

I sure wish people would get off the "if you don't agree with me you must be wrong or avoiding the question" as opposed to "if you don't agree with me perhaps this is just a case of two reasonable minds differing on the interpretation of the rules".  It's really not productive to continue to bash people for disagreeing with your interpretation.

And as I predicted much earlier in this thread, the longer it goes on the more redundancy in the thread, and the more aggression there seems to be in the responses.  That's a real drag, and makes most people (including me) want to avoid this thread.

To try and get things back on track I would ask those of you who have not expressed an opinion on the effects of a spy glass to detail what effect a spy glass would have in your game for normal vision.  If it's not "increases the size category by 1 for spot checks", nor "increases the maximum range for that check by x2", then what does it do in your game?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Oct 9, 2007)

Mistwell, 
 I think the what Jhulae is saying is that darkvision has an absolute maximum limit that can not be modified. Sure, the spot rules may preclude spotting someone at a shorter distance, but the absolute maximum, as listed in the race/feat/item is not exceeded. Therefore no doubling the range through the use of a normal spyglass.

You apparently see the darkvision absolute maximum range as something that can be modified, and you point to the normal vision rules under the Spot skill as evidence.

However, normal vision does not have an absolute maximum limit listed in the race/feat/item that provides it. Darkvision does.

Yes, I agree this is silly game design. All visions should work on the same concept and use visual ranges {or some similar mechanic} instead of dropping a wall at 60 feet...


and yes, longer threads tend to lead to the same disagreement.. specfically when the disagreement rises from a definition difference that neither party thinks to clarify.


----------



## Jhulae (Oct 10, 2007)

Again, you avoid part of the issue by noting that a Drow (in your example) might not notice something more than 100' away with a poor spot, yet don't provide your answer on the dwarf with the theoretic 1000 spot check...



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> To try and get things back on track I would ask those of you who have not expressed an opinion on the effects of a spy glass to detail what effect a spy glass would have in your game for normal vision.  If it's not "increases the size category by 1 for spot checks", nor "increases the maximum range for that check by x2", then what does it do in your game?




It doesn't matter *at all* what it would do for normal vision, because normal vision isn't limited to a *specific range* like darkvision is.

However, I'll still play your game.

As a DM, a spyglass would reduce the spot check by half.  Therefore, even with your 'normal vision has a maximum range based on spot checks', the DC to see things is reduced by half, theoretically giving a human in the daytime 'double range' on his vision. 

A spyglass in the hands of a creature with darkvision will also reduce the DC of their spot checks by half.  Out to the limit, as provided in the rules, for their darkvision.  60' for most creatures, 120' for races such as Drow, even longer for things like dragons should they use it.  But, again, only to the inviolable limit of Darkvision for that race.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 10, 2007)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Mistwell,
> I think the what Jhulae is saying is that darkvision has an absolute maximum limit that can not be modified.




It can however, with spells and abilities out there.

That said, I understand what he is saying, and I don't see why it is relevant to my contention, and said as much.  Again, more redundancy.  Here:

2) Both darkvision and normal vision have a maximum range. The method of computing that maximum range differs such that darkvision more often has a fixed maximum range while normal vision more often has a variable maximum range.

2a) Sometimes, darkvision has a variable maximum range if the spot check required results in a shorter distance than the fixed range of that darkvision. For example, a Drow in the dark has a fixed range of 120' for darkvision, but if they roll a modified 10 on their spot check they can still only spot something 100' a way for an encounter.

2b) Sometimes normal vision has a fixed range for the terrain type. For example, a human in sunlight with a +20 spot modifier usually has a variable range from 200 to 400 feet normal vision, but if they are in dense forest they still have a fixed maximum range (20 to 190 feet, depending on the 2d6×10 die roll the DM made before you made your spot check).

Regardless, for any given situation both have a maximum range. 



> Sure, the spot rules may preclude spotting someone at a shorter distance, but the absolute maximum, as listed in the race/feat/item is not exceeded. Therefore no doubling the range through the use of a normal spyglass.




What effect would it have on normal vision once you reach your normal vision maximum in our game?



> You apparently see the darkvision absolute maximum range as something that can be modified, and you point to the normal vision rules under the Spot skill as evidence.




There are things that modify it.  Regardless, the question is how you treat normal vision, which has its own distance.  Can it be modified by a spy glass in your game? 



> However, normal vision does not have an absolute maximum limit listed in the race/feat/item that provides it. Darkvision does.




It has a maximum.  It's listed in various rules, discussed in this thread to a great extent.  



> and yes, longer threads tend to lead to the same disagreement.. specfically when the disagreement rises from a definition difference that neither party thinks to clarify.




I clarified.  And frankly, most people who disagree with me clarified.  What troubles me is folks not reading the whole thread and then just jumping in with the same claims others have made before.  Like you just did with that "normal vision does not have an absolute maximum limit", given that question was addressed no less than four times already in this thread.  It has a maximum that is derived from various rules, we all discussed those rules, we do not all agree on the interpretation of those rules but this is not a case of me not understanding or addressing that issue.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 10, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> Again, you avoid part of the issue by noting that a Drow (in your example) might not notice something more than 100' away with a poor spot, yet don't provide your answer on the dwarf with the theoretic 1000 spot check...




I didn't avoid anything.  I just have not seen the dwarf question.  Mind repeating it?



> It doesn't matter *at all* what it would do for normal vision, because normal vision isn't limited to a *specific range* like darkvision is.




I posed this in my last post and you ignore it, so I will try again.  Why does it matter if something has a specific range as opposed to a variable range that is specific for that particular encounter?  What role does variable vs. fixed play in determining the effect of a spy glass? And how do you respond to the fixed limit on normal vision placed on it by things such as terrain type?



> However, I'll still play your game.
> 
> As a DM, a spyglass would reduce the spot check by half.  Therefore, even with your 'normal vision has a maximum range based on spot checks', the DC to see things is reduced by half, theoretically giving a human in the daytime 'double range' on his vision.




That's odd.  Reducing the spot check by half is a different answer than anyone else has given.  So, in your game, spy glasses physically work differently depending on the size of the object you are trying to view, rather than changing the size category?



> A spyglass in the hands of a creature with darkvision will also reduce the DC of their spot checks by half.  Out to the limit, as provided in the rules, for their darkvision.  60' for most creatures, 120' for races such as Drow, even longer for things like dragons should they use it.  But, again, only to the inviolable limit of Darkvision for that race.




That's consistent, though I don't understand how the "reduce by one half" part works in practice.  Could you give me two examples, one with a fine sized object, and another with a colossal sized one?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 10, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> 2) Both darkvision and normal vision have a maximum range.




I still disagree that "Maximum distance at which a Spot check to begin an encounter can succeed" is the same as "Maximum range for normal vision".

Because we've still got the situation where, once the encounter has started, you can see that opponent from further away than that maximum distance at which the encounter could begin.  The encounter distance isn't the maximum range of normal vision.

The Spot check becomes, in effect, noticing a detail within a certain distance, despite the fact that I can see much further than that.  I can see the trees and the mountains in the distance; the Spot check lets me notice that somewhere between me and the mountains, there's a bugbear.

With Darkvision, I can't see the trees or the mountains beyond 60 feet.  There's nothing at all 'in the distance'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Jhulae (Oct 10, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> That said, I understand what he is saying,




It's 'she', not 'he'.    



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I didn't avoid anything.  I just have not seen the dwarf question.  Mind repeating it?
> 
> That's consistent, though I don't understand how the "reduce by one half" part works in practice.  Could you give me two examples, one with a fine sized object, and another with a colossal sized one?




Well, okay, this is more of an 'it was late' thing.  In my mind, I could see what I wanted to write, it didn't come out as well.  

This is how I'd DM it:  Spot checks rules provide a -1 for every 10', with a telescope it's -1 for 20'.  So, a DC spot check at 200' would be 20 for a medium sized critter normally, with a telescope, that's DC 10, halving the spot check.  The same spot check for the same medium critter would therefore be DC 20 at 400', giving 'double range'.

That's how I 'halve the DC'.

Now, for my questions to you.

There's no encounter, which is *exactly* where you keep getting hung up on things.

There's no interposing terrain for my following questions.  It's flat, level, and the cities are bustling (with no light sources underground, since everybody there has Darkvision).  The dwarf is in a huge cavern.

How far away can a human with a spot modifier of +10 see a city in the daytime?

How far away can a dwarf with a spot modifier of +1000 see a city in complete darkness?

Now, if both are going to 'encounter' a guard, how far away can the human see the guard (with her +10) and how far away can the dwarf see the guard (with her +1000)?


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 11, 2007)

Jhulae said:
			
		

> It's 'she', not 'he'.




Sorry bout that.



> Well, okay, this is more of an 'it was late' thing.  In my mind, I could see what I wanted to write, it didn't come out as well.
> 
> This is how I'd DM it:  Spot checks rules provide a -1 for every 10', with a telescope it's -1 for 20'.  So, a DC spot check at 200' would be 20 for a medium sized critter normally, with a telescope, that's DC 10, halving the spot check.  The same spot check for the same medium critter would therefore be DC 20 at 400', giving 'double range'.




I am still having trouble understanding how your system works.

Spot DC to see large object/creature in plain site = 0, modified by distance.  Here are the distance modifiers:

Colossal –4
Gargantuan –2	
Huge –1	
Large 0	
Medium +1
Small +2
Tiny +4
Diminutive +8
Fine +16

So if there is a fine size creature at 100 feet, the DC to notice it is 16 (for size), and you have a -10 on the check (for distance), so effectively the DC is 26.  Which seems OK, though a bit tough.  

Side Note - Personally I think the DC for a Colossal creature on the other side of the scale isn't a good one.  It should be easier than an effective DC of 6 to see a Colossal creature at 100 feet - and shifting the chart to center on Medium would make it an effective DC of 2, which makes more sense to me. Equivalently the effective DC to see a fine creature at 100 feet would then also be lower at 18, which also seems fine.  Therefore I would probably shift things so a medium creature is a 0 dc, not a large one, but that is just me.

Back to the spy glass.  Using your system, and the current rules without the houserule I just mentioned, the DC to see a fine sized creature at 100 feet is 16, and the spot check is modified by -10 for distance.  Would your system instead make the modifier -5 using a spy glass, or would it make the DC 8 using the spy glass, or would it make the "effective" DC 13 (since a DC 16 with a -10 on the check is essentially the same as a DC 26)?



> Now, for my questions to you.
> 
> There's no encounter, which is *exactly* where you keep getting hung up on things.




If there is no encounter, then why does it matter? It's just role playing color, and totally in DM realm at that point.  Sort of like players saying "We travel from City X to City Y".  Unless you are stopped for an encounter of some sort, the DM generally just says "OK, you get there unharmed" rather than worrying about what the rules.  The rules generally deal with encounters.



> There's no interposing terrain for my following questions.  It's flat, level,




There is SOME terrain.  I think even in Limbo there is SOME terrain.  It might be a DM call, but it's probably equivalent to plains if it is flat.  Unless you think it is easier to see things within a city than it is in the middle of an empty flat area of plains.



> and the cities are bustling (with no light sources underground, since everybody there has Darkvision).  The dwarf is in a huge cavern.




OK, so the terrain is "underground", which is essentially the Canyon entry under mountain.  Depending on how rocky it is, the maximum distance you can see will vary.



> How far away can a human with a spot modifier of +10 see a city in the daytime?




What is he looking at? If it is a large object in plain sight, the DC is 0, modified by distance.  The furthest he could spot something would be rolling a natural 20, for a total of 30, which would allow that person to see a large object at 300 feet, unless the DM rolled horribly on the Terrain check (6d6x40 - which could in theory result in a maximum of 240-290 feet max, but realistically it's almost always going to be better than that in a city).



> How far away can a dwarf with a spot modifier of +1000 see a city in complete darkness?




Assuming he has no other ability or magic modifying his vision, 60 feet.



> Now, if both are going to 'encounter' a guard, how far away can the human see the guard (with her +10) and how far away can the dwarf see the guard (with her +1000)?




Human: DC to spot a medium sized creature is 1, modified by distance.  Rolling a natural 20, result is 30, which means the human could at maximum see the guard at 290 feet.

Dwarf: Again, assuming nothing is modifying their darkvision distance, and it's totally dark (I assume you meant that), then 60 feet.

As for how I would modify those with a spy glass, if I were using the "double range" interpretation instead of the "alter size" interpretation, I would put the Human at max 580', and the Dwarf at max 120 feet, because you are supposed to treat normal vision and darkvision the same other than color.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Oct 11, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Back to the spy glass.  Using your system, and the current rules without the houserule I just mentioned, the DC to see a fine sized creature at 100 feet is 16, and the spot check is modified by -10 for distance.  Would your system instead make the modifier -5 using a spy glass, or would it make the DC 8 using the spy glass, or would it make the "effective" DC 13 (since a DC 16 with a -10 on the check is essentially the same as a DC 26)?




She already answered that - she considers the spyglass to halve the distance penalty.  So it would be a DC 21 - DC 16, plus half the -10 penalty for distance.



> What is he looking at? If it is a large object in plain sight, the DC is 0, modified by distance.  The furthest he could spot something would be rolling a natural 20, for a total of 30, which would allow that person to see a large object at 300 feet...




The furthest the encounter with the large object could begin is 300 feet.  Once his attention has been drawn to it, he can see it from further away.

The human commoner all by himself might only notice the ogre 200 feet away.  But if he's with the elf scout, and the elf scout notices the ogre 350 feet away and says "Look, an ogre!", the commoner can look where he's pointing and say "Hey, I think you're right.  You've got good eyes - I never would have noticed that!"

He can see things further away than the Spot check for him to begin the encounter can succeed.

-Hyp.


----------



## Jhulae (Oct 11, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Back to the spy glass.  Using your system, and the current rules without the houserule I just mentioned, the DC to see a fine sized creature at 100 feet is 16, and the spot check is modified by -10 for distance.  Would your system instead make the modifier -5 using a spy glass, or would it make the DC 8 using the spy glass, or would it make the "effective" DC 13 (since a DC 16 with a -10 on the check is essentially the same as a DC 26)?




For that specific example, DC 16 with a -5 to the roll for distance instead of -10.  (In essence, DC 21 instead of DC 26.)  As I said, it was a 'meh' explanation, especially given the fact the thread dealt with medium sized stuff (no size modifier) up to that point.  Of course, now looking over the tables, having the creature 'doubled in size' would be spot DC 18 (including all penalties).  It's just much easier, to me, to use -1 for every 20' instead of 10'.




			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> If there is no encounter, then why does it matter? It's just role playing color, and totally in DM realm at that point.  Sort of like players saying "We travel from City X to City Y".  Unless you are stopped for an encounter of some sort, the DM generally just says "OK, you get there unharmed" rather than worrying about what the rules.  The rules generally deal with encounters.




Under your system, if the PCs were traveling from one city to another, and were, for instance, coming down a mountain trail, they wouldn't be able to see an enemy encampment bracing up for a battle a mile to the West (no matter how big it was) on their way to the city on the East.  So, it certainly does matter.  And, even saying that the DM describes it on their way to the city still doesn't change the fact that later on, when they go back to assault said camp, they are unable to see it again until they approach within 200' or so (since now they're 'encountering' the camp) is absolutely ludicrous in my mind.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> As for how I would modify those with a spy glass, if I were using the "double range" interpretation instead of the "alter size" interpretation, I would put the Human at max 580', and the Dwarf at max 120 feet, because you are supposed to treat normal vision and darkvision the same other than color.




Okay.  Now this is where the crux of the difference lies.  Even taking your interpretation for maximum vision distance and spot skill into account, the rules specifically state that Darkvision has an inviolate range per species, while it does *not* say that about any kind of 'normal' vision.  To me (and others), when the rules say Darkvision Range X', that X isn't changed by anything (except maybe magic, but a spyglass definitely isn't magic).


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Oct 11, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> What effect would it [Spyglass] have on normal vision once you reach your normal vision maximum in our game?




In my game, using RAW, a spyglass increases the range at which the user can spot things per the Spot skill. I also use an HR system much like what *Jhulae* uses.




			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> I clarified.  And frankly, most people who disagree with me clarified.  What troubles me is folks not reading the whole thread and then just jumping in with the same claims others have made before.  Like you just did with that "normal vision does not have an absolute maximum limit", given that question was addressed no less than four times already in this thread.  It has a maximum that is derived from various rules, we all discussed those rules, we do not all agree on the interpretation of those rules but this is not a case of me not understanding or addressing that issue.




I did read the whole thread and I saw the same clarification with lack of communication. Your point and Jhulae's point can be clarified all you want... but in essence you are talking two seperate languages. I 'jumped in' with an attempt, apparently a poor one, to point out that the baseline definition of 'maximum range' is being assumed on both sides to mean different things.

You are reading the 'maximum limit' in the Spot rules {for normal vision} to be equivilent to the 'maximum limit' for Darkvision.

I read the 'maximum limit' in the Spot rules differently from the 'maximum limit' for Darkvision.

Until this baseline definition is agreed upon, the discussion cannot be resolved.
As you said, all the details have been repeated multiple times, so I wont waste space here. 

Either you are willing to step back and re-evaluate the assumptions underlying the discussion or you are not.


----------



## RoyalDragon69 (Jun 3, 2020)

Hasn't been updated since 2007?! What? I got you.
I will be using actual physics to solve this problem.

1) How did you get darkvision?
A: Magic. This means a spell mostly.
B: Granted by a racial feature. This means the effect doesn't have to be magical. It can be a physical trait in your eyes. An evolutionary effect. Such as cats & alligators. 

2) How does darkvision work?
A: Emits magical light up to 60' from your eyes that only you can see. The light emitted isn't strong enough to go passed 60'. The light reflects off of objects & comes back to your eyes.
B: Recives a form of physical light into your retina & magic helps convert that light (no matter what wavelength or brightness) into a visible image. The reason you can't see past 60' or true darkness is because of clarity. Light received into your retna from 60' away can't be processed by the magical effect there for you dont see it. No light passes through true darkness.
C: If you got Darkvision from a physical & non-magical effect (cats eyes) then it would work the same way the effect works from whatever you got it from. IE cats eyes.

-Conclusion-----
A: If your eyes work the first way by emitting light the a telescope WONT HELP YOU!!! In order for a telescopic effect to work you would need binoculars. However these binoculars are special. One side of the binocular enhances the light emitted from your eye & causes it to focus like a laser lens. After the light is focused it will emit out to a specific range based on the power/ precision/ size of the lens. The other side of the binocular is to receive light aka the light emitted by your other eye. Bam you have a working optic for night vision. 
B: If your eyes work the second way by receiving & processing different wavelengths of light into visible light then. Drum Roll..... A TELESCOPE WILL HELP YOU OUT! Yay!!! Night Vision goggles work this way in real life. The telescope condenses & expands the image by bending light thus causing the image to appear closer. Your eyes receive the light from the telescope & process it.
C: If your eyes work in the 3rd manner then it depends on what animal you got it from as different animals have different kinds of eye sight.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jun 3, 2020)

An excellent thread necromancy if I may say so myself


----------

