NotMousse wrote:
This came up when I didn't have my book with me, and when I went to borrow one was told this came up in the forums... So here I am.
In a trap laden place (which my character was specifically *told* there would be traps), I stated I wanted to start taking 20 on perception checks to find traps. I was told that I couldn't, because failure carried negative effects.
The logic seems to be that I can't take 220 because it assumes you 'roll' a 1, 2, 3... and so on till you get to 20, presumably failing several times along the way. In the case of looking for traps failure equates to concluding that there are *no* traps and the character continues on, thereby triggering the trap.
This sounds like horseapples to me, and a cursory search in this forum didn't support this logic, so what say you? Is there RAW or RAI support for this argument?
BTW I'll have similar questions for a couple other things soon.
Pretty sure they use Perception as an example for taking 20 on a search check. Put it this way, if you fail a Search check for traps, the failing itself doesnt cause a negative effect. You roll a low search check then go a different way w/o springing a trap you failed to notice, what's the negative effect? Nothing.