| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This post is separate but related to my other post by nearly the same name.
Same background: writing something and the players were a touch thrown off when the fireball trap didn't work quite like they expected it to. Two questions came up.
1. Does spotting the magic trap mean you know what the magic trap does in terms of its spells?
2. Does spotting the magic trap and knowing what the trap's spell effects are mean you know what the area affected by the trap will be?
Follows are my answers; but I'd like to hear others' opinions.
1. At the bottom of 416 in the CRB, it specifies that you only know what a mechanical trap does if you beat the Perception DC by 5 or more. For spell traps, it doesn't say you get to know anything other than the presence of a spell. I feel comfortable denying knowledge about what the trap is unless detect magic can be cast OR the character has trapfinding and beats the DC by 5 or more (although this last one is technically granting an ability trapfinder does not grant). In my players' case, they didn't have the benefit of the latter and didn't do the former.
2. I'm not sure how someone would know which direction a spell is going to go (e.g. where the AoE will be) by identifying the spell through detect magic or any other means. They can make all manner of assumptions based on their knowledge about the spell and their adversary; but outright knowing from a spell that technically hasn't completed doesn't seem possible. That would be like knowing who the wizard is going to target with scorching ray because you made the spellcraft check to ID the spell mid-casting. It just can't happen.
The proximity trigger covers the area warded (such as a 5x5 cave entrance), but not necessarily the entire AoE of the spell. So the trigger wouldn't really give any indication beyond where the spell will originate from.
Thoughts?
I touched on this in my reply to your other post.
"I'd say the perception check finds the trap, spellcraft identifies the spell, and spellcraft + 5 determines the origin and direction of the spell. Maybe even +10 for destination/explosion point."
It wouldn't make sense for a player with perception to identify the spell being used in the trap; that is definitely the job of spellcraft. However, there should also be ways to prevent players from determining anything about it. For example. the entire trap array is secured in a lead lined box with a pinhole in one side. This would allow line of effect but wouldn't allow anyone to actually determine what the box contains.
Players may argue that even the pinhole is enough to get some feel for the magic aura. So make it two parts! First is the pinhole lead box, the second is a lead block that covers the pinhole. The purely mechanical trap removes the cover, which by moving, sets off the magical fireball trap and sends it launching through the pinhole.
Ah, the joys of lead boxes.
|
What is up with this hatred of Rogues? They neither have Spellcraft, nor Detect Magic. Requiring them to do so effectively removes their ability to handle a game element that they're supposed to be good at.
All a character with Trapfinding needs is a good Perception check and a good Disable Device check. Flavor it up however you want, but seriously, leave the Rogue alone.
What is up with this hatred of Rogues? They neither have Spellcraft, nor Detect Magic. Requiring them to do so effectively removes their ability to handle a game element that they're supposed to be good at.
All a character with Trapfinding needs is a good Perception check and a good Disable Device check. Flavor it up however you want, but seriously, leave the Rogue alone.
I agree with this. If you want to require a spellcraft check to identify what specifically the trap will do, just tell the rogue "You identify it as a magic trap, but you don't know what the spell will do, all you know how to do is disarm it".
|
|
the players were a touch thrown off when the fireball trap didn't work quite like they expected it to.
My guess is that a conversation on your interpretation of the rules (and your subsequent house rules) should have been discussed when the campaign began, to alleviate frustrating encounters and their resulting forum posts.
|
What is up with this hatred of Rogues? They neither have Spellcraft, nor Detect Magic. Requiring them to do so effectively removes their ability to handle a game element that they're supposed to be good at.
All a character with Trapfinding needs is a good Perception check and a good Disable Device check. Flavor it up however you want, but seriously, leave the Rogue alone.
Not true. There is a rogue talent that allows a rogue a certain number of spells.
Also, magical traps normally originate at the spot of trap origin. In other words, a fireball trap's ground zero would be at the trap. You can choose which of the four points on the five foot by five foot square is the center point, but unless the trap is specifically designed to fly out to a point and detonate, it would go off at the trap.
I would also have to agree that spellcraft would be necessary to ID anything besides "its a magical trap". But, I don't really know of many rogues who would care. Trap? I disarm it. But that's just my group.
Still, MurphysParadox's HBR of +5 and +10 feels like its in keeping with RAW.
I'd throw in the spellcraft +5/+10 thing because it may be considered best by the party to trigger a trap while in a safe spot than to try to disarm it and get the rogue blown to bits (or frozen or poisoned or body-swapped with a naked ghoul hiding in a coffin two rooms over, giving the impression that the rogue is now a ghoul because it is wearing all his clothes and gear).
GM: "As you round the corner, you see a message scrawled in large letters on a piece of parchment nailed to the wall. " (rolls Roger the Rogue's Perception check) "You take in the details and begin to read the text, but as your eyes meet the first letter you notice the all-too-familiar spidery serifs hidden in the message's glyphs and instinctively avert your gaze. You're not sure what would have happened if you had kept reading, but it probably wouldn't have been pretty."
Roger: "I take out a small lump of rubber from my kit, unfocus my eyes to see past the writing without reading it, and look for the most likely failure point in the runes. Then, I take a deep breath, close my eyes, and hurriedly erase that rune." (Rolls DD for the GM)
GM: "Nothing happens."
Roger: "My heart skips a beat, then I open one eye and see only a ruined spell and a message reading...?"
GM: "'I prepared explosive ~unes today!'"
Roger: "And I've prepared a poisoned crossbow bolt, you bastard. Let's see how good your reflexes are."
Exactly! That's also when I'd put a pressure plate behind the paper so as soon as Roger starts to rub away at the rune, it causes a the wall to fall onto him.
A pressure plate, that he would also have a chance to detect with his perception check.
Sure. In my mind, he puts his hand on the paper to start erasing and feels the click. Now he can't move his hand or it goes off AND ALSO he can't open his eyes or he might accidentally read the runes. Profit!
Also I have never actually done this because my players hate the idea of playing rogues and don't like traps. But some day!
Sure. In my mind, he puts his hand on the paper to start erasing and feels the click. Now he can't move his hand or it goes off AND ALSO he can't open his eyes or he might accidentally read the runes. Profit!
Also I have never actually done this because my players hate the idea of playing rogues and don't like traps. But some day!
My point was that all traps have a DC to notice/disarm. If the Rogue is looking for traps in the area he has a chance to notice all the traps and then a chance to disarm them. Unless you are insinuating that he can't possibly see the trigger plate, in which case I wouldn't recommend doing this to a Rogue player unless you are expecting him to reroll a different class. I know I would if my trapfinding ability became meaningless because of impossible to spot traps.
the players were a touch thrown off when the fireball trap didn't work quite like they expected it to.My guess is that a conversation on your interpretation of the rules (and your subsequent house rules) should have been discussed when the campaign began, to alleviate frustrating encounters and their resulting forum posts.
This was not a house game or a campaign. This was a PFS module play test using PFS RAW application of the rules. I'm not that noob of a GM, thank you.
What is up with this hatred of Rogues? They neither have Spellcraft, nor Detect Magic. Requiring them to do so effectively removes their ability to handle a game element that they're supposed to be good at.
All a character with Trapfinding needs is a good Perception check and a good Disable Device check. Flavor it up however you want, but seriously, leave the Rogue alone.
Also, there weren't any rogues at the table. A halfling opportunist had trap spotter through his prestige class, but no Trapfinding.
Without "minor magic" or at least some ranks in Spellcraft, rogues have very limited ability to interact with magic items. They can either pretend to know what they are doing with UMD or tear up the fabric of a spell trap with trapfinder ASSUMING they didn't give up that class feature for an archetype. Pretending a rogue can distinguish spells like a wizard or cleric is giving a rogue powers reserved for other classes.
Finally, my primary PFS character has a level of rogue just so he can take advantage of all the goodness that comes with trapfinding. But he also has a level of Druid so he has Detect Magic among other abilities- knowledge is power. So no hating on rogues here. I actually wrote in the whole trap gauntlet specifically to give rogues a chance to be a hero.
Also, magical traps normally originate at the spot of trap origin.
See my other forum post. Normally, yes. But nothing in the rules states the fireball or other ranged spell has to center adjacent to the trigger square or area.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qw8z?Adjudicating-Magic-Traps-with-RAW-Trap-cr eation#1
|
|
This was not a house game or a campaign. This was a PFS module play test using PFS RAW application of the rules. I'm not that noob of a GM, thank you.the players were a touch thrown off when the fireball trap didn't work quite like they expected it to.My guess is that a conversation on your interpretation of the rules (and your subsequent house rules) should have been discussed when the campaign began, to alleviate frustrating encounters and their resulting forum posts.
If there are special rules written within the scenario that's one thing. You didn't mention that in your OP, so I had to assume this was a home game with houserules.
I fail to see the point of your OP, though. If you're running the scenario as written, there should be no reason to post a Rules Question.
Or, if you're unclear on how the scenario works, post your question in the GM Discussion forum.