I doubt such a god would exist, or if it did the God of Brutal Melee Attacks would beat the pulp out of it.
Not a god, and not of dodging, but there is the mythological example of the Buddha, who Did Not Get Hit by all the attacks that the armies of the demon-god Mara threw at him.
Anyway, it isn't god vs. god, it would be PCs vs. god. The Archery God would always hit the PCs, always... and the God of Dodging Ranged Attack would never be hit by a ranged attack from a PC... never.
The point was (obvious to most but apparently not all) that when something is so far beyond PCs, you don't need to quanitfy it with a number. LIkewise, when it is so trivial, it doesn't need a number, either.
I'm not so confident about saying "never" when it comes to PCs, as I don't always expect players to "color inside the lines" of bounded accuracy. Nor am I confident about what is "obvious" to me always being "obvious" to my players, or vice versa.
Fine. You like absurdly high and low numbers, then.
No, I like standards and guidelines other than GM whim when it comes to deciding between "that's obvious" and "you have to roll for that."
Also, I vaguely remember various arguments in other threads about whether or not a PC can spot various items or clues in a room without having to make a roll and/or going into nasty excruciating detail in describing where he looks. I'd really like to short-circuit such arguments when I play or GM, and this is my method for doing so: If the task
really is easy enough, or the character
really is good enough, then the mechanics will hand out an automatic success.
"Absurdly high numbers" is just a stress-test for this: If the mechanics give the right results for those absurd numbers, as well as for ordinary average numbers, then they can be trusted to give decent results for in-between cases also.
Depends on what direction you're looking?
In all seriousness, seeing the forest through the trees is sort of a real thing. Especially when you point out something with a "see that over there?" People start scanning and do miss the obvious--right in front of them.
That's actually an argument in my favor. Sometimes the "obvious" actually is not obvious. Thus the desirability of mechanics that can handle such maybe-obvious cases.
It has been a while since 3.5e, but what sort of penalties are you even talking about? I mean, if seriously this was a thing for you then I can see more and more why 5E went with (overly) bounded accuracy.
A football field is 100 yards or 300 feet. That's a -30 penalty by the 3.5e RAW, and 300 feet is not all that huge a number by real-world outdoor distances. And while the RAW insists on very short "within the video-game-screen" distances for encounters, not everyone plays outdoor encounters that way, at least not all the time.
