Searching a room for traps


Rules Questions


Hi.
I am a GM and just ran into a discussion yesterday.
In 3.5, it took a full round action to search a 5ftx5ft square, so a 10x60 corridor would require 24 different checks. To avoid bogging down the game, the searcher would take 10 and take 2 minutes and 24 seconds.
In Pathfinder, I can't find the extension of the area you could search with a single perception check, but the time it takes for a check is now a move action instead of a full round action, so the party trapper would take 1 minute and 12 seconds to search the corridor for traps by taking 10.
He instead told me that he could make just one check and search the entire corridor with a single move action, with just the eventual penalty for distance. Or that he could take 20 in a minute to search the same corridor as a whole.
I stood by my interpretation of the rules, requiring a different check for each 5ftx5ftx5ft cube and assuming by default that they search the floor and not the ceilings or the walls beyond 5ft height unless they specify so and accordingly move slower still. Searching a single 5ft cube requires a minute while taking 20.

My reasoning was as such:
- Since Pathfinder failed to address the area for an active perception check, I refered to 3.5 rules per backwards compatibility. Searching time is 1 move instead of 1 full.
- Allowing a single perception check for a whole corridor means that no matter the actual extension of a room, there's no time difference between searching a 50 ft radius circular room standing at its center, and searching a 5 ft wide and 50 ft long corridor. This makes no sense to me since the room is 7850 square feet, while the corridor is just 250 square feet, and requiring the same time to search either just feels so wrong.
- Being very slow while searching for traps is imho an intended feature of the game, otherwise abilities like the trap spotter rogue talent or the dwarven stonecunning would be almost useless. They allow the party to walk at normal speed while still being able to make perception checks when they matter (and I allow to take 10 on those checks if the character is able to).
- The sift cantrip/orison allows for a search in a 10 ft cube as a standard action, essentially doubling (or quadrupling if you actually search the ceiling and it's 10 ft high) the search speed with a slight penalty on the check. Allowing for a single check to explore a full room would render this cantrip/orison useless. Still slower than a rogue with the trap spotter talent, but I think this is intended.

Would you rule any differently? If so, what's your reasoning behind that? How would you address the issues in my reasoning with a different ruling?
Thanks in advance!

The Exchange

I think you've ruled correctly. In particular, noting that 'Trap Spotter' changes the default assumption was well-spotted.

You probably do this already, but I'll advise you to roll trap-finding checks yourself. Get the usual spotter's bonus noted down, and whenever he/she says, "I search for traps," just nod and roll, whether or not there's anything to find. And remember: it's not "There are no traps," it's "You have not found any traps."


Your player is correct, he makes one check and the entire corridor is searched with the penalty for distance taken into account. As a player I would still search every 20-30 feet or so to avoid the problem of failing due to distance.

What Trap Spotter does is remove the action to search unless you want to search farther than 10'. It also effectively removes the distance penalty unless you want to search farther than 10'.

Pathfinder has made traps a very easy element of the game. You no longer need a person with Trapfinding to find difficult or even (most) magical traps although you still need Trapfinding to disarm magical traps.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder does not "fail to address" the area searched, they intentionally removed a restriction.

Ergo, any given check perceives anything within line of sight (at least, for vision-based Perception) with appropriate modifiers.

Thus, a well-lit featureless corridor isn't all that hard to search.

But if the party's light doesn't reach the end of the corridor...

Or if there are buttresses or other things that block line of sight to portions of the hallway...

Or if it's a room with pillars or desks or other obstructions...

Or if the corridor twists and turns a lot...

...then it'll take a bit longer to search.

Shame on 3.5 for encouraging boring dungeon design by making searches be more about sheer volume of floor area than about interesting layouts. ;)


Well, since actual time at the table doesn't increase, it's not any much boring than stating beforehand at which speed the characters in game advance, whether by taking 10, 20 or no checks at all.
It's not boring if you take 1 hour, 1 minute or 1 round to walk a corridor, OoC time is still the same, so I fail to see the issue about IC time spent exploring.

If my player is correct, then what about the issues in my reasoning?
- Does searching a corridor and searching a circular room that is 30 times bigger require the same time?
- Why bother with the trap spotter talent or dwarven stonecunning if all it takes is a move action every now and then and you don't even get slowed down since you can move and make the check in the same round?
- Why bother with the sift cantrip at all since you can do much more with a move action and with less penalties?

Thinking about real life mine sweepers, I don't think that even a minute (take 20) is enough to spot all the landmines within sight.
Why would anyone put any money on traps if they were so effortless to find?

Until those issues are solved, I don't think that the removal was either intentional or a good simulation of reality, or I would have found a FAQ on this issue.
Also, this wouldn't happen anymore and that makes me sad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIaIdv79Xz4&t=3m45s
"Inch at a time looking for traps" is canon :)


Real mines are not placed where the people that mined them plan to walk.

In my games of eons past, traps were boring.

"I tap this square"
"I tap this square 4 times"
"I check the hinges"
"I check the lock"
"I check the latch"
"I check the jamb"
"I check the sill"

We spent 10 minutes fighting cool stuff and 3 hours pointing to empty squares and rolling dice. Not fun.

It was nothing but a time sink and a tension breaker. I want neither at my table. I only use traps IN an encounter, not AS an encounter. I give all the players free Perception checks. I have ensured them there will be no random traps in my game, ever.


In my game, all that is required is a "I look for traps by taking 10/20 while exploring the dungeon" and that sets the party speed rate. If the take10/20 check succeeds they find the trap, if not they activate it.
No OOC time sink, but IC time passes accordingly and buffs may expire.
Similarly, when they want to search a room, they state how thoroughfully and I calculate how much IC time passes and tell them what they find. Simple as that and no hours pointing to empty squares either :)


My feeling is that you should try not to turn the game into a die-rolling convention. Having to roll for 12 squares in that corridor would make me feel you are a GM who wants players to fail. Don't be a GM who wants players to fail, or you won't have players long.

It would bog down the game and reduce it to nothing but mechanical die-rolling, which is the opposite of role-playing.

To give an example from PFS on how a search is handled:

Library of the Lion
The PCs have to search rooms full of books for specific items. There are 9 rooms that are 20x30, 2 rooms that are 15x15 and one room that is 60x120.

Instructions are that each player makes one roll for Perception in each room ONLY. The time it takes to search is given in the text (30-min, 1 hour, and 2 hours for the different sizes, but remember they are sifting through books on bookshelves - a more time-consuming process than given in Perception normally). The players also have a time limit of 2 hours to search the whole place, and that's possible given a 6-person party (because the instructions also give rules for reducing the time searching when multiple party members are searching).

The game abstracts a great many things for playability and fun. Fun is the spirit of the game. Die-rolling conventions are not fun.


Krinn, I addressed your Trap Spotter talent issue in my original post.

Scenario 1:
Player makes a perception check with a trap 30feet away. He fails to detect the trap due to distance penalty. He then moves 30feet and triggers the trap.

Player with Trap Spotter moves 30 feet at which point the GM rolls his perception check with no distance penalty. He notices the trap.

Scenario 2:
Player is in combat when he trips a trap. He was not looking for them.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trap Spotter, also in combat, detected the trap and avoided it.

Regarding your 'size of room' question: yes, they take the same time (one action). However, you are only checking what you can see and there are still the distance penalties.

Regarding the sift cantrip, you can detect things you cannot see that are in that 10' cube. Perhaps the trap is underneath a rug.

The key here is that while you can use sight to detect traps from a distance sight has limitations. Not all traps are visible.


Krinn wrote:

Well, since actual time at the table doesn't increase, it's not any much boring than stating beforehand at which speed the characters in game advance, whether by taking 10, 20 or no checks at all.

It's not boring if you take 1 hour, 1 minute or 1 round to walk a corridor, OoC time is still the same, so I fail to see the issue about IC time spent exploring.

If my player is correct, then what about the issues in my reasoning?
- Does searching a corridor and searching a circular room that is 30 times bigger require the same time?
- Why bother with the trap spotter talent or dwarven stonecunning if all it takes is a move action every now and then and you don't even get slowed down since you can move and make the check in the same round?

You really can't move the same speed. If you're not searching, you can double move and do 60'/round. Searching you move 30' as a move action and search as a standard (or vice versa). Nor is it really "once in a while", unless you're really cocky. Even in a long straight well lit corridor, even taking a move action every other round nets you a -9 penalty on the last bit you'll walk through before looking again. Search, move 30', move 30', move 30', search, etc

If the corridor isn't lit or turns, you'll need to search more often.

Gauss wrote:


Scenario 1:
Player makes a perception check with a trap 30feet away. He fails to detect the trap due to distance penalty. He then moves 30feet and triggers the trap.

Player with Trap Spotter moves 30 feet at which point the GM rolls his perception check with no distance penalty. He notices the trap.

I wouldn't be that harsh. If you're moving 30' and searching I'll let you search the whole way, essentially taking your move and standard actions together. If you just make the roll not counting the distance penalty, you'll spot the trap at 10'. A better roll and you'll see it sooner.

This also handles corners and dark areas more cleanly. No "I search, then move 10' to the corner and wait until my next turn because I couldn't see that area when I searched."

As I said, I consider the benefit from Trapspotter is being able to double move or to notice traps in combat or while doing other things.


thejeff, I probably wouldn't be that harsh either but this is the Rules forum.

By RAW, the way actions work is that you take one action after another. Move action to use Perception followed by a move action to move X distance.


You don't normally double move while not in combat. Double moving is effectively "hustling" out of combat.
Exploring, you move at full speed (30 ft per round for a human) while doing nothing else, or you are considered hustling. Alternating move actions to also look for traps would mean 15 ft per round on average.

The "size of room" issue is a dealbreaker for me. One check for such a wide area is not reasonable to find all the stuff that is well hidden like traps, especially when the area extension does not play any role other than distance penalties, and geometry shows that same distance penalties may apply to widely different areas.

In 3.5 it used to take minutes (taking 10) or hours (taking 20) to thoroughfully search a room (paranoid-style while taking 20, granted, but you did found everything you could then). Then it made sense and was well depicted in the rules, and to all those who are against rolling huge numbers of dices (I am too), take 10 or 20 is the explicit answer anyway and a GM doesn't have to describe every single square, a quick resume after the room is searched is sufficient, even if it took an hour IC.
How come such a big change (from hours to a single minute IC) went to Pathfinder without any clarification, if it was actually intended?

Landmine-type traps makes sense in a dungeon, and if you need to walk by again later, just add another trigger or a bypass, or cast a fly spell. Artificers don't find landmines in a wide area in a couple minutes, much less seconds. To me, intentionally erase the "5 ft square area per check" bit from the searching rules breaks verisimilitude.


Krinn wrote:

You don't normally double move while not in combat. Double moving is effectively "hustling" out of combat.

Exploring, you move at full speed (30 ft per round for a human) while doing nothing else, or you are considered hustling. Alternating move actions to also look for traps would mean 15 ft per round on average.

OK. Call it "hustling" if you want. Doesn't change the effect.

You can search and "Hustle" 30' every round.

Besides, any time you're dealing in feet/round or dealing with actions on this time scale, you're effectively in tactical mode anyway.


You can always house-rule it the way you want but you asked in the rules forum and these are the rules.

As for why the Devs decided to make traps a weak element of the game? I can only make guesses but that has been the progression for several editions of D&D. Each succeeding generation of game weakened traps until traps are nothing more than a "oh, a trap" moment. Now most traps are more flavor than encounter.

Think of it this way, in previous editions if you did not have a rogue you were basically screwed against a trap. The game was forcing someone to play a Rogue as much as "who is going to be stuck with the Cleric". Now, traps are *usually* a speedbump. It wouldn't make sense to make them a speedbump and then cost everyone minutes/hours to search for them.

As for verisimilitude, really? This game breaks it ten ways from sunday. How about guys in Plate Mail swimming? How about muzzleloaders firing multiple shots per round without magical aid? The list goes on. What is one more break? In any case, as I said earlier, if you don't like it house rule it but make sure your players are ok with that.


Will do, I just thought it was a rule already and was baffled at the change.

As for guys in plate mail swimming, I guess another house-rule would be the reinstating of the 3.5 double armor penalty on swim checks but nobody ever put ranks in that skill if they plan to be using heavy armor... also, nobody uses firearms in my games since they're mostly on Eberron or other settings where firearms are unavailable or so rare that if you ever lose your weapon you must craft another yourself.

What I'd expect of the rules is effectively to not break verisimilitude, or a house rule kicks in to plug the hole. At least, this is the way I GM.

About speedbumps and costing minutes/hours IC, well, adventuring is hard and risky. If a thing becomes easier just for convenience, then adventuring loses another bit of its charm. Especially since prolonging IC times doesn't equate longer OOC times in any way.
Buffs expiring are part of the game, otherwise you can clear dungeons in few minutes with all the buffs going from the start, and traps make sure that you must choose between moving fast and completing the dungeon buffed but taking all the traps, or move cautiously and recast your buffs but be able to avoid traps without being hurt. Or you hire a rogue with the trap spotter talent and get the best of two worlds, yay rogues are useful again!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding Plate Mail swimming, there has been a migration away from penalizing it in even 3.X. Back in 3.0 you were penalized for every 5lbs of weight. Then in 3.5 they reduced that to double ACP. Finally in Pathfinder they just said to heck with it and made it straight ACP. It is clearly a case of simplicity over verisimilitude.

Regarding costing minutes/hours, IC times do change OOC times. If you are burning extra resources (spell durations) because of trapfinding then you wind up resting more often to regain those resources. That takes OOC time, often considerable time as people debate how to set up camp.

You say "yay rogues are useful again!" while everyone else says "ugh, who is going to be forced to be a Rogue again?"

Yes, it detracts from Rogues but that is a flaw in Pathfinder's design of Rogues not catching up to the philosophy that no man (class) should be irreplaceable. Rogues should not need traps to become useful.

If traps are just to make Rogues useful then what if there is not a Rogue? Oh, no Rogue? I'm sorry, you can kiss any of your buffs goodbye as you crawl around looking for traps.

Seriously, for a long time the game has been progressing away from the idea that you *must* have a Rogue and that Rogue *must* be able to deal with traps. It is an outdated concept that forces people into a role and that is not really good roleplaying is it? :)

Reminds me of the "you didn't roll high enough strength so you cannot be a fighter" days.


Question for Krinn:
Do you like your players?
Do your players like you?
Have you been playing together for long?

I'm not saying your a control freak, but I will say control freaks make poor GMs from a player's perspective.

Gauss's two scenarios are all you need to continue play.
If those aren't satisfying to you, then you may be a control freak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lets be polite about it Heliodorus04.

I had the same problem as Krinn when I migrated from 3.X to Pathfinder. It took me awhile to learn it was simply easier to handwave an element which most people did not enjoy and that was really geared towards making one ability from one class feel useful. It just wasn't worth it.

If I had a group that wanted to play old style traps I would adjust my style to that one and kill them repeatedly with traps until they remembered why nobody runs old style trap dungeons anymore. (I jest, mostly.)


For me, verisimilitude is paramount. I barely accept the hit point system for simplicity sake for example. But finding well-hidden traps while walking at moderate speed and not cautiously breaks it for me and I see no reason to let it happen, for both my and my players' immersion.

Other than that single player, the others don't have a problem with it and some even say that my ruling is the one that makes the most sense.
Spending OOC time to set up camp is a good way to spend it imho, and it doesn't usually take more than the time required to say "I cast rope trick on that spot".

The rogue class is not a must have, the same way that the cleric or the wizard are not a must have. Having a rogue allows for certain party tactics (like moving fast while exploring a dungeon filled with traps), while having a wizard allows for other tactics (like resting in a rope trick in relative safety).

I play in a Rappan Athuk game with that player as the GM. That place is filled with traps, but we trust our rogue (whose opinion in the matter matches mine) to be the first to go ahead and find traps. The rogue has the trap spotter talent and a very high perception check, so he usually finds any trap. I suppose part of the problem is the fact that I and the other GM often fight about stuff in that campaign (like, he thought there was a rule that if you contract a disease multiple times, the onset time is negated and you then take affliction effects on each exposure, other times we fought about rats and vermins using intelligent tactics to avoid any and all AoOs from my reach stonelord dwarf to flank the spellcaster...), so there's some OOC stuff going on that translates into IC uneasiness.

However, I don't see the game as GM vs players, but as GM and players weaving a heroic story. I like being in control as any other GM, but I also allow complete freedom to my players within the campaign setting, what I do not allow is stuff that breaks verisimilitude or - worse - the game. On my other WotR campaign I GM, players love me even if sometimes their characters get killed due to their choice of actions, and even if I add glyph to an otherwise safe structure.
Hilarity ensued when the wizard noticed a magical aura on a door, and the party paladin charged on his mount to "open" the door and trigger the blasting glyph on himself and the wizard regardless of what the other said just a second earlier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Note: Rope Trick is no longer the safe haven it used to be (you cannot pull the rope up anymore or conceal it via magic). Better find a safe spot to cast Rope Trick in. :)

Regarding verisimilitude, any time you come to the rules forum expect answers that are rules based (RAW or at least RAI). Verisimilitude doesn't really have a place in the RAW/RAI discussion in the Rules forum.

For discussions regarding verisimilitude vs RAW I suggest a different forum (such as the Advice, Pathfinder RPG General Discussion, or the House Rules forums).

The rationale behind my suggestion is that if you know the rule and want to discuss the verisimilitude regarding that rule this is not the forum for that. It seems that after your first post you got your answer and then you chose to continue to debate how the rule *should* work rather than how it actually works.

Of course, some of us entertained that discussion but it may explain why others had a less than positive response. :)


Krinn wrote:
For me, verisimilitude is paramount. I barely accept the hit point system for simplicity sake for example. But finding well-hidden traps while walking at moderate speed and not cautiously breaks it for me and I see no reason to let it happen, for both my and my players' immersion.

But a rogue (or other class?) with the trapspotter ability noticing traps without even looking for them doesn't break your verisimilitude? He can be hustling (or even running) down the hall and still see the well-hidden trap.

He can do that, but anyone else seeing a trap without individually searching each 5'x5' square is too much?

Different strokes, I guess. It's definitely a house rule though.


Yeah I'm aware of that, but finding a blackened (with ink) rope in the dark adjacent to a wall is difficult enough that most wandering monsters wouldn't find it, unless they were spellcasters using detect magic, but I digress... the thing is, it doesn't take up much time to set camp assuming you actually cleared at least a room or a dead end corridor and you're not against intelligent magic users who are out to get you specifically.

I asked here because I thought that my ruling was actual rule and not a house rule at the time, since I knew well the 3.5 rules about this very aspect of the game. I debated whether the absence of a rule was evidence of a contrary rule or just a copy/paste error, since there are no FAQ on the matter (and I think there should be), because ruling otherwise meant that canonical trap-filled dungeons turn out too easy. Hence, my resistance to accept this as a rule :)
Also, Pathfinder is very explicit about most differences with 3.5, like CMB/CMD, feats every other level and skill consolidation, while other stuff that changed was only marginal. This rules change was neither marginal nor explicit enough imho, so a FAQ was needed imho.

Now I know I will call it a house rule in my games, it never came up in years until now and everyone were fine with that. I also have a house rule regarding light/darkness spells interaction that is mostly like 3.5 because I am dissatisfied with the pathfinder 2nd levle darkness trumping 3rd level continual flame for practical purposes.

Thanks everyone for the answers in the matter though!


Gauss wrote:

Regarding Plate Mail swimming, there has been a migration away from penalizing it in even 3.X. Back in 3.0 you were penalized for every 5lbs of weight. Then in 3.5 they reduced that to double ACP. Finally in Pathfinder they just said to heck with it and made it straight ACP. It is clearly a case of simplicity over verisimilitude.

Regarding costing minutes/hours, IC times do change OOC times. If you are burning extra resources (spell durations) because of trapfinding then you wind up resting more often to regain those resources. That takes OOC time, often considerable time as people debate how to set up camp.

It's not just buffs, but also interactions with monsters. If you're taking minutes (or hours!) in each room or hallway, anyone who might have been alerted by the first fights will have plenty of time to gather their forces and get ready for you. If your dungeon is static, with each encounter separate and waiting in its area to be met, that won't make a difference. (And some should be that way. Mindless undead in a tomb, for example.)

In a more dynamic setting, you're likely to kill the guards at the gate, then 5 minutes later find an ambush by the entire tribe fully armed and buffed. If nothing else, they'll get to make a lot more perception checks to hear you coming down the hall, 5' a round.

In many situations, I'd probably just not search and eat the traps. It'll take less time to cure any damage you take than to find the traps. Of course, instant death traps or traps that split the party up for attackers would be a problem.
Traps work best as part of a combat encounter anyway. And then there's no time to search for them.


thejeff wrote:
Krinn wrote:
For me, verisimilitude is paramount. I barely accept the hit point system for simplicity sake for example. But finding well-hidden traps while walking at moderate speed and not cautiously breaks it for me and I see no reason to let it happen, for both my and my players' immersion.

But a rogue (or other class?) with the trapspotter ability noticing traps without even looking for them doesn't break your verisimilitude? He can be hustling (or even running) down the hall and still see the well-hidden trap.

He can do that, but anyone else seeing a trap without individually searching each 5'x5' square is too much?

Different strokes, I guess. It's definitely a house rule though.

For me, trap spotter is very acceptable as a rogue feature as his sixth sense warns him of impending danger coming from a certain location nearby, it's just like dwarven stonecunning or the find traps clerical spell. But it's limited to a single class, a single spell or a single race, not every single adventurer and their mother with ranks in perception should be allowed to have rogue-like sixth sense regarding traps, just like no wizard should be allowed to have the same melee prowess of a fighter, unless they are specifically built for it.

Searching each 5'x5' is how it used to be, and it made sense back then, with take 10. I recall there being a feat that allowed a thing similar to trap spotter in 3.5, but dungeons are meant to be dangerous, not a cakewalk you can walk through casually.

Incidentally, if a rogue was "running" down the hall (not merely hustling) and noticed a trap just ahead, I'd ask for a DC 15 acrobatics check (modified by rubble/grease/etc.) to suddenly stop his movement and not step into that trap, or make a different check to jump if feasible.

EDIT: about interaction with monsters, yes that's an intended feature of traps imho. As you said, zombies in a tomb would be pretty static, intelligent foes in a citadel would not and traps are there specifically to slow down intruders or make them bleed.


Krinn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Krinn wrote:
For me, verisimilitude is paramount. I barely accept the hit point system for simplicity sake for example. But finding well-hidden traps while walking at moderate speed and not cautiously breaks it for me and I see no reason to let it happen, for both my and my players' immersion.

But a rogue (or other class?) with the trapspotter ability noticing traps without even looking for them doesn't break your verisimilitude? He can be hustling (or even running) down the hall and still see the well-hidden trap.

He can do that, but anyone else seeing a trap without individually searching each 5'x5' square is too much?

Different strokes, I guess. It's definitely a house rule though.

For me, trap spotter is very acceptable as a rogue feature as his sixth sense warns him of impending danger coming from a certain location nearby, it's just like dwarven stonecunning or the find traps clerical spell. But it's limited to a single class, a single spell or a single race, not every single adventurer and their mother with ranks in perception should be allowed to have rogue-like sixth sense regarding traps, just like no wizard should be allowed to have the same melee prowess of a fighter, unless they are specifically built for it.

Searching each 5'x5' is how it used to be, and it made sense back then, with take 10. I recall there being a feat that allowed a thing similar to trap spotter in 3.5, but dungeons are meant to be dangerous, not a cakewalk you can walk through casually.

Incidentally, if a rogue was "running" down the hall (not merely hustling) and noticed a trap just ahead, I'd ask for a DC 15 acrobatics check (modified by rubble/grease/etc.) to suddenly stop his movement and not step into that trap, or make a different check to jump if feasible.

EDIT: about interaction with monsters, yes that's an intended feature of traps imho. As you said, zombies in a tomb would be pretty static, intelligent foes in a citadel would not and traps are there...

It may be an intended feature for the monsters, but it's a feature that usually seems to be ignored. At least in module writeups and the like. Sure it slows the party down, but that has no real efefct, other then maybe removing buffs.

I have a hard enough time finding excuses not to bring the entire allied population of the area down on the party's heads as soon they make one loud noise or let an enemy last long enough to yell, without adding more delays on top of it.
I'd rather have the adventure proceed like a commando raid, relying on stealth to start and speed once you lose the stealth than stopping to search every 5' as you go.

Also I see Trapspotter more as "Lots of experience dealing with traps, so I notice the signs even when not specifically looking" than as some near-magical danger sense.

Grand Lodge

Gauss wrote:

Krinn, I addressed your Trap Spotter talent issue in my original post.

Scenario 1:
Player makes a perception check with a trap 30feet away. He fails to detect the trap due to distance penalty. He then moves 30feet and triggers the trap.

Player with Trap Spotter moves 30 feet at which point the GM rolls his perception check with no distance penalty. He notices the trap.

Scenario 2:
Player is in combat when he trips a trap. He was not looking for them.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trap Spotter, also in combat, detected the trap and avoided it.

Regarding your 'size of room' question: yes, they take the same time (one action). However, you are only checking what you can see and there are still the distance penalties.

Regarding the sift cantrip, you can detect things you cannot see that are in that 10' cube. Perhaps the trap is underneath a rug.

The key here is that while you can use sight to detect traps from a distance sight has limitations. Not all traps are visible.

If someone with trap spotter is looking for traps at range (with associated penalties) do they get another check (by DM) once within range of trap spotter?


savokk wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Krinn, I addressed your Trap Spotter talent issue in my original post.

Scenario 1:
Player makes a perception check with a trap 30feet away. He fails to detect the trap due to distance penalty. He then moves 30feet and triggers the trap.

Player with Trap Spotter moves 30 feet at which point the GM rolls his perception check with no distance penalty. He notices the trap.

Scenario 2:
Player is in combat when he trips a trap. He was not looking for them.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trap Spotter, also in combat, detected the trap and avoided it.

Regarding your 'size of room' question: yes, they take the same time (one action). However, you are only checking what you can see and there are still the distance penalties.

Regarding the sift cantrip, you can detect things you cannot see that are in that 10' cube. Perhaps the trap is underneath a rug.

The key here is that while you can use sight to detect traps from a distance sight has limitations. Not all traps are visible.

If someone with trap spotter is looking for traps at range (with associated penalties) do they get another check (by DM) once within range of trap spotter?

Yes. There's nothing in the Trapspotter text about not getting a check because you've already looked.

Searching as you go, even though you have Trapspotting is a common technique in heavily trap infested areas. Take 10 on the search as you go and have the GM roll the Trapspotting. Minimize rolls, have a floor for what you'll find and a chance at finding anything harder than that.


Are your players having fun?
Do you care if they are not?


heliodorus04 wrote:

Are your players having fun?

Do you care if they are not?

He already said that everything is copacetic. It sounds like the rogue is grudgingly going along with the houserule, and everyone else is happy with the OP's GMing style.

Sovereign Court

I have to say I'm not convinced of the wisdom of the PF approach. If you get penalties for distance, and the traps are scary enough, shouldn't you make the check again every 10ft? (IIRC the penalty is per 10ft.)

At that point, the benefit is mostly gone.


The rules state that you get a perception check before you set the trap off. As a DM I would also say that you could get a search check to notice the area the trap affects if that is more visible (hey this floor slides somehow).
If Perception (Search) follows the line-of-sight rules keep in mind that you can cover traps with Invisibility, Illusory walls, put them on the other side of doors (+5 to the DC). Traps can even be set off by sound (see that though a wall), while the rogue might be quite enough to get past it, the guy in full plate probably isn't.
With line of sight also you should put in turns in your corridors. That way they can see a trap from 100' away.

Other things to keep in mind
1) For traps with a perception DC of 30+ you only add +3 to the traps CR.
2) Magical traps can only be disabled with the trap finding class feature.

Quote:
Magic Trap: The DC for both Perception and Disable Device checks is equal to 25 + the spell level of the highest level spell used. Only characters with the trapfinding class feature can attempt a Disable Device check involving a magic trap. -- Core book pg 417

3) Phantom Traps might lower the party's worry about traps.

4) Many magical traps can be hidden from detect magic with the alter aura spell.

Also look finders ability to find traps with the 'take 10' results.
+3 from class skill, +2 stat, maybe +3 from feats & traits = 8 + number of ranks.
At 8th level they can finally find 1st level magical traps reliability.
At 12th level they can finally find DC 30 traps reliability.

Worst simple trap I've ran into?
Invisible Large Bear Trap
Perception DC 55 (15+40 for invisible)
+12 hit (and you're flat footed) 3d6+3 damage + immobile


I recently played some Swords and Wizardry with my kids. The thief wanted to look for traps. I immediately thought of a search check but there are no skills just a percent chance. I immediately flashed back to the late 70's of my youth and remembered pouring water down a hallway to look for hidden pits and using flour to check for air currents and hidden passages.

In the end I made up a skill check for her and gave her a bonus for good roleplaying and imaginative thinking.

I kind of like a combination of the two systems. You have to tell me what you are searching not just shout search every 20 feat and roll a d20.

I do understand that "modern" trapfinding is a big time saver, but sometimes a little old school is fun.


If someone wants to role-play trap finding, as far as I'm concerned they don't need to roll.

I remember getting hit by arrows in an adventure and then hammering up all the arrow holes with the arrows that came out wrapped in my torn up cloak.
Rolling barrels filled with water down hallways (what weight sets the pressure trap off).
Seeing a scythe trap come up out of the ground in a door way and digging up the flag stones to hammer in a piton above the blade so it wouldn't hit me going through.

Role-playing is always better to me than dice rolling.


The last two examples are great when you make a trap an encounter. The problem is when every step is now an encounter looking for the things.


Komoda wrote:
The last two examples are great when you make a trap an encounter. The problem is when every step is now an encounter looking for the things.

Exactly. One adventure where you flood the floor to look for pits, use flour to check for air currents and roll barrels down the hall to find pressure plates is cool and makes for a good story to tell.

Doing it over and over in every corridor and every room of every dungeon gets boring real fast. It also turns it into a GM cleverness vs player cleverness match. Except not really, because you have to get into a routine and then the GM can just come up with a trap your current methods don't find. Then once you've been hit by it, you add it to the list of things to look for.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Komoda wrote:
The problem is when every step is now an encounter looking for the things.

That would be a problem, except the players don't need to roll anything. All the players need to do is say "We're searching as we go down the hallway [, rolling.|, taking 10.|, taking 20.]", and the GM can roll or not for any traps that may or may not be there. The time it takes in-game shouldn't have any impact on the time it takes out-of-game.


Except I was referring to two explicit examples of describing each and every move made to identify and by-pass traps. What you are saying is almost exactly what I am advocating.

I took it one step further and told my players that they will never encounter traps without me telling them to make a perception check and at no time will they gain any benefit for looking for the specifically.

Speeds up play a lot and I still can use them in the game.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This is what we do;

Trap Spotter allows an immediate perception check within 10' of a trap.

Actively searching for traps is a move action to search a 10' radius.

This requires concentration and careful movement (half speed).

Apply any applicable perception, stealth, survival/tracking, concentration, and movement modifiers (+10 for movement faster than half) to "Search" DC.

Searching a room or whatever, same thing, move action to search a 10' radius, add whatever modifiers.

Then we add +5 or +10 for each other creature searching within 10' of the searcher, for being in each others way.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Searching a room for traps All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.