Yeah but this still can develop into an RP issue. One example I can think of is the impatient Barbarian doesn't want to wait while you stare at something until you get a Nat 20, so he wanders through the door (or hallway, or path, etc etc etc) anyways.
Happens all the time, in games I run, in games where I am the person who handles traps, and while I was playing a paladin (who tended to find traps by setting them off). If a character wants to go forward before the trapper says it is safe, they are free to do so.
It can also often be hard to justify, in terms of RP, taking longer than reasonable to check an area for traps. Most people would look once, some might double check, a few might triple check. But "rolling until you get a high roll" is a bit metagamey.
"Look Grog, you can cool your heels and lets me do a thorough job, or you can find the traps yourself. Umm ... I'll be following 30' behind you. Yell if you find anything."
If a player isn't going to be a pedantic, anal-retentive twit then the GM can be more forgiving, letting perception checks be rolled against greater than a single 5 foot square, placing less punishing traps, etc. But if he is... Then the GM is likely going to find the easy ways to subvert the player's shenanigans, by making perception for traps apply to single squares and putting traps...
There is no rule in Pathfinder that restricts a perception check to a 5' square. That was a 3.5 rule. Move action -> take 10 for perception check on corridor, standard action -> move 30' down corridor. Given the party has players in heavy armor, we only lose 10' of movement/round over double moving.
Not strict RAW, but we play it as moving 1/2 speed while looking for traps instead of breaking it into discreet steps. It means we don't have to spend 20 minutes rolling perception checks between each encounter.
Yes, distance and environmental factors can modify perception. Those same modifiers will add to stealth rolls. This tends to work in the scouts favor.
|
There is no rule in Pathfinder that restricts a perception check to a 5' square. That was a 3.5 rule. Move action -> take 10 for perception check on corridor, standard action -> move 30' down corridor. Given the party has players in heavy armor, we only lose 10' of movement/round over double moving.
There's also absolutely no rule that establishes an effective range or specifies whether or not you have to analyse something specific or can simply attempt to perceive everything within your line of sight/hearing/etc. The whole ability seems to be left deliberately vague, so it falls on the GM to decide what is appropriate, even in PFS. If a GM says you have to explicitly search for traps in order to find a trap, and that you have to specify exactly where you are looking... nothing forbids nor contradicts this, since no parameters are specified at all.
Personally after giving it some thought I feel I would run it this way in the future. You can generally perceive anything (accounting for range and other conditional penalties) from where you are standing if it is visible from there. If you don't specify you're searching the table, you won't find the false bottom in one drawer. I would allow players to roll a single check, or take 10/20 in a room to search it and it would depend on the size of the room for how long this takes (with take 20 taking 20 times as long, reflecting a thorough and careful search) with a successful rolled check or take 10 (if they would spot it on a take 10) they would find any traps in the room without setting it off. But a take 20 would automatically set off any traps if they would fail on a Nat 1 (as they would be moving around the room, repeatedly failing their check before ever spotting it, walking over whatever would trigger it) with the exception of doors that have to be opened to trigger.
I would also treat the players as passively taking 10 on perception as long as they are not distracted or threatened. And whenever they want to perceive something, the roll would be a secret roll (much like trap spotter)... so they wouldn't know whether they rolled high or low (eliminating the blatant metagaming that is rolling until a high roll happens). And they'd be allowed to double or triple-check. I'd obviously ask each PFS table how they feel about this method before running it, but with home games I'd very strongly encourage this method be used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To anyone that wants to make this complicated. If you "only see what you say you search" than you stand in one place and search everything you can from the square you're in. If that means 100 checks for the 100 squares in the room than so be it, They'll take 20 100 times if they are worried about traps. If you're wanting to hide rolls then they take 20 to make sure they get a "high roll". All you end up accomplishing is wasting time. So I don't see what benefit it's giving you to make it more complicated.
To anyone that wants to make this complicated. If you "only see what you say you search" than you stand in one place and search everything you can from the square you're in. If that means 100 checks for the 100 squares in the room than so be it, They'll take 20 100 times if they are worried about traps. If you're wanting to hide rolls then they take 20 to make sure they get a "high roll". All you end up accomplishing is wasting time. So I don't see what benefit it's giving you to make it more complicated.
The idea is; if you make it sufficiently frustrating to search everything the players will eventually stop looking in random locations and start eating some of the traps.
Won't really work on chests or doors with unusual descriptions, those will still be carefully inspected. It will mean players are more likely to be discouraged from searching floors and plain doors.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To anyone that wants to make this complicated. If you "only see what you say you search" than you stand in one place and search everything you can from the square you're in. If that means 100 checks for the 100 squares in the room than so be it, They'll take 20 100 times if they are worried about traps. If you're wanting to hide rolls then they take 20 to make sure they get a "high roll". All you end up accomplishing is wasting time. So I don't see what benefit it's giving you to make it more complicated.The idea is; if you make it sufficiently frustrating to search everything the players will eventually stop looking in random locations and start eating some of the traps.
It takes a special kind of mind to make a game more fun by deliberately introducing unnecessary frustrations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the players just say they take 20 on everything to search everywhere and never move until all their take 20s are done and have come up saying it's safe to move. They player says that and then the GM gives them all the traps that perception +20 will find. Thus the only traps that go off are ones that they cannot see ever. It's not a big issue for the players to say they are doing this and it's still "frustrating" for the GM cause all the traps are still found.
Now this is of course assuming that the players don't want to trigger traps. If they don't care then you didn't need to go to such lengths.
So in the end it's no net change for adding extra work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It takes a special kind of mind to make a game more fun by deliberately introducing unnecessary frustrations.To anyone that wants to make this complicated. If you "only see what you say you search" than you stand in one place and search everything you can from the square you're in. If that means 100 checks for the 100 squares in the room than so be it, They'll take 20 100 times if they are worried about traps. If you're wanting to hide rolls then they take 20 to make sure they get a "high roll". All you end up accomplishing is wasting time. So I don't see what benefit it's giving you to make it more complicated.The idea is; if you make it sufficiently frustrating to search everything the players will eventually stop looking in random locations and start eating some of the traps.
I once had a GM that required a stealth check every 5'
Some GM's view the game as a competition and get upset when they "lose."
There's also absolutely no rule that establishes an effective range or specifies whether or not you have to analyse something specific or can simply attempt to perceive everything within your line of sight/hearing/etc.
Wrong - Ultimate Intrigue officially puts the Pathfinder Unchained rule into the rules (and not alternative). Active perception checks are no more than 10x10 and often can and should be smaller spaces - the given example is a cluttered area where a given check is only 5x5.
So the official rule is 10x10 or less per check, up to GM discretion.
|
|
No, the players just say they take 20 on everything to search everywhere and never move until all their take 20s are done and have come up saying it's safe to move. They player says that and then the GM gives them all the traps that perception +20 will find. Thus the only traps that go off are ones that they cannot see ever. It's not a big issue for the players to say they are doing this and it's still "frustrating" for the GM cause all the traps are still found.
Now this is of course assuming that the players don't want to trigger traps. If they don't care then you didn't need to go to such lengths.
So in the end it's no net change for adding extra work.
Yet it's metagamey as f*+@. Taking 20 100 times for perception takes 100 minutes at least... No sane person will spend an hour and forty minutes staring at a room just to make sure there aren't traps. You'll have an insanely hard time justifying RP-wise standing in the corner of the room for that long... Though the GM can easily cut you off by just introducing a distraction or threat, perhaps that Owlbear wandering around the dungeon stumbles into that room... and in the middle of combat you step on the trap trigger in the middle of the room.
I fully believe that taking 20 is reasonable when a person is inspecting something they have good reason to believe may have a trap (such as a doorway, an unusually colored floor panel, etc etc) otherwise they should be rolling (as many times as is reasonable, at worst "triple-checking") or taking 10. Taking 20 is also perfectly reasonable when searching for something you think might be in a room (like a key in an office).
|
|
There's also absolutely no rule that establishes an effective range or specifies whether or not you have to analyse something specific or can simply attempt to perceive everything within your line of sight/hearing/etc.
Wrong - Ultimate Intrigue officially puts the Pathfinder Unchained rule into the rules (and not alternative). Active perception checks are no more than 10x10 and often can and should be smaller spaces - the given example is a cluttered area where a given check is only 5x5.
So the official rule is 10x10 or less per check, up to GM discretion.
Is that so? If so, terrific. It can easily be used with the passive perception where PCs are always taking 10 when not distracted.
You could still "scan a room" by looking at each 10x10 area and rolling an individual check for each (or take 10 or 20 on the whole room, or allow the player to choose to use a single roll before rolling). It'd be a move action for each 10x10 area, thus determining the length of said scan. Say a 50x50 room, it'd take 25 move actions or 1.25 minutes... taking 20 would take 22.5 minutes. Everything is quadrupled in a cluttered room where you can only do 5x5 squares.
Taking 20 can easily be justified in a cluttered room where you need to find something, and you think it might be there (and you have time to do it). But a largely bare and unsuspicious room likely wouldn't warrant taking 20... unless every room you've been through up to that point has been trapped.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the players just say they take 20 on everything to search everywhere and never move until all their take 20s are done and have come up saying it's safe to move. They player says that and then the GM gives them all the traps that perception +20 will find. Thus the only traps that go off are ones that they cannot see ever. It's not a big issue for the players to say they are doing this and it's still "frustrating" for the GM cause all the traps are still found.
Now this is of course assuming that the players don't want to trigger traps. If they don't care then you didn't need to go to such lengths.
So in the end it's no net change for adding extra work.
Yet it's metagamey as f#!!. Taking 20 100 times for perception takes 100 minutes at least... No sane person will spend an hour and forty minutes staring at a room just to make sure there aren't traps. You'll have an insanely hard time justifying RP-wise standing in the corner of the room for that long... Though the GM can easily cut you off by just introducing a distraction or threat, perhaps that Owlbear wandering around the dungeon stumbles into that room... and in the middle of combat you step on the trap trigger in the middle of the room.
I fully believe that taking 20 is reasonable when a person is inspecting something they have good reason to believe may have a trap (such as a doorway, an unusually colored floor panel, etc etc) otherwise they should be rolling (as many times as is reasonable, at worst "triple-checking") or taking 10.
It's also the sort of result you get when your GM has taken an adversarial position against the players (instead of the position of facilitator) and refuses to allow reasonable things like take 10 on perception as they're walking their whole way through the dungeon. Its very reasonable for players to say, "My character is doing his standard job of looking and checking around for things in general as he is walking through wherever they are. If there is something I really want to inspect more closely I'll let you know." If they choose to inspect more closely they can either take 20 (if time is no issue) or roll in hopes that they do better than take 10.
But if your the type of GM who is being a jerk and saying they must announce that they're rolling perception every 10ft and that they can't take 10 do so...well you're just being a jerk.
And if the problem is that you feel this makes traps uninteresting...its because traps are mostly uninteresting and not fun antiquated pieces of the game leftover from a time when the game was commonly an adversarial relationship between players and GMs. These days, traps usually at worst deal a little damage which is promptly healed with a wand of CLW and forgotten or the trap is so powerful that it outright kills someone because they didn't have a chance to detect it. Which is super not fun.
And if nothing else you have inventive players who will start using summoned creatures (especially the mount spell which lasts hours per casting) start preceding the party everywhere they go to set off all the traps in advance.
|
|
It's also the sort of result you get when your GM has taken an adversarial position against the players (instead of the position of facilitator) and refuses to allow reasonable things like take 10 on perception as they're walking their whole way through the dungeon. Its very reasonable for players to say, "My character is doing his standard job of looking and checking around for things in general as he is walking through wherever they are. If there is something I really want to inspect more closely I'll let you know." If they choose to inspect more closely they can either take 20 (if time is no issue) or roll in hopes that they do better than take 10.
But if your the type of GM who is being a jerk and saying they must announce that they're rolling perception every 10ft and that they can't take 10 do so...well you're just being a jerk.
And if the problem is that you feel this makes traps uninteresting...its because traps are mostly uninteresting and not fun antiquated pieces of the game leftover from a time when the game was commonly an adversarial relationship between players and GMs. These days, traps usually at worst deal a little damage which is promptly healed with a wand of CLW and forgotten or the trap is so powerful that it outright kills someone because they didn't have a chance to detect it. Which is super not fun.
And if nothing else you have inventive players who will start using summoned creatures (especially the mount spell which lasts hours per casting) start preceding the party everywhere they go to set off all the traps in advance.
I actually feel that EVERYTHING either the GM or players do has to be reasonable and justifiable. It doesn't need to be iron-clad, it just can't be obviously metagamey, or (in the case of the GM) unfair. Passively taking 10 is totally reasonable to me (if the players are moving at normal speed, not rushing through), just as taking 20 to inspect a doorway is (just watch out for impatient PCs). But taking 20 to inspect every 10x10 area of an unsuspicious room just in case there might be traps is a bit ridiculous, unless your GM has been a dick about traps up until that point (thus providing an in-character justification for the excessive caution).
Traps can be made fun and interesting, particularly if mixed with an encounter. I've seen it done well a number of times. One example off the top of my head is a Kobold ambush with rope traps. The fighter was deliberately running ahead of the group and ended up dangling 10 feet up from a tree while the Kobolds rushed out to swarm the party. This made the otherwise unthreatening Kobolds a very real threat to the Healer, Caster and Rogue. The Fighter managed to cut himself down quickly and the Kobolds were steamrolled. It was an easy encounter overall, but for one moment everyone was scared and tense. It was a simple trap, that spiced things up.
But some traps are b!#$+$++ like the following
but this one was neat
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the players just say they take 20 on everything to search everywhere and never move until all their take 20s are done and have come up saying it's safe to move. They player says that and then the GM gives them all the traps that perception +20 will find. Thus the only traps that go off are ones that they cannot see ever. It's not a big issue for the players to say they are doing this and it's still "frustrating" for the GM cause all the traps are still found.
Now this is of course assuming that the players don't want to trigger traps. If they don't care then you didn't need to go to such lengths.
So in the end it's no net change for adding extra work.
Yet it's metagamey as f*+~. Taking 20 100 times for perception takes 100 minutes at least... No sane person will spend an hour and forty minutes staring at a room just to make sure there aren't traps. You'll have an insanely hard time justifying RP-wise standing in the corner of the room for that long... Though the GM can easily cut you off by just introducing a distraction or threat, perhaps that Owlbear wandering around the dungeon stumbles into that room... and in the middle of combat you step on the trap trigger in the middle of the room.
I fully believe that taking 20 is reasonable when a person is inspecting something they have good reason to believe may have a trap (such as a doorway, an unusually colored floor panel, etc etc) otherwise they should be rolling (as many times as is reasonable, at worst "triple-checking") or taking 10. Taking 20 is also perfectly reasonable when searching for something you think might be in a room (like a key in an office).
It's not metagamey nor any RP problems. If that's how the rules of the world work to find traps, and your character wants to find all the traps then that's what you do.
If there's some roaming monster then you'd keep a guard out and only fight where you were sure there were no traps.If you're wanting to proceed at your surest knowledge than spending an hour to search for traps is normal.
Now if the GM says that perception works more like human searching than the example above than the players and the people in that world behave accordingly and spending an hour is absurd.
|
|
It's not metagamey nor any RP problems. If that's how the rules of the world work to find traps, and your character wants to find all the traps then that's what you do.
I don't even know where to begin with that. Metagaming is by definition the use of OOC knowledge to make decisions. It varies in severity, some of it is excusable (and not too hard to justify IC) such as keeping your distance to avoid AoOs (since keeping your distance is a valid tactic to begin with).
Characters in the game are not going to know how the mechanics of something like perception works vis-à-vis the rules of the game. They would know that they can see and hear, and that unfavorable conditions make it harder to see and hear. But they wouldn't know that spending enough time in the corner of a room would guarantee they find any traps that are possible for them to find, they don't know what a D20 roll even is. In fact IC a character shouldn't be able to tell if they performed poorly on any skill checks that don't give an immediate indication of how poorly they performed (i.e. you wouldn't know that you failed to perceive the trap until the trap goes off). Double-checking is reasonable, even triple-checking sometimes. But excessive unwarranted caution is beyond reason. (Cases where it would be warranted are obvious, such as the GM going full-Monty with traps in every room)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PC's obvious must have some concept of Take 20, because we can tell them to do so. Just because it doesn't map to anything to our world doesn't mean that they wouldn't know about it. The moment they take 20 for a perception check they have a reference as to how to get their best result and what a take 20 is. They know the rules of the game because they live their lives in it. We on Earth have determined how fast something falls and called that gravity. We know how fast light travels, and have known it for a long time. If something like a take 20 existed we'd have a term for it and know how to do it. And a Character definitely would know if they did something poorly or not. I can tell when I've done a poor job opposed to a great job, just because they don't directly know that they "rolled a 2" they know that it's about the worse they can do. Hidden rolls are the GM determining how good they were doing at the exact moment it was needed.
But hey, if you feel that your game world a carpenter can't tell the difference from doing his best work and a sloppy job because the item is made the same qualify regardless go for it.
If you're going into someplace and think there are traps and you don't want to trigger any trap then you'd go a slow as you needed to do so. It's warranted because you think there are traps here and you don't want to trigger any. You the GM can't say what is and isn't warranted for my character.
|
|
Going to disagree with all of that.
1) There is no rule which supports these claims.
Of course there's no explicit rule against metagaming. There never has been. Rather it is repeatedly implied that OOC and IC knowledge are meant to be kept separate. The intention is very clearly there, that the player and the PC are not the same person in terms of knowledge.
2) All creatures become aware, either intuitively or empirically, of the world around them and the laws that govern it. We know what gravity is, we know the world obeys laws of physics even if we can't articulate them. Characters in the game-verse operate the same way. The have an innate or learned sense of how their world works. And that fact that the rules make it wonky compared to ours doesn't prevent the characters from still being able to grasp game-verse mechanics.
Is every person subject to gravity aware of the exact rate of acceleration which gravity uses and how air resistance applies to objects of different shapes and mass without being educated on the matter? Or are they intuitively aware of how rapidly things will fall based on past experience? Being subject to mechanics (i.e. laws of physics) does not imply a clear understanding of said mechanics. The D20 roll is a simplification of probability, probability exists in the real world, and while one may have an intuitive sense of probability (some things are more likely than others) people aren't granted a full comprehension of how probability functions simply by being subjected to it. Some may, but not all do. An intuitive sense isn't full comprehension, it is akin to a gut feeling.
Another example is a car. I know that pushing down on the gas pedal makes the engine do something and go. I also know that I need gas for it. Even so, I only know these things because I was told them (but perhaps, could've figured it out through trial and error). But that doesn't immediately suggest even a rough understanding of HOW it makes it go. Not every driver understands how the internal combustion engine works (I certainly don't).
3) Characters would absolutely know when they've done poor job searching and a thorough job searching. Walk in to your room and look for six seconds. Are you convinced you've seen everything there is to see? Let's change the skill and talk about crafting something. You really thinking a crafter has no idea about whether she has done her best work or made a piece of junk?
You feel that maybe if you double checked you'd spot something you missed, but you wouldn't know for sure that you observed it poorly the first time unless you do in fact spot something that next time. If a player rolls perception to look at something... if they don't spot anything they wouldn't know there was something to spot unless they successfully spot it later. Or if they knew that something should be there, so intuitively they feel they may have overlooked it so they check a few more times.
Basically:
Roll Perception 1st time: Get an 11 on the die, spot nothing unusual. Nothing indicates that they performed poorly, unless they already know that something SHOULD be there, aside from the die roll itself... but since character don't have the result of a roll in front of their eyes every time they roll... the result is only OOC knowledge, not IC.
Roll Perception 2nd time to double check: Get a 17 on the die, spot something. Realize that your first attempt was poor because your second attempt was successful.
If I nat 1 perception on a doorway, walk through and nothing happens. Well IC I have no idea that I did poorly on my perception, because no trap went off. Whereas if there is a trap, I'm suddenly aware of my poor performance because the trap going off indicates exactly that. Lets say you nat 20, and you still don't see the trap (which would likely indicate an unfairly high DC anyways) well you still feel you didn't do well enough because you still didn't see the trap.
If you're trying to listen to a conversation, there is stimulus present. Failure is obvious immediately upon failure to listen in. The key difference is the presence of stimulus to serve as an indicator of performance. Performance CANNOT be known to anyone without an indicator of it. In the case of failing to perceive a trap, the indicator would either be a subsequent discovery of said trap either by spotting it on another attempt or by setting it off.
Whereas with something like Craft, you'd obviously know when you don't do well enough because you have an object in your hand that may serve as an indication of performance (especially if you are aware of what is good). If there is some change (or particular result) or lack of change where a change is known to occur upon poor performance... that is an indicator of poor performance. But if no change is KNOWN to occur on a failure, IC the PC would have no indication of their performance. When you fail to spot something you don't already know should be there, you are not aware that you failed to spot it. The trap doesn't pipe up with "hey you missed me that time, maybe I'm still here, check again." But the piece of junk you Crafted, still looks like a piece of junk.
"I know my keys are somewhere in my apartment" is good enough to keep looking until you find them. "I think there might be a trap on that door" is good enough to double or triple check. "I think there might be a trap in this room" is not good enough to spend an hour standing in the corner staring at the room. "I'm sure there's a trap in this room, because the map that so-and-so gave me says there is one." Is good enough to spend an hour staring at the room, maybe. But a lack of traps leading to nothing spotted on a take 20 could still leave the PC uneasy depending on their confidence in themself (which is a facet of personality and will vary PC-to-PC), because they don't necessarily know they did as well as they had... and may still be worried about the trap they believe is there. A confident PC might chance the room, and discover it wasn't trapped... A particularly unconfident PC might decide not to risk it, and look for an alternate route. I'll use Schrodinger's cat as a loose example, you don't know that cat is dead or alive until you open the box. If you don't (or can't) spot the trap in the doorway you won't know if it's there or not until you walk through it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traps can be made fun and interesting, particularly if mixed with an encounter. I've seen it done well a number of times. One example off the top of my head is a Kobold ambush with rope traps. The fighter was deliberately running ahead of the group and ended up dangling 10 feet up from a tree while the Kobolds rushed out to swarm the party. This made the otherwise unthreatening Kobolds a very real threat to the Healer, Caster and Rogue. The Fighter managed to cut himself down quickly and the Kobolds were steamrolled. It was an easy encounter overall, but for one moment everyone was scared and tense. It was a simple trap, that spiced things up.
That is absolutely the proper and only way traps should be employed, in my opinion.
A trap on its own is not interesting or a serious threat, unless it can one shot someone. If it can one shot someone it's seriously un-fun for players in general.
Making traps a part of combat is the correct way to use traps.
I get that they're a "staple" of the genre, but trying to make them matter outside of combat is honestly just never going to work. And GMs who try to hard to force just end up earning the ire of their players.
That is absolutely the proper and only way traps should be employed, in my opinion.
A trap on its own is not interesting or a serious threat, unless it can one shot someone. If it can one shot someone it's seriously un-fun for players in general.
Making traps a part of combat is the correct way to use traps.
I get that they're a "staple" of the genre, but trying to make them matter outside of combat is honestly just never going to work. And GMs who try to hard to force just end up earning the ire of their players.
I disagree - I think traps can be interesting and enjoyable without having to be 'one shot deadly'. However they were overused in the early stages of the game - and usually in the 'oh you didn't find that trap - you are now dead' type of way. That leads us to the present situation where they are kind of a non-factor.
I am pretty sure Paizo knows this as well which is why we have haunts - which serve as xp handouts, can give massive backstory through their mechanics, and also can be pretty nasty traps in their own right.
I do think, however, that traps as they exist in the current game fit your description.
|
|
Traps can be made fun and interesting, particularly if mixed with an encounter. I've seen it done well a number of times. One example off the top of my head is a Kobold ambush with rope traps. The fighter was deliberately running ahead of the group and ended up dangling 10 feet up from a tree while the Kobolds rushed out to swarm the party. This made the otherwise unthreatening Kobolds a very real threat to the Healer, Caster and Rogue. The Fighter managed to cut himself down quickly and the Kobolds were steamrolled. It was an easy encounter overall, but for one moment everyone was scared and tense. It was a simple trap, that spiced things up.That is absolutely the proper and only way traps should be employed, in my opinion.
A trap on its own is not interesting or a serious threat, unless it can one shot someone. If it can one shot someone it's seriously un-fun for players in general.
Making traps a part of combat is the correct way to use traps.
I get that they're a "staple" of the genre, but trying to make them matter outside of combat is honestly just never going to work. And GMs who try to hard to force just end up earning the ire of their players.
I definitely agree that they are some of the BEST ways to do traps. But not the ONLY way.
A trap which applies a condition to a player for a certain amount of time? Interesting. A trap which splits the party in half for the rest of the dungeon, or maybe just an encounter? That's interesting. A trap which triggers combat? Interesting. A trap which makes a combat encounter more difficult? Interesting. A trap which alerts the nearby guards to your presence? Less interesting, but still makes sense. A trap which hurts someone, but afterwards there is no immediate threat? Not interesting, unless it has some flavor attached to it. A trapped lockbox which bursts into flames if opened improperly (destroying the contents) is interesting, but shouldn't be put on anything overly critical to adventure (without providing an alternative). A save or die trap? Get the f@*+ out of here with that b*%!+++$, nobody likes that crap.
Environmental hazards too, while rocks falling from the ceiling is sometimes total BS... it does make some sense in certain contexts. A random pit trap in a forest might be stupid if there's nothing that's actually trying to trap people... but an overgrown sinkhole is fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) All creatures become aware, either intuitively or empirically, of the world around them and the laws that govern it. We know what gravity is, we know the world obeys laws of physics even if we can't articulate them. Characters in the game-verse operate the same way. The have an innate or learned sense of how their world works. And that fact that the rules make it wonky compared to ours doesn't prevent the characters from still being able to grasp game-verse mechanics.Is every person subject to gravity aware of the exact rate of acceleration which gravity uses and how air resistance applies to objects of different shapes and mass without being educated on the matter? Or are they intuitively aware of how rapidly things will fall based on past experience? Being subject to mechanics (i.e. laws of physics) does not imply a clear understanding of said mechanics. The D20 roll is a simplification of probability, probability exists in the real world, and while one may have an intuitive sense of probability (some things are more likely than others) people aren't granted a full comprehension of how probability functions simply by being subjected to it. Some may, but not all do. An intuitive sense isn't full comprehension, it is akin to a gut feeling.
Another example is a car. I know that pushing down on the gas pedal makes the engine do something and go. I also know that I need gas for it. Even so, I only know these things because I was told them (but perhaps, could've figured it out through trial and error). But that doesn't immediately suggest even a rough understanding of HOW it makes it go. Not every driver understands how the internal combustion engine works (I certainly don't).
Right, but if you can "take 20 on demand when not threatened or distracted" then you'll have an understanding of that. You don't know all the details, but that's not needed. All you know is that this "take 20" thing guarantees you have your best result. We're not saying that every character has a full comprehension of the dice gods and their influence on their lives, but we are saying they have an understanding that they can do a "take 20" have produce their best result possible for them. So just like knowing how to start and drive a car or knowing that you, and everything else, falls cause of gravity you'd know that the thing you do when the player says they "take 20" is something different than just trying 20 times.
OR
Do you supposed that all these adventurers that "take 20" fairly often on a variety of tasks have no idea or concept that they are doing something differently than trying 20 times? because 1 is sure to have their best results, the other has no such promise.
|
|
Right, but if you can "take 20 on demand when not threatened or distracted" then you'll have an understanding of that. You don't know all the details, but that's not needed. All you know is that this "take 20" thing guarantees you have your best result. We're not saying that every character has a full comprehension of the dice gods and their influence on their lives, but we are saying they have an understanding that they can do a "take 20" have produce their best result possible for them. So just like knowing how to start and drive a car or knowing that you, and everything else, falls cause of gravity you'd know that the thing you do when the player says they "take 20" is something different than just trying 20 times.
OR
Do you supposed that all these adventurers that "take 20" fairly often on a variety of tasks have no idea or concept that they are doing something differently than trying 20 times? because 1 is sure to have their best results, the other has no such promise.
Take 20 is still "trying 20 times," the only difference being that they do a little better each time. It isn't really the character choosing to take 20, rather take 20 is an OOC mechanic where the character tries over and over again, and a nat 20 is rolled at least once. While not strictly guaranteed (technically it's a 63.4% chance) the idea is that if you roll 20 times you'll get a 20.
Basically "taking 20" isn't something done by the character. IC your character is repeatedly attempting the same task, deliberately failing repeatedly so they can learn from their mistakes and do a little better each time, but not with knowledge that they will certainly succeed (a nat 20 could still fail).
When you roll 20 times, you're not deliberately failing and analyzing your failures to learn from the mistake, rather you are simply repeating the task without making any changes based on your previous mistakes. It can be looked at as when taking 20, the character suspects the task will be difficult so opts to take extra time to fail on purpose, so they can better understand the task they are performing. In the case of perception, each attempt in a take 20 you might be trying to look at it from a slightly different angle, narrowing your eyes, leaning in a little closer, etc etc. In order to learn from your mistakes though, you have to minimize distractions, because distractions can impede your ability to do so.
Put simply... taking 20 is mere trial and error, while rolling 20 times is just trial. Trial and error is sometimes phrased as "guess and check" or "generate and test," and rolling is the same thing without the check or test.
Taking 10 was already covered as basically putting average effort into a task that you should be able to perform with ease.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take 20 is still "trying 20 times," the only difference being that they do a little better each time. It isn't really the character choosing to take 20, rather take 20 is an OOC mechanic where the character tries over and over again, and a nat 20 is rolled at least once. While not strictly guaranteed (technically it's a 63.4% chance) the idea is that if you roll 20 times you'll get a 20.
Basically "taking 20" isn't something done by the character. IC your character is repeatedly attempting the same task, deliberately failing repeatedly so they can learn from their mistakes and do a little better each time, but not with knowledge that they will certainly succeed (a nat 20 could still fail).
When you roll 20 times, you're not deliberately failing and analyzing your failures to learn from the mistake, rather you are simply repeating the task without making any changes based on your previous mistakes. It can be looked at as when taking 20, the character suspects the task will be difficult so opts to take extra time to fail on purpose, so they can better understand the task they are performing. In the case of perception, each attempt in a take 20 you might be trying to look at it from a slightly different angle, narrowing your eyes, leaning in a little closer, etc etc. In order to learn from your mistakes though, you have to minimize distractions, because distractions can impede your ability to do so.
Put simply... taking 20 is mere trial and error, while rolling 20 times is just trial. Trial and error is sometimes phrased as "guess and check," and rolling is the same thing without the check.
This isn't how it's in the rules. If it was just incremental improvement then you'd succeed sooner than the 20X. If you only needed a 5 than an incremental increase would be done in 5X and save 3/4 the take 20 time. But this is not what the rules say.
Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform).
Since taking 20 assumes that your character will fail many times before succeeding, your character would automatically incur any penalties for failure before he or she could complete the task
All it says if you're trying till you get it right, take 20 times as long, and you fail many times. Meaning it could be 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,20. It could be auto-fail,auto-fail,auto-fail,auto-fail,...20. I'm not sure there's even a rule saying you "try" 20 times.
But even still, if you know that there this situation where you can try exactly 20 times and do your best at the end then you know it's different from just trying 20 times. You yourself prove this, 100% compared to 63.4%. If it's "learning from your mistakes or not" or "taking 20 is mere trial and error, while rolling 20 times is just trial" then there's obviously an in game world difference as to what's going on and it's something that the person would know how to activate.
Knowing you made a bad craft check does not let you try again. [On that same object, at least.]
Knowing you rolled bad on a perception / detect trap check is OK. Using that knowledge to adjust your character's action is not OK.
/cevah
"Take 10" has already been covered as putting forth an average effort (and is used by most of us most of the time in real life): Driving a car? Take 10 and you won't lose control and crash going from Point A to Point B (probably a DC 5 or DC 10 check), unless you either attempt to "push" beyond safe driving habits (or you are doing something stupid like texting and driving; i.e., a distraction that requires a roll) or something outside of your control (i.e., a distraction that requires a roll) happens.
"Take 20" for a Perception check is thoroughly inspecting every section of the door (or 10 ft by 10 ft area of the floor, wall, or ceiling), probably from multiple angles (shift from one side, then the other; kneel down and look on each side; lie down flat and examine the gap under the door or check for minute differences in level of different flagstones, etc.) over the course of two minutes. This is also something that most of us have done in real life at one time or another (maybe not looking for traps, but checking repairs, inspecting a used vehicle, or something similar where we want to make sure that we've done our best to find any flaws).
A trap on its own is not interesting or a serious threat, unless it can one shot someone. If it can one shot someone it's seriously un-fun for players in general.
I take my perception checks very seriously :P
|
from a game not to long ago...
Rogue Take's 10 to disable a trap - and fails. But the trap doesn't go off... so the failure was by less than 5?
Cleric says: "Here, I'll cast guidance..."
The Fighter (dex based archer) says: "I have a little Disable Device, so I'll try to aid..."
Wizard says: "Heck, I'll cast reduce person which will bump your DEX up by 2, giving you 1 more on Disable...".
Rogue: "Yeah, we do that, and I take 10 again...results?"
Judge: "Click! trap bypassed!"
Teamwork in action...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
A trap on its own is not interesting or a serious threat, unless it can one shot someone. If it can one shot someone it's seriously un-fun for players in general.
It's something that I would personally consider terribly not fun.
And while plenty of people enjoy the old first edition suck-fest style, I do not.
from a game not to long ago...
Rogue Take's 10 to disable a trap - and fails. But the trap doesn't go off... so the failure was by less than 5?
Cleric says: "Here, I'll cast guidance..."
The Fighter (dex based archer) says: "I have a little Disable Device, so I'll try to aid..."
Wizard says: "Heck, I'll cast reduce person which will bump your DEX up by 2, giving you 1 more on Disable...".Rogue: "Yeah, we do that, and I take 10 again...results?"
Judge: "Click! trap bypassed!"Teamwork in action...
So you're not supposed to be told if you failed or not. You attempt to disable the device, and as long as it doesn't go off you think you succeeded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sensor IS part of the trap. Otherwise you can never find them without setting them off.
Its not clever, smart, devious, or witty to set the trap itself away from the sensor and have it auto hit the party. Its just plain cheating and cheating to be a twit at that.
To anyone that wants to make this complicated. If you "only see what you say you search" than you stand in one place and search everything you can from the square you're in. If that means 100 checks for the 100 squares in the room than so be it, They'll take 20 100 times if they are worried about traps. If you're wanting to hide rolls then they take 20 to make sure they get a "high roll". All you end up accomplishing is wasting time. So I don't see what benefit it's giving you to make it more complicated.
Wholeheartedly agree here. I've tinkered with this approach in the past and the result is (a) very, very slow going early on, and then (b) the party missing everything after they get tired of searching every single little thing.
We tend to forget sometimes that this is meant to be a social game and not a Golarion dynamic simulation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meant to add that a good crossover or hybrid is to allow the general check to lead to a more specific check. "You believe that there may be something peculiar with one of the bricks on the far wall. Make another perception check ..."'
Of course, this approach really only works if you have players who are at least somewhat roleplaying and willing to let it go if their check is low.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To anyone that wants to make this complicated. If you "only see what you say you search" than you stand in one place and search everything you can from the square you're in. If that means 100 checks for the 100 squares in the room than so be it, They'll take 20 100 times if they are worried about traps. If you're wanting to hide rolls then they take 20 to make sure they get a "high roll". All you end up accomplishing is wasting time. So I don't see what benefit it's giving you to make it more complicated.Wholeheartedly agree here. I've tinkered with this approach in the past and the result is (a) very, very slow going early on, and then (b) the party missing everything after they get tired of searching every single little thing.
We tend to forget sometimes that this is meant to be a social game and not a Golarion dynamic simulation.
Same here - my game runs so much smoother when I tell my players (who have horrible dice) to take 10 or 20.
player: I want to try and open that door
me: (Door has a DC 25 str check to force) ok it's a Str check
player: 18
me: nope
player: stares blankly
me: others can aid you - why don't you take 20.....
players: oh yeah I aid... etc.
me: moving the game along.......
If I needed that door to stay shut - I could make it stay shut. I am not going to hold the game up for a str check.... at least not in an AP style adventure. Old school (when playing Rappan for example) yeah I might - but my 'RA' experiments so far have been with full upfront warnings that I was using old school styles and rules for a different feel of game.
We've had fun with both styles - one is way more deadly and about exploration - the other is fairly tame and about a story. I wouldn't discount either but they are very different in scope and feel.
If you fail to notice a trap and trip the trigger of said trap (while searching for said trap), it goes off.
If you don't trip the trigger, nothing happens (regardless of the character noticing or not noticing the trap).There isn't a trap published that functions that way in Pathfinder. The theoretical trap:
Magic Missile trap:
Trigger: line of sight
Effect: 1 magic missile per round at anything within light of sight
Reset: Automatic
Type: Magical
XP: millions - because it's a strawmanThis trap is at the end of a 60 foot hallway and has a line of sight trigger so that when you enter the hallway 60 feet away from the trap it fires magic missiles at whoever is in the hallway
The rogue can detect the trap *at the end of the hallway* 60 feet away - why? Because the rules say so - the rogue gets to detect prior to the trap being allowed to trigger - always - the detect is perception and can *NOT* set off the trap.
And what can the rogue do if they detect the trap? They can disable it - by the rules always - there way traps work in Pathfinder is that there is no way to build a trap that the rogue can't disable. The rules work like that - pretty much end of it - anything else and you are using a homebrew. While I agree personally that Pathfinder traps suck and aren't worth using except as free XP - what is clear to me the last time this topic was discussed was that overwhelmingly players think a GM is a jerk if they use traps in any other way.