So we're reproducing one of the major flaws of AD&D here -- a player wants to play a bard, but because of the way the GM interprets the Perception rules, that player is de facto forced to play a rogue.
Nobody is forced to play anything. If you want to play a bard, play a bard and either have someone invest in perception and disable device or otherwise compensate.
If you want to find traps without the Trap Spotter talent, just be consistent about announcing you are looking for traps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to find traps without the Trap Spotter talent, just be consistent about announcing you are looking for traps.
Cuz nothing says excitement like rolling a check every 10'.
"Ok, you head down a 200' tunnel. Give me 20 rolls."
vs
"ok, give me a perception check as you go down the tunnel."
I know which one I prefer.
Here's a question, why can't my mundane with +50 perception see magical auras? That's just totally unfair, I shouldn't need detect magic, I should just get to see them because I have +50 to perception.
Or why does 1 auto miss, my fighter with +30 to hit should never miss the 5 AC stunned peasant, this is just totally unrealistic.
And why should anyone get to see magic traps? Why can only rogues disable magic traps? Is that some bad fun rule you want taken away cause rogues suck and we should just divy up their abilities to the true master class casters.
Wizard 4 lif, amirite?
Here's a question, why can't my mundane with +50 perception see magical auras? That's just totally unfair, I shouldn't need detect magic, I should just get to see them because I have +50 to perception.
Or why does 1 auto miss, my fighter with +30 to hit should never miss the 5 AC stunned peasant, this is just totally unrealistic.
If the magic aura is perceptible in some way, then sure you can detect magic. As far as I know that's not the case.
See that why the examples fall apart. You'll always have statistical anomalies, so nothing always hits/misses but notice vs search shouldn't be a 'can't ever notice a trap' unless you search for it. By your example it like that fighter can NEVER hit with a standard action attack but gets to roll with a full attack cuz... reasons. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And why should anyone get to see magic traps?
Anyone CAN find. You just need something to disarm them.
Why can only rogues disable magic traps?
Others CAN. Bards, oracles, sorcerers, alchemists, slayers, investigators, anyone that can take a certain campaign trait, ect.
Is that some bad fun rule you want taken away cause rogues suck and we should just divy up their abilities to the true master class casters.
Wizard 4 lif, amirite?
Rogues lost the exclusive rights to magic traps a LONG time ago to many, many other classes. This issue and that are different things.
And trap spotter can be pifered as well or just use the spell find traps, available to a multitude of classes.
The point is not not to just give away class abilities for free because byou don't like the rules.
And trap spotter can be pifered as well or just use the spell find traps, available to a multitude of classes.
The point is not not to just give away class abilities for free because byou don't like the rules.
AGAIN, who said free? And Trap Spotter benefits the rogue with or without passive perception checks for traps so I don't see the angst on everyone, including the rogue, having a chance to notice traps without a search action. it only makes rogues better, not worse, characters as they get more rolls to find traps...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The argument that keeps coming back is that somebody can't 'notice' a trap because it is hidden. Yet somebody must physically trigger the trap, which usually requires them to have touched something or to have come within range of some other sensor.
Excepting magic traps, that trigger must be perceivable. It cannot be hidden from view because there cannot be a barrier between it and the thing that touches it. If there were a barrier physically preventing it from being noticed then it couldn't be touched (or in the case of the sensor identify that there is an intruder). Similarly if there is a bypass mechanism, that bypass must be perceivable for the same reasons.
This holds true for poison needle traps, gas traps and the like that are hidden in doors, chests etc. It may be incredibly difficult to notice, especially when you are not looking for it but it cannot be impossible. In game terms that means it should have a higher DC than searching for the same object.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to find traps without the Trap Spotter talent, just be consistent about announcing you are looking for traps.Cuz nothing says excitement like rolling a check every 10'.
"Ok, you head down a 200' tunnel. Give me 20 rolls."
vs
"ok, give me a perception check as you go down the tunnel."
I know which one I prefer.
If your group chooses to play it in this manner, so be it.
I, and several other people, have already put forth the common solution. Move at half speed while checking for traps. Doors, rooms, chests, etc. must be explicitly checked for traps.
And why should anyone get to see magic traps? Why can only rogues disable magic traps? Is that some bad fun rule you want taken away cause rogues suck and we should just divy up their abilities to the true master class casters.
Wizard 4 lif, amirite?
Anybody can detect magical traps.
While only characters with the trapfinder ability can disable traps, there are frequently other solutions. Including simply avoiding the trap.
If your group chooses to play it in this manner, so be it.I, and several other people, have already put forth the common solution. Move at half speed while checking for traps.
That isn't any different than saying you get a passive check as long as you aren't rushed [double move]. As such, I'd agree with it, passive = fine to use. It can't be searching for traps, however, as that is a dirt slow 10'/rd. And even at 30'/check that's a lot more checks having to be made than just having a passive check.
Doors, rooms, chests, etc. must be explicitly checked for traps.
This doesn't make any sense when taken together with the first sentence. You can check 30'x10' of floor but only 1 door, chest, ect? And why would the have to be check separate? A magic trap on the door is harder to find on the outside of a door than it is on the floor?
OTOH, it would make sense that a search would be more likely to spot the trap than the same PC just casually walking through.
That's not really represented in the system either though.
Oh, I agree and I'd be fine with that. I just find it makes no sense that a passive check in incapable of finding a trap no matter how easy it is to find. You could use the condition modifiers [Favorable conditions –2, Unfavorable conditions +2, Terrible conditions +5] to the DC. Terrible for passive, unfavorable for quick search and favorable for taking extra time. That way you're clearly better off searching but still able to notice things without the search.
Anyone with disable device cab disable a mechanical trap. Only those with the special class ability can disable magical traps.
Proximity sensor traps can be triggered by opening a door, I'm sure people can fluff that however they want but there's no readibly sensible way someone would notice this without x-ray vision.
Mechanical traps could also be timed and occur far away from the PCs, again it's not clearly easy to explain how someone could easily notice this occurring.
People just seem upset because they don't want to look for traps, they just want to be handed traps when they have a high perception, and they will go through extreme rules contortions to explain away rogue class features cause who cares about rogues, they suck anyway and so their class features can shove it.
Anyone with disable device cab disable a mechanical trap. Only those with the special class ability can disable magical traps.
And? Disabling the trap has nothing to do with finding the trap. A thief with a -1000 perception can have someone else point out a trap so he could disarm it. two different skills.
Proximity sensor traps can be triggered by opening a door, I'm sure people can fluff that however they want but there's no readibly sensible way someone would notice this without x-ray vision.
If they can't be sensed with a passive check, how do you find it with a search?
Mechanical traps could also be timed and occur far away from the PCs, again it's not clearly easy to explain how someone could easily notice this occurring.
How does this change between passive noticing and searching?
People just seem upset because they don't want to look for traps, they just want to be handed traps when they have a high perception, and they will go through extreme rules contortions to explain away rogue class features cause who cares about rogues, they suck anyway and so their class features can shove it.
No, they just don't understand how traps are IMPOSSIBLE to find without an extensive search, even when they have an automatic success on perception.
On rogues, all their abilities have already been given away and passive checks only make the lowly rogue better. There is no stealing of rogue abilities or anything close. Taking away passive trap finding does doesn't take anything away except extra work/rolls that are really unneeded IMO. And remember, if it's not a 10' search/round then it's houseruling searching; if you're allowing 30' searches, it's functionally the same as passive noticing...
|
Proximity sensor traps can be triggered by opening a door, I'm sure people can fluff that however they want but there's no readibly sensible way someone would notice this without x-ray vision.
People seem hung up on the idea that sometimes you need to be intentionally looking for something in order to recognize it. It may be the easiest thing in the world to notice the signs of a trap, but characters aren't always moving cautiously, alert for traps.
People seem hung up on the idea that sometimes you need to be intentionally looking for something in order to recognize it.
Yep that's exactly what I'm hung up on.
It may be the easiest thing in the world to notice the signs of a trap, but characters aren't always moving cautiously, alert for traps
Not easy doesn't equal impossible, which is the issue. Not "moving cautiously, alert for traps" doesn't blind you or make you totally incapable of finding the easiest to find traps. It'd be one thing if finding traps was harder if you weren't searching 10'/round but it's the automatic failure of checks that's boggles the mind. Traps shouldn't have an automatic hide check vs passive perception checks.
People seem hung up on the idea that sometimes you need to be intentionally looking for something in order to recognize it. It may be the easiest thing in the world to notice the signs of a trap, but characters aren't always moving cautiously, alert for traps.
And that's a good argument for it being harder to notice traps if you're not searching for them or moving cautiously. I'm skeptical of it being a good argument for it being impossible to do though.
People just seem upset because they don't want to look for traps, they just want to be handed traps when they have a high perception, and they will go through extreme rules contortions to explain away rogue class features cause who cares about rogues, they suck anyway and so their class features can shove it.
I feel like it says a lot about a class (or at least your perception of it) though if you need a special game mechanic specifically to validate their existence.
No other class in the game has anything like it. Why do you think rogues need it to function?
But... that kind of has nothing to do with this thread anyways so I'm not sure why you keep going on about it.
I have a thought experiment to show why this doesn't make sense.
#1 take wire, put on ground and cover with leaves.
#2 a Player can roll to find the wire with passive check.
#3 now attach wire to trap.
#4 does the wire now vanish from the PC's passive senses and if so, why?
#1 take a mechanical trap
#2 anyone can disable this trap.
#3 sprinkle magic fairy dust on trap
#4 now only those with a special class ability can disable the trap. Why?
Because that's the rules, change them if you don't like them, but extreme contortions of logic only derail the thread.
Illusions are another example where a player must deliberately interact with them tl receive a save, they don't just get a passive auto check to succeed versus them.
If you want to find traps without the Trap Spotter talent, just be consistent about announcing you are looking for traps.Cuz nothing says excitement like rolling a check every 10'.
"Ok, you head down a 200' tunnel. Give me 20 rolls."
vs
"ok, give me a perception check as you go down the tunnel."
I know which one I prefer.
Or, since there is no obvious danger, take 10, and move down the tunnel at half speed (or whatever speed you can maintain) while actively searching, no tedious rolling, and you get down the tunnel in what amounts to a hand-wave if there are no traps.
If you want to specifically call out something, roll the dice when you get there.
The only thing you lost is time.
Or, since there is no obvious danger, take 10, and move down the tunnel at half speed -- actively searching, no tedious rolling, and you get down the tunnel in what amounts to a hand-wave if there are no traps.
The only thing you lost is time.
Then what's the functional difference between that and allowing a passive check? None that I can see. And to be clear, you couldn't actively search at 30'/round wouthout houserules.
#1 take a mechanical trap
#2 anyone can disable this trap.
#3 sprinkle magic fairy dust on trap
#4 now only those with a special class ability can disable the trap. Why?Because that's the rules, change them if you don't like them, but extreme contortions of logic only derail the thread.
Illusions are another example where a player must deliberately interact with them tl receive a save, they don't just get a passive auto check to succeed versus them.
#1=#4 : Who cares? We aren't talking about disable traps. If you are so worried about that skill I suggest starting a new thread.
Because rules: If we are going that route then there isn't one that says you are required to search for a trap. "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". This allows for reactive checks not based on "observable stimulus" and "Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action". Nothing states trap finding = move action search [in the current skill perception].
Illusions: They create false sensation which traps do not so it's not analogous.
|
|
Or, since there is no obvious danger, take 10, and move down the tunnel at half speed -- actively searching, no tedious rolling, and you get down the tunnel in what amounts to a hand-wave if there are no traps.
The only thing you lost is time.
Then what's the functional difference between that and allowing a passive check? None that I can see.
You've got a massive log in your eye, then.
Characters can choose to move full speed and preserve buff duration or take more time to move cautiously. This is a game of choices and luck, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then what's the functional difference between that and allowing a passive check? None that I can see. And to be clear, you couldn't actively search at 30'/round wouthout houserules.
Actions economy and time. Action economy being the greatest impact.
Passive perception takes no action, active perception (aka Searching) requires move actions. If you are looking for traps, and do it twice in a round, your ability to respond to dangers other than traps is extremely limited.
Action economy is where the Trap Spotter talent provides it's greatest benefit. Unfortunately, it is often hand-waved by DMs that don't use traps effectively for the bad guys.
As with time, buffs on a round per level expire mightily quickly while searching for traps on that 200' corridor. That's roughly 20th level caster buffs gone, right there.
You have to make a choice -- suffer the traps and keep your buffs, or find/disable the traps and have your buffs run out at an extremely inconvenient time during that boss fight.
Choices, choices.
I have a thought experiment to show why this doesn't make sense.
#1 take wire, put on ground and cover with leaves.
#2 a Player can roll to find the wire with passive check.
#3 now attach wire to trap.
#4 does the wire now vanish from the PC's passive senses and if so, why?
Traps are not the only thing requiring active perception checks to find.
Hidden clues, specific information in a room full of books, secret doors, etc., all require active perception checks.
Generally anything that has been deliberately concealed should also fall in this category, including the above wire, attached to a trap or not.
Going back to the original question
Is it correct that the rules for searching for a trap, hidden door and similar things require a move action, and limit you to checking a 10 foot area?
After reading this thread, rules linked to in this thread, and other rules material, it seems pretty clear to me that the answer to this question is YES.
I can see why some people might not like this answer and might want the rule changed, but I really don't see how the rules, in their current form, can be read any other way. I should note that this has been a useful discussion which has allowed me to be very clear to myself on how to handle this sort of thing while GMing, so thanks to all involved.
Going back to the original question
Is it correct that the rules for searching for a trap, hidden door and similar things require a move action, and limit you to checking a 10 foot area?
After reading this thread, rules linked to in this thread, and other rules material, it seems pretty clear to me that the answer to this question is YES.
I can see why some people might not like this answer and might want the rule changed, but I really don't see how the rules, in their current form, can be read any other way. I should note that this has been a useful discussion which has allowed me to be very clear to myself on how to handle this sort of thing while GMing, so thanks to all involved.
The counterpoint is, you don't move down empty hallways or travel while tracking time in rounds.
Once you leave combat, the concept of move actions becomes moot as the mechanic is no longer in use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dig a hole in order to build a well... Anyone can see it without effort...
Dig the exactly same hole in the exactly same location under the exactly same conditions, but with the intention of using it as a pit trap... And suddenly no one can see it unless they're specifically looking for it! Don't even need to cover it up with leaves or anything!
What a great rule... Makes complete sense, is very intuitive and creates the super-fun necessity of saying "I look for traps!" every 10 seconds.
Genius!
Dig the exactly same hole in the exactly same location under the exactly same conditions, but with the intention of using it as a pit trap... And suddenly no one can see it unless they're specifically looking for it! Don't even need to cover it up with leaves or anything!
I don't think this is necessarily correct. If you look at the section on pit traps here, you can see that only covered pit traps require a perception check. An uncovered pit "trap" is really more of an obstacle or hazard (to borrow a term used above), and I don't see anything to indicate that it can't be "noticed" in an automatic and reactive manner.
Dig a hole in order to build a well... Anyone can see it without effort...
Dig the exactly same hole in the exactly same location under the exactly same conditions, but with the intention of using it as a pit trap... And suddenly no one can see it unless they're specifically looking for it! Don't even need to cover it up with leaves or anything!
What a great rule... Makes complete sense and creates the super-fun necessity of saying "I look for traps!" every 10 seconds.
And just think of those times when you have a huge area to search and have a real world time limit like PFS. Well we know the BBEG is at the end of the 200' Hall do we want to check every 10' or chance it since we only have 30 mins left.
Going back to the original question
Is it correct that the rules for searching for a trap, hidden door and similar things require a move action, and limit you to checking a 10 foot area?
After reading this thread, rules linked to in this thread, and other rules material, it seems pretty clear to me that the answer to this question is YES.
I can see why some people might not like this answer and might want the rule changed, but I really don't see how the rules, in their current form, can be read any other way. I should note that this has been a useful discussion which has allowed me to be very clear to myself on how to handle this sort of thing while GMing, so thanks to all involved.
The counterpoint is, you don't move down empty hallways or travel while tracking time in rounds.
Once you leave combat, the concept of move actions becomes moot as the mechanic is no longer in use.
That is not really true. Time still passes normally. Most GM's just don't track it down to the move action. They just count rounds or minutes if buffs are up, and if not they just tend to look at whether or not you called for a check. They will also count it if the PC's are on a timer until ____ happens for Team Evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And just think of those times when you have a huge area to search and have a real world time limit like PFS. Well we know the BBEG is at the end of the 200' Hall do we want to check every 10' or chance it since we only have 30 mins left.Dig a hole in order to build a well... Anyone can see it without effort...
Dig the exactly same hole in the exactly same location under the exactly same conditions, but with the intention of using it as a pit trap... And suddenly no one can see it unless they're specifically looking for it! Don't even need to cover it up with leaves or anything!
What a great rule... Makes complete sense and creates the super-fun necessity of saying "I look for traps!" every 10 seconds.
Well, in fairness, it really doesn't take much real time. Tell the GM you're searching and he'll tell you how long it took. Easiest if you take 10.
Otherwise, just roll for the actual traps, just like you would if it was a passive check. Or, if you're concerned about metagaming bases on bad rolls, preroll a bunch of checks.
I agree but keep in mind we have seen enough issues with allowing vs disallowing T10 that you can't count on it to have you covered.
|
|
And just think of those times when you have a huge area to search and have a real world time limit like PFS. Well we know the BBEG is at the end of the 200' Hall do we want to check every 10' or chance it since we only have 30 mins left.Dig a hole in order to build a well... Anyone can see it without effort...
Dig the exactly same hole in the exactly same location under the exactly same conditions, but with the intention of using it as a pit trap... And suddenly no one can see it unless they're specifically looking for it! Don't even need to cover it up with leaves or anything!
What a great rule... Makes complete sense and creates the super-fun necessity of saying "I look for traps!" every 10 seconds.
You don't need to physically roll for every 10ft. GMs are allowed to be smart.
|
There have been plenty of arguments based on logic to determine the answer to the original question, but given the rules as written, as well as the clear RAI, I feel it's pretty clear that you need to explicitly be checking for traps to attempt to spot them in the current rule set. This is as simple as stating that you are checking for traps, and taking 10 on the perception check. Doesn't slow the game down at all, but it does slow you in-game, making there be an actual opportunity cost; do you give the enemies further in the dungeon more time to prepare, let buffs run out, and so on, or push on without checking for traps. Keep in mind that if you're taking two move actions in a round, you're moving as fast as you do in combat to run to save a friend, or something similarly dramatic. It makes perfect sense to me that if you're rushing that quickly through a dungeon, you'd miss the finer details of something like a trap - they're traveling at over 3m a second, which seems very fast.
Either way, whether or not it's what you consider logical, the current rules imply:
1: You don't automatically get a Perception Check for a trap
2: Rogues (and people with access to rogue talents, such as Archaeologist Bards, Slayers, Sanctified Slayer Inquisitors, Nature Fang Druids and so on) have access to the Trap Spotter talent, that allows them to move at full pace and still automatically get a check for a trap.
3: If you want to check for traps, you need to take a move action to search a 10 by 10 ft area. This slows you down significantly (from a typical 60ft/round to 10ft/round); this is the part I like the least. This doesn't require you to roll each time - simply taking 10 is the most reasonable course of action, meaning that in-character it takes 6 times longer, but out of character it takes maybe 20 seconds longer.
|
|
And trap spotter can be pifered as well or just use the spell find traps, available to a multitude of classes.
The point is not not to just give away class abilities for free because byou don't like the rules.
sorry, I had to respond to this...
the spell find traps is only available on the Cleric/oracle, witch, inquisitor and occultist lists. Not (IMHO) what many people would call a multitude of lists... (there are at least 25 different spell casting classes).
|
|
... "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus." So most checks are passive and in response to "observable stimulus". ...
I'm sorry, but these two statements are connected ... how?
The first one (which is a rules quote) says "Most Perception checks are reactive...". Then it is "explained" with the statement, "So most checks are passive...". What?
The rule (IMHO) seems to say that most Perception checks are in response to observable stimulus. Something happens - an "observable stimulus", and the observer gets a Perception check... Right?
It would seem to me that if most Perception checks are reactive, and reactive is the opposite of passive, then (IMHO) most Perception checks are NOT passive. Or am I missing something here?
|
|
Passive and reactive are synonymous. A character passively reacts to stimuli as opposed to actively searching for hidden stimuli.
Synonymous = "(of a word or phrase) having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language."
Reactive = "showing a response to a stimulus."
Passive = "accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance."
ah... sorry, I'm not seeing it.
Passive is the opposite of reactive. (IMHO)
But I guess this is an indicator of why there is so much disagreement in this thread. It appears that we are not all speaking the same language...
The tie-in there is the fact that both are used as a free action without the player calling for a check.
