| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the players expect that they should be able to see through rugs, walls, lids, and what have you, you may want to manage their expectations better. That they have some indication that a situation may have hidden dangers is a task for the GM.
Several people have offered their opinions that the rules can enhance the gameplay experience (mostly me, admittedly). The old "rocks fall, you die" is a failure of writing, not game design.
It's not so much a desire to see through things: its perception having a chance to notice something slightly off.
Whether that's an un-evenness of stonework, slight bulge behind a curtain, something incongruous with the surroundings, etc.
A trap being truly impeccably hidden should just have a high DC to notice it, this allows for gradations of how well it is hidden.
Searching for traps without any hint of a trap is pretty much the definition of metagaming (the PCs don't know they're playing pathfinder), and having it as a requirement in a system makes that system feel archaic and in need of a revamp.
While I'm always on the lookout for ways to improve my GMing (in this case, being able to set a scene more vividly, area-by-area, regardless of whether a trap is there) I feel that the rules should facilitate running the game 'fairly' (again, using my definition of 'fairly': players retaining at least some form of agency) without any specific/extracurricular effort on behalf of the GM.
I feel that "it's up to the GM to make it work adequately" represents a flaw inherent in the system.
Having the primary instigating factor (finding or not finding the trap before it goes off) require GM fiat/GM gusto/GM Pizzazz to have it function 'fairly' makes the system a little bit undercooked.
Expectation that a GM describes an area skilfully and with just the right level of detail without signposting the trap too obviously, is putting a bit too much of the weight on the GMs shoulders, particularly when you have to mask that task by performing it in every other trap-less area, so that your additional descriptive efforts do not look out of place.
The old "rocks fall, you die" is a failure of writing, not game design.
Er - two things:
1. Some people like that kind of gameplay experience - there is a non-trivial resurgence in 1st edition rule remakes currently.
2. If you did play 1st ed. you may have forgotten just how lethal traps were - poisoned needle was save or *die*. You'd run into that kind of trap at level 1. That was the game design.
People still had fun - but it did make for lots of 'use the dagger to poke at the thing and see if it explodes' moments. 3rd edition changed traps dramatically - Honestly I think they are too watered down these days, it would be nice to have a happy medium.
I doubt anyone wants a system where traps are trivial as a baseline: but the main reason for the revamps to traps/death in subsequent systems was the perception that traps that kill you with no warning and no escape were off-putting to more people than enjoyed them.
I actually kind of appreciate the idea of a hard-core campaign, one where if you don't metagame + optimize the crap out of it, you'll get wrecked repeatedly (Rappan Athuk and ones like that).
However, I disagree that such hardcore punishment should be a baseline in pathfinder: such campaigns need to be entered into willingly by consenting adults, because we all know what's likely to happen :P
There can be a place for it: but "Rocks Fall You Die" should not be a core system design in any area of the game: as it's particularly off-putting to new players.
By completely eschewing the ability to see them without searching in any situation, you are presented with a metagaming decision:
I actually don't consider any of those choices to be ideal. I'd like the rules, as written to not require an actively declared search, but to also cater to the idea of an active search.
- slow down from default in-game speed, and also potentially slow down sessions (depending on the table) in general as you repeatedly declare search.
- Establish that "we're always searching" which fixes the problem, but runs into the same issue inside combat.
- Houserule to make everything reactive, and throw out the idea of actively searching.
I suggested earlier the houserule that you can still find traps when not actively searching, you just get a -5 penalty to your Perception check if you don't have trap spotting abilities. Would that satisfy your requirements?
I suggested earlier the houserule that you can still find traps when not actively searching, you just get a -5 penalty to your Perception check if you don't have trap spotting abilities. Would that satisfy your requirements?By completely eschewing the ability to see them without searching in any situation, you are presented with a metagaming decision:
I actually don't consider any of those choices to be ideal. I'd like the rules, as written to not require an actively declared search, but to also cater to the idea of an active search.
- slow down from default in-game speed, and also potentially slow down sessions (depending on the table) in general as you repeatedly declare search.
- Establish that "we're always searching" which fixes the problem, but runs into the same issue inside combat.
- Houserule to make everything reactive, and throw out the idea of actively searching.
So basically all checks are reactive, but if you declare an active search before trap goes off, you get +5 on a roll that's already been made reactively, possibly modifying the result?
That's just me writing your idea back-to-front, to illustrate the play-order, in my head.
Yes, I would consider that an improvement on the base system, with one caveat:
Number Crunch wise, it's better: you let the players control their desire for a higher check by choosing the number (in the case you give, +5) and they can pump their score higher to compensate. The +5 might need to be a different number scaling-wise, but i think it's a solid basis.
Streamlined Play wise, it's better: you get to have reactive checks inherent to the system, so no need to bog down play, unless there's a chest/suspicious area. It also still functions in combat, so that's a plus.
The caveat is, simulationism-wise, I could still see some people wanting "spot a hint" to be easier than "search out the whole thing", not harder, DC vs DC.
However achieving that without throwing the active search thing out entirely might be a bit difficult.
So, Yes: I consider your suggestion a good houserule.
However, most of my arguments are from a RAW perspective, particularly with a mind for new players trying to learn the rules, or new GMs trying to run sessions correctly, without wanting to repair rules that function in an unintuitive fashion.
I already run with traps being reactive, as a houserule - though I could probably swap to your houserule readily enough since it's very similar in practice.
Honestly the FAQ lets me basically run it RAW 99% of the time, but i'll need to houserule combat reactive checks if they ever come up.
So basically all checks are reactive, but if you declare an active search before trap goes off, you get +5 on a roll that's already been made reactively, possibly modifying the result?
Wouldn't that require you to increase all trap DCs by 5?
Here's how I'd run it:
Let's say there's a corridor with a door at the end. There's a trap triggered by opening the door.
Option 1:
The players say, "We're moving through this dungeon slowly and checking for traps."
When they try to open the trapped door, I tell them to roll perception. If they pass, I tell them they see the trap just before they trigger it. If they fail, the trap is triggered.
Option 2:
They walk down the corridor at full speed, not checking for traps. The same thing would happen, but with a -5 penalty.
Option 3:
The players walk along the corridor at normal speed. When they get to the door, they decide to check it for traps. At that point I ask if they're going to take 20. If not, they roll for the door - or I might make the roll in secret so they don't know how well they did. If they fail to meet the DC, they don't find a trap. If they open it, the trap is triggered.
As hilarious as I'd find a system where too much intelligence makes you start to develop social/mental "disorders" as you begin to deviate too far from the "human" standards... hmmm...
Would probably be difficult to do while maintaining sensitivity to real-word sufferers of such things though :P
Sounds like your typical Call of Cthulhu game :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh? Nobody says a high perception gives you X-ray vision, but you are ignoring the fact that a high perception affects all of your senses, not just sight, not just hearing.
Again, try to rationalize how a person can hear a whispered conversation through several closed doors, and over a hundred feet away with any real world experience. You can't. Because perception modifiers that allow you to do that surpass human ability just as much as casting a fireball. Therefore, trying to restrict other senses along a similar 'well, that wouldn't make sense for a normal human' ignores what it means to have a high perception. It is quite literally super-human.
Maybe they smell the faint odor of poison, maybe they notice a slight discoloration around a lock where the poison fumes slightly corroded the metal. Coming up with an in game reason to justify high perception mechanics is nearly impossible because we just don't have an adequate reference point, and more importantly, many of us falsely believe that we do.
I think you may have hit the crux of the argument in the bold area whether people realize it or not. No magic is in play. It's a Ramvord* situation. There is no magic involved so people limit it to what they believe reality should allow regardless of the lack of those same defining constructs on the Player characters as on a normal Joe.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, I disagree that such hardcore punishment should be a baseline in pathfinder: such campaigns need to be entered into willingly by consenting adults, because we all know what's likely to happen :P
There can be a place for it: but "Rocks Fall You Die" should not be a core system design in any area of the game: as it's particularly off-putting to new players.
Not to derail but that isn't what I said.
Honestly I think they are too watered down these days, it would be nice to have a happy medium.
(emphasis mine on both accounts)
I believe we are in agreement in principle - I just happen to think the current status is to far into the players favor - I think the damage/effects are usually just fine for the CR of the trap - however the fact that a level 8 character already has enough perception and disable to deal with CR 20 traps is the issue.
I think the system as it exists now is kind of broken in favor of the players - and as much as I don't like 'rocks fall and you die' I don't like 'oh an ancient pyramid full of traps (trope right?) - no it's not dangerous it's just a BAG OF FREE XP BECAUSE YOU CAN'T FAIL A SINGLE TRAP ROLL'
That second one is kind of stupid also - just leave the traps out of it and give the players the 30k xp and move on - wastes less time.
Is this something people are fretting over for PFS? It's not an issue otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a PFS GM, I want to make a Fair and Fun experience.
There are a few archer behind a pit trap encounters in PFS. If it was a home game I know how I would make things Fun, but that only works with a session 0 and some shared expectations from the start. It is not Fair to a level 7 character to find out that their expectations regarding traps differ from mine as they are falling into the leech swarm pit.
That's why I'm invested in this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to the "overskilled" subject, I've felt it, in both Perception an Knowledge.
Perception example: I am extremely sensitive to smells. I've barely been able to pay attention in class because the person beside me is using strongly scented deodorant.
Knowledge example: At one point, I was in a trivia competition with my school's Classics Club. The question pertained to the gladius, so I buzzed in and provided lots of information, including some interesting etymology. The other team got that question by stating that it was a short sword used for stabbing, which I had neglected to mention because I had assumed that, as a shortsword's primary function, it was self-explanatory.
But the skill system doesn't represent that type of situation at it's baseline. When I'm looking at field with things hiding in it a +50 is better than a +5 even if the barbarian next to me has horrible B.O. And when looking at a monster I'm not going to forget that trolls are weak to fire and acid simply because I have more ranks in the skill than less.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to the "overskilled" subject, I've felt it, in both Perception an Knowledge.
Perception example: I am extremely sensitive to smells. I've barely been able to pay attention in class because the person beside me is using strongly scented deodorant.
Except that's not what overskilled means.
There is no penalty in PF for knowing more about a subject than required. (There are games, most notably Teenagers from Outer Space, where that is the case, but PF isn't one of them.) And part of "skill" is not merely raw knowledge/ability/sensitivity, but also the ability to use said things judiciously to get a better outcome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to the "overskilled" subject, I've felt it, in both Perception an Knowledge.
Doesn't work that way in PF. You get a reactive check to notice an invisible ant crossing the road 100' away from you but not the 10' open pit 5' away from you...
We've clearly moved outside the normal understanding of how things work in the real world.
|
Going back to the "overskilled" subject, I've felt it, in both Perception an Knowledge.Doesn't work that way in PF. You get a reactive check to notice an invisible ant crossing the road 100' away from you but not the 10' open pit 5' away from you...
We've clearly moved outside the normal understanding of how things work in the real world.
an open pit is a hazard, not a trap. (unless there is something like a silent image cast over it?)
an open pit is a hazard, not a trap. (unless there is something like a silent image cast over it?)Going back to the "overskilled" subject, I've felt it, in both Perception an Knowledge.Doesn't work that way in PF. You get a reactive check to notice an invisible ant crossing the road 100' away from you but not the 10' open pit 5' away from you...
We've clearly moved outside the normal understanding of how things work in the real world.
Or unless the adventure calls it a trap, which someone has already referenced.
But, if you like, you don't get a reactive check to notice a wire stretched across your path.
Not even a tripwire with Daylight and Ghost Sound cast on it.
an open pit is a hazard, not a trap. (unless there is something like a silent image cast over it?)Going back to the "overskilled" subject, I've felt it, in both Perception an Knowledge.Doesn't work that way in PF. You get a reactive check to notice an invisible ant crossing the road 100' away from you but not the 10' open pit 5' away from you...
We've clearly moved outside the normal understanding of how things work in the real world.
There is NO upper or lower limits to trap DC's. A 0 DC trap is as valid as a 100 DC trap. All that needs for it to be invisible to reactive checks is to be CALLED a trap.
For instance a rangers traps have a DC = 10 + 1/2 the character's level + the character's Wisdom bonus. So a 5th level ranger with a wisdom of 5 places an (EX) trap 5' in front of you. The trap has a DC of 7 and can be a PIT or TRIP WIRE using ONLY "piece of cloth, a small amount of metal (such as a dagger, iron spike, or a few nails), a foot of rope or vine, and so on."
So a DC 7 1' of rope is impossible to notice without a search as long as you call it a trap. [same with a hole] Now I will grant that the DC 9 pit is noted as covered by leaves but no such materials are noted as hiding the rope/vine of the trip wire.
Also note that DC's of 15 or lower are even listed on the CR chart as -1 CR, so they must exist.In fact here is one: Swinging log: DC 12 heroes of the wild [noted as being a wilderness trap].
Swinging log: DC 12 heroes of the wild [noted as being a wilderness trap].
Heh... Use a swinging log to hit a bell, and you can see it just fine... Remove the bell and add a tripwire to the very same log, and now it's completely undetectable!
Place a giant pink-colored bear trap on a beige room, and no unsuspecting person can see it. At all. Ever. Even if they have a Perception bonus of +INFINITY...
...Unless they're specifically looking for traps.
Isn't that a fun and intuitive rule?
The main issue of this discussion is that the rules, when interpreted one way or the other, do not cater to two major desires for the system to accomplish.
- If you make something non-reactive, you take out player agency.
- If you make something reactive, you take out player choice/player experience-reward.
Both of these have realism-based stances that can be taken, to back up their relevance.
I think the FAQ does an adequate job of straddling those two issues, without really solving them.
I guess the question I'd like to raise is:
Do you think that it would be possible to bridge the gap between reactive/non-reactive much further than the latest FAQ does, without some in-depth errata-ing overhauling the system with traps?
That is, without picking one issue and shafting the other, entirely.
Personally, I think the answer is no.
As a result, the take-away action to me, is either
"work with it, run RAW or use simple house rules"
or
"nag Paizo for a re-write or trap-themed supplement that presents a more in-depth solution".
I'd personally love a trap-themed supplement, both because I think the rules could definitely use it, and I think that traps continue to be a skewed (under/over utilized) GM resource in pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swinging log: DC 12 heroes of the wild [noted as being a wilderness trap].Heh... Use a swinging log to hit a bell, and you can see it just fine... Remove the bell and add a tripwire to the very same log, and now it's completely undetectable!
Place a giant pink-colored bear trap on a beige room, and no unsuspecting person can see it. At all. Ever. Even if they have a Perception bonus of +INFINITY...
...Unless they're specifically looking for traps.
Isn't that a fun and intuitive rule?
Just remember, you automatically get a roll to see that pink flea crawling across that pick trap though. Cover them both in a few leaves and nothing changes, auto roll for flea, none for 'trap'. Put that flea behind a wall and still auto roll, even if you're asleep, it's invisible, in a storm and during a battle.
Just make sure you write 'trap' on the outside of the bear trap so it still counts! We wouldn't want someone to think a bear trap isn't a trap. ;)
Oh, and to add to my last post, a normal bear trap is a DC 15 trap...
Secondly, under traps: pits "Pits: These are holes (covered or not) that characters can fall into, causing them to take damage." SO uncovered holes ARE traps.
"Uncovered pits and natural chasms serve mainly to discourage intruders from going a certain way, although they cause much grief to characters who stumble into them in the dark, and they can greatly complicate nearby melee." How do they "discourage intruders from going a certain way" if they are invisible? Why would it need to be dark?
Obbu: Blog post or supplement. Anything smaller is going to be the same old, same old. I'd buy a trapmaster book with some good reworked trap crunch.
Now all of this got me thinking about creatures that are traps, but are not traps.
Like Demilich. Does Demilich detect as a creature automatically?
I mean it is natural here GMs wing it and make it part of the scenery, but by the rules, would it be detected as an unknown creature? It is after all a visible creature by perception rules.
Do you think that it would be possible to bridge the gap between reactive/non-reactive much further than the latest FAQ does, without some in-depth errata-ing overhauling the system with traps?
Yes. Quite easily.
Reactive Perception checks affects only that which is immediately perceivable, and of course, are still affected by distance and size modifiers... As well as any other conditional modifiers.
Active Perception checks is more about searching. Finding out what's behind the door, inside the drawer or under the rug.
If there is... Say, a trigger behind the door, that activates a trap when the door touches it after being opened... Sitting in the middle of the room (with the door open, and therefore covering the trigger) wouldn't give you a Reactive check, because it has full concealment (although something else my tip you off that there's something behind the open door), but an Active check, which includes actively searching the area will include looking what's behind the door, not just noticing what's immediately visible/audible.
Now, it you want to add even more differentiation to it... Just make a rule that Reactive Perception checks suffer a penalty... Or that Active ones gain a bonus.
e.g.: One could say the every character is constantly taking 10 in Perception (and maybe Sense Motive and Knowledge skills), but they suffer a -5 (or whatever penalty you find adequate) if they just doing it "passively"... Hell! Even give it an bigger penalty if they are moving in a rush, like running through a corridor or something.
This way it rewards player decision-making, feels intuitive (you are more likely to find something if you're actively looking for it than if you're just walking past it) and doesn't create a completely nonsensical binary state of something becoming completely undetectable simply because it's called a trap.
- - -
The examples used in this thread are mostly hyperbole, of course, but they all follow RAW, and apparently, RAI as well.
Making traps undetectable doesn't encourage decision making... It encourages paranoia. You're taking way the
There are numerous cases where a trap that should be obvious, or at least reasonably visible, is made absolutely undetectable by the rules. We'll have new players getting angry and asking "Why didn't I even get a chance to notice the thousands of dart-shooting holes in the walls?" only for the inexperienced GM to say "Well, it's a trap. You were not looking for traps."... And now we have new players thinking "this is bullshit! This game sucks!"
As it is, literally any moron can make the worst, most obvious trap in the world... And still catch a 20th level Ranger by surprise simply because he wasn't explicitly looking for traps in his toilet.
If it's obvious then it's not a trap.
If it's obvious it's not a trap.
Of course it is. Just not a good one.
A trap is a device designed to catch/harm prey.
Just because the creator of the trap made a poor job of concealing it, doesn't mean it's not a trap. Specially considering what's a "obvious" would greatly vary from individual to individual, and there's no rules definition for what counts as "obvious".
I have to say this thread would be a lot easier to get useful information from if there wasn't so much sarky bitter/sillyness about how if it's got "Trap" written on it suddenly I can't find it but if it's not got "trap" written on it I can see the invisible Wendigo sneaking through a howling Blizzard.
The 1st time it was vaguely amusing, but it rapidly becomes boring clutter.
I totally agree. Also, what Stephen Ede said.
I have to say this thread would be a lot easier to get useful information from if there wasn't so much sarky bitter/sillyness about how if it's got "Trap" written on it suddenly I can't find it but if it's not got "trap" written on it I can see the invisible Wendigo sneaking through a howling Blizzard.
The 1st time it was vaguely amusing, but it rapidly becomes boring clutter.
a bear trap in sitting in the middle of the floor IS a trap and it's even got a DC 15. Nothing is mentioned about it being HIDDEN. An Uncovered pit is a trap and it's be definition NOT HIDDEN!!! The FAQ literally made it so intending something as a trap makes in invisible to non-searching perception checks no matter how low the checks and this is a stark difference to how calling something a creature means the exact opposite happens: No matter how high the check you can always roll without having to search.
If it's obvious it's not a trap.
No, how obvious something is a function of it's DC and there is no upper/lower limit to them. it's all on how it's labeled. Call a hole a hazard and you can see it without searching but call the same hole a trap and it vanishes.
That big crossbow in the middle of the room with a button saying "push me" and a sign saying "Trap" does not need a active perception to see it because it's not a Trap. Putting a sign on something doesn't make it a trap. And that is what all these posts are doing to claim the rules are broken.
No, you've made a crappy trap since that 'push me sign' can't be seen without searching for it. It's a trap if the person that put it there wants it to be a trap: IE calling it a trap.
If you had hidden pressure plates that would trigger the Crossbow then that would be a trap.
And no they wouldn't see the Pressure plates unless they actually search for them or have Trapspotter (Sherlock Holmes has Trapspotter). So if they look at the Crossbow , laugh and walk around it they get what they deserve.
An uncovered pit is a trap so NO, and I repeat NO, hiding of the trap/trigger is required At ALL. A rope between two trees isn't covered.
If those dart launchers are cleverly disguised to look like part of the carvings they are a trap and can't be detected without a search.
If they are obvious they aren't a trap and therefore you can spot them without making a search.
Nope, both are traps but one has a lower check and BOTH are invisible to non-searching perception checks.
"As it is, literally any moron can make the worst, most obvious trap in the world... And still catch a 20th level Ranger by surprise simply because he wasn't explicitly looking for traps in his toilet."
Good, it seem you completely understand the FAQ and it's implications. +1000 perception can't see a glow in the dark trip wire in a dark room unless they take an action to find it.
I have to say this thread would be a lot easier to get useful information from if there wasn't so much sarky bitter/silliness
So the solution it posts you think are needlessly cluttering the thread is needlessly cluttering the thread with posts complaining about them. THAT really makes it easier to search for stuff. As far as "useful", the FAQ is sinfully easy to find so I can't see how any of this is an issue.
I totally agree. Also, what Stephen Ede said.I have to say this thread would be a lot easier to get useful information from if there wasn't so much sarky bitter/sillyness about how if it's got "Trap" written on it suddenly I can't find it but if it's not got "trap" written on it I can see the invisible Wendigo sneaking through a howling Blizzard.
The 1st time it was vaguely amusing, but it rapidly becomes boring clutter.
Exactly. It's more about recognition of the thing being a trap than about seeing that it's there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the components of EVERY trap is a Perception DC to find it. Ergo, all traps are hidden in some way, and are not considered traps if they aren't hidden. Traps that aren't hidden, like the open pit or bear trap in plain sight mentioned above are obstacles, not traps.
The reason those traps don't mention hiding them in their descriptions is because the developers likely figured it was so obvious as to go without saying. Just like how they neglected to say you can't take actions when you're dead. It's so blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't being deliberately obtuse.
One of the components of EVERY trap is a Perception DC to find it. Ergo, all traps are hidden in some way, and are not considered traps if they aren't hidden. Traps that aren't hidden, like the open pit or bear trap in plain sight mentioned above are obstacles, not traps.
The reason those traps don't mention hiding them in their descriptions is because the developers likely figured it was so obvious as to go without saying. Just like how they neglected to say you can't take actions when you're dead. It's so blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't being deliberately obtuse.
Everything has Perception DC to notice... Including people. You can't see creatures 100 miles away because the Perception DC for doing so is absurdly high.
Also, while traps say that they all have Perception DCs, they never state it has to be high or even mediocre DC... A Perception DC of -10 is still a Perception DC.
Last, but not least... The rules never say the Percpetion DC changes if the trap is placed in a different place. In fact, bear traps have a fixed Perception DC of 20. It doesn't matter if they are are covered by leaves or just dropped in an empty room. But even if it DID change, it doesn't stop being a Perception DC, no matter how low it goes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the components of EVERY trap is a Perception DC to find it. Ergo, all traps are hidden in some way, and are not considered traps if they aren't hidden. Traps that aren't hidden, like the open pit or bear trap in plain sight mentioned above are obstacles, not traps.
The reason those traps don't mention hiding them in their descriptions is because the developers likely figured it was so obvious as to go without saying. Just like how they neglected to say you can't take actions when you're dead. It's so blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't being deliberately obtuse.
That's incorrect. The parts I listed where under TRAPS.
Under trap effects, first section: "Pits: These are holes (covered or not) that characters can fall into, causing them to take damage. A pit needs no attack roll, but a successful Reflex save (DC set by the builder) avoids it. Other save-dependent mechanical traps also fall into this category. Falling into a pit deals 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet of depth.
Pits in dungeons come in three basic varieties: uncovered, covered, and chasms. Pits and chasms can be defeated by judicious application of the Acrobatics skill, the Climb skill, or various mechanical or magical means.
Uncovered pits and natural chasms serve mainly to discourage intruders from going a certain way, although they cause much grief to characters who stumble into them in the dark, and they can greatly complicate nearby melee."
Note, not under hazards like avalanches and quicksand that are in the wilderness section.
Secondly, a trip wire is out in the open or it couldn't trip. A bear trap has NO listed coverings. An open pit is listed as a trap. Hidden is no where in the requirements of a trap. A ranger can fire a mundane trip wire trap into the space in front of you and it's visible up until the point it hits then it vanishes without a chance to notice it until you take an action to find it.
"All traps—mechanical or magical—have the following elements: CR, type, Perception DC, Disable Device DC, trigger, reset, and effect." As Tabernero notes, the DC has no upper/lower limit and "Notice a visible creature" has a DC to notice so in fact a DC does NOT infer hidden in any way, shape or form. So by default we can't assume ANY trap is hidden just by looking at the DC.
Everything has Perception DC to notice... Including people. You can't see creatures 100 miles away because the Perception DC for doing so is absurdly high.Also, while traps say that they all have Perception DCs, they never state say it has to be high or even mediocre DC... A Perception DC of -10 is still a Perception DC.
Last, but not least... The rules never say the Percpetion DC changes if the trap is placed in a different place. In fact, bear traps have a fixed Perception DC of 20. It doesn't matter if they are are covered by leaves or just dropped in an empty room. But even if it DID change, it doesn't stop being a Perception DC, no matter how low it goes.
The perception dc of 20 indicates a level of difficulty on searching for it equivalent to your average secret door. Which requires active searching, barring abilities allowing for reactive perception.
A "concealed" door is a DC of 15 -- which in it's name means it's hidden in some manner.
A DC of 20 presumes effort to hide. There are always circumstance modifiers available to modify a DC of anything.
A "concealed" door is a DC of 15 -- which in it's name means it's hidden in some manner.
A DC of 20 presumes effort to hide. There are always circumstance modifiers available to modify a DC of anything.
Are you implying that everything that requires a Perception check with DC 15 or higher is "concealed"? Because that is absurd.
Sometimes... In fact, most of the time, it's just a matter of size, distance, lighting, color etc... Not necessarily an "effort to hide".
Besides, it doesn't matter. A bear trap is, by definition, a trap. Its Perception check having a DC of 20 or -10 makes no difference. The trap is still a trap, and it's still impossible to detect, even with Superman's senses, unless you're specifically looking for it.
wait secret doors also require a grid search?
A "concealed" door is a DC of 15 -- which in it's name means it's hidden in some manner.
A DC of 20 presumes effort to hide. There are always circumstance modifiers available to modify a DC of anything.
Are you implying that everything that requires a Perception check with DC 15 or higher is "concealed"?
Because that is absurd.
Nope. Sometimes it's just a matter of size, distance, lighting, color etc...
I'm not talking modifiers to perception, which incidentally contradicts your "there are no rules for modifiers to the trap perception DC, btw.
I'm talking it's unmodified perception dc to find -- which means taking no other situational modifiers into account, means it is hidden by it's very nature.
I'm not talking modifiers to perception, which incidentally contradicts your "there are no rules for modifiers to the trap perception DC, btw.
A penalty to Perception is not the same as a change to the DC of the check, even if ends up with the same mathematical result. A character being blind is not the same as the unseen object being invisible.
I'm talking it's unmodified perception dc to find -- which means taking no other situational modifiers into account, means it is hidden by it's very nature.
Nope. Again, sometimes is just because it's small, distant or somewhere out of your normal line of sight (it's easier to notice something at eye level than at your feet).
There are certainly insects moving around in most places I go... The reason I don't see them is not because they're hiding from me or have concealed by some stealth-obsessed entomologist.
---
But again, tell me... Even the traps are concealed... How does it make sense that characters get Reactive roll to detect concealed objects, but not traps?
Why is the pit dug for a well easily seen while an identical pit dug as trap impossible to detect?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good, it seem you completely understand the FAQ and it's implications. +1000 perception can't see a glow in the dark trip wire in a dark room unless they take an action to find it.Remember that this isn't the FAQ change. This is how the rules were always intended to work, dating back to the introduction of the skill system in 3.0 - Spot found critters, Search found traps and took an action. The language on Pits is nearly identical throughout editions.
Merging Search & Spot (& Listen) into Perception led some to think that had changed, but the basic functionality didn't. It's just that you only need to put points in one skill now.
Well I don't really care how 3.0 did it and the FAQ itself notes that it's taking information from Ultimate Intrigue. As such, it's not working as it did in core or 3.0.
Secondly, the FAQ itself notes that the game runs smoother if you don't run the game the way it's "always intended to work". I've only been noting that you need to go WAY past the suggested house-rule to get it to run a way that makes some sense, especially in an outdoor setting. It's even goes further out of whack when the game gives you examples of traps that aren't hidden in a way that having to search for them makes the least bit of sense.
wait secret doors also require a grid search?
Hope it's not trapped or you may have to re-search that searched grid to find it since it was hidden on a hidden item...
A "concealed" door is a DC of 15 -- which in it's name means it's hidden in some manner.
A DC of 20 presumes effort to hide. There are always circumstance modifiers available to modify a DC of anything.
Are you implying that everything that requires a Perception check with DC 15 or higher is "concealed"?
Because that is absurd.
Nope. Sometimes it's just a matter of size, distance, lighting, color etc...
I'm not talking modifiers to perception, which incidentally contradicts your "there are no rules for modifiers to the trap perception DC, btw.
I'm talking it's unmodified perception dc to find -- which means taking no other situational modifiers into account, means it is hidden by it's very nature.
A DC doesn't mean hidden. "Notice a visible creature" has a DC 0 meaning someone with a wisdom of 7 and no ranks could literally not see a person in front of them: That, however doesn't mean that person is hidden in any way.
wait secret doors also require a grid search?
Secret Doors: Disguised as a bare patch of wall (or floor or ceiling), a bookcase, a fireplace, or a fountain, a secret door leads to a secret passage or room. Someone examining the area finds a secret door, if one exists, on a successful Perception check (DC 20 for a typical secret door to DC 30 for a well-hidden secret door). Many secret doors require special methods of opening, such as hidden buttons or pressure plates. Secret doors can open like normal doors, or they might pivot. slide, sink, rise, or even lower like a drawbridge to permit access. Builders might put a secret door low near the floor or high in a wall. making it difficult to find or reach. Wizards and sorcerers have a spell, phase door, that allows them to create a magic secret door that only they can use.
Yes. Examining is not a "passive" verb.