Keep in mind the word "Most" and "All" are not synonomous.
The Pathfinder RPG created the Perception skill which is a combination of "Spot", "Listen" and "Search" from 3.5. In 3.5, Spot and Listen checks usually were reactive, but Search (which was used to find traps) was not reactive.
I'm not sure how specific or vague the Pathfinder rules are in regards to this, but I'm pretty certain they are intended to be used the same way to search for traps...so actively searching (using the perception skill) is required.
|
Sure, the whole party can search for traps in every square of the dungeon -- how is it any different from 3.5 or 2E? If they wanted to, everyone could declare that they're searching every damn square and taking 20 to boot. And, PCs used to bring 10' poles to every dungeon and poke the floor and the walls with them as they went, telling the DM that they have to (at minimum) get a bonus to saves because they're actively keeping an eye on traps.
However, it takes time, and you can just skip it to the moment when their buffs start to wear off or they run out of torches. I also know DMs who react to this sort of behaviour with painstakingly long descriptions of their findings, and do so for every square (usually the players give up by the second room).
Yes, those are good points. But here is the big difference. In 3.5 (IIRC), when you search you are searching a 10'x10' area. So, yes, you could constantly search, but it would take a long time and only so many characters could participate due to spacing, etc.
However, in Pathfinder there is no reference to restricting search to a 10'x10' area. So, essentially, without a house rule (i.e. playing by the core rules), an entire party can scan everything within line of sight and look for traps. IMO, this is unrealistic.
Thoughts?
Jason
Why?
It also doesn't say how long this actually takes either. SO they search a 100'x100' room in one check... it takes (an amount of time determined by the DM) and only make one check each. Much easier and faster than: "Ok now I search this 10'x10' square of the room... and this one... and this one... and this one"
So, essentially, without a house rule (i.e. playing by the core rules), an entire party can scan everything within line of sight and look for traps. IMO, this is unrealistic.
Thoughts?
Jason
You're running the show; invoke some common sense and just charge them the amount of time you think is necessary to search an area, and define an area at your convenience.
Regarding the PC's who insist that they can and should poke every tile in the dungeon for fifteen minutes of search for traps, aid another, search, search, search: it's better to punish them in universe than out of universe. Let their long search provoke more random encounters. Let their enemies have much more time to prepare ambushes; the orcs which were going to be a modest challenge unaware are going to be downright deadly if they have five minutes to make a plan. Hilarity, and thrown polyhedrons, ensues.
|
I agree with all points made and I readily recognize that I can invoke the "common sense" rule. I guess I was just hopeful that the rules provided a little more rigidity around this area. In other parts of the rules (e.g. charging), the rules are extremely detailed and restrictive which is at odds with the rule's significant lack of rules with regard to spotting traps.
Thanks all for your input. :-)
personally, I take the player's perception scores and roll a passive perception check when they could locate a trap, with a penalty (-2 or -5 depending on the type of trap) because they are not actively searching for it.
The issue with rules is that combat is the most complex part of the game, and what most groups keep close to the rules, and there fore that is where the rules are the most ridged once outside of combat, every DM runs things a little differently, so they give you the skeleton and have you create the meusam replica of the creature as you envision it.
|
Note the folowing Rogue Talent:
Trap Spotter (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent
comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate
Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should
be made in secret by the GM.
It would seem obvious that unless the rogue has this talent, they do not get an automatic Perception check. I don't recall exactly how big an area a Search check entailed in 3.5ed, but It seems like 5'x5' rings a bell. But that was for things like secret doors. Searching for traps usually means stating where you are looking; on the lock, on the chest, on the door, on the floor, etc etc.
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
FACT: Traps are fun, and a classic part of the game and genre.
FACT: Having the PCs roll Perception checks every 5 feet and against every object in the dungeon to look for traps is no fun.
The way to resolve the question of how to spot traps is to find a comfortable place between those two facts.
The Trap Spotter rogue talent is a good way to gain an auto-spot ability for traps in the game. Normally, you can't autospot traps like this. A player has to specifically state that they're looking for traps. That means that the GM has a responsibility to not randomly throw traps at the group. Save the traps for areas that classically have traps (like crypts or thieves' guilds) and don't put them into taverns or owlbear lairs.
More importantly, you should usually give the PCs some way to learn that they're heading into an area that has traps. This shouldn't always be automatic, but if they take a bit of effort to try to learn more about an area, letting them know there's traps involved is nice. In addition, don't be shy about making it sort of obvious when there's a trap in an area if that area isn't a place that the PCs are already expecting traps. Spiked walls, glowing runes, mysterious bloodstains or dead animals, excessive gearworks in the walls, etc. Visual clues that the PCs can use to realize that there may be more to an area than it appears. In this case, the PCs will still need to say "I look for traps" of course, and they'll still need to roll the appropriate Perception DC to see the trap even if the player is 100% convinced there's a trap in the area.
I have always broken traps down into two categories. 'Visible' and 'invisible'
Visible traps can be seen if you are looking at it. tripwires, gaps in walls where sawblades jump out, swords hanging overhead by thin wires etc. The clues that a trap is there is obvious...if you are looking. as a result, I allow a rwactive perception check. the difficulty is not always good (after all traps only work if they are not usually spotted) but once seen the PC's can react as they choose.
Invisble traps cannot be seen without some pretty detailed investigation. Hidden trap doors under the rug, or poison gas that shoots out of a lock. these traps can be found only when the PC actively declares he is looking for them (af course the aforemetioned rogue talent is an obvious exception).
Batts
We make use of the Trap Spotter rogue talent (our two Pathfinder games have both had a rogue with this talent), but we houseruled that the talent grants a take 10 roll. That prevents the party from knowing (as the DM secretly rolls dice for the d20 roll that would otherwise be required) that a trap is nearby.
In some cases where I (as DM) have characters with high perception scores, I will give them passive trap spotting rolls within 10 feet of a trap trigger, but I roll for them and just let them know if they sense anything out of the ordinary. I don't even consider it a houserule as much as a DM fiat type of thing.
