|
I'm not sure if this topic's been already discussed, but do PCs always get an *automatical* Perception check (unless the trap says otherwise) to notice a trap, even a magical one? Secondly, does *everyone* get to roll, or just the "lead guy" (or whoever is about to spring the trap)? Or do you always need to actively *search* for traps to get the chance (Perception check) to notice them?
I mean, the rules in general talk about "if you succeed on a Perception check..." (implying, to me, that you always get to roll first), but the covered pit trap mentions that "They can be detected with a DC 20 Perception check, but only if the character is taking the time to carefully examine the area before walking across it" (i.e. searching for traps). Is this just an exception?
Traps normally require an active attempt to find them, so are the exception to "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus."
However, if you like detecting traps reactively, Rogues can take a talent called "Trap spotter" that allows the rogue to detect traps with a reactive check.
|
I'm not sure if this topic's been already discussed, but do PCs always get an *automatical* Perception check (unless the trap says otherwise) to notice a trap, even a magical one? Secondly, does *everyone* get to roll, or just the "lead guy" (or whoever is about to spring the trap)? Or do you always need to actively *search* for traps to get the chance (Perception check) to notice them?
I mean, the rules in general talk about "if you succeed on a Perception check..." (implying, to me, that you always get to roll first), but the covered pit trap mentions that "They can be detected with a DC 20 Perception check, but only if the character is taking the time to carefully examine the area before walking across it" (i.e. searching for traps). Is this just an exception?
In 3.5 Noticing a trap required a search check not a spot or listen. With Pathfinder Spot Listen and Search are now combined into one skill called perception. however the rules for traps remain the same.
A character must be actively searching (perception) to notice a mechanical trap before they step into it. A rogue must be actively searching (perception) to notice a magical trap.
One thing to remember with this combined skill is not to give everyone an automatic chance to notice traps. Finding Traps is a cornerstone ability of the rogue and I have found in the past that DMs who allow auto-detection through spots from any player leave the dedicated rogue player with little to do.
Don't short change the rogue just because your fighters walk blindly into trap ridden dungeons - unleash the pain on them so they learn to appreciate the skills the rogue offers.
|
People went around and around about this, many ignoring the 3.5ed pedigree of the PRPG rules on this, and using rather flimsy logic/creative interpretations to suggest characters should get free rolls to spot traps. They justified the rogue's Trap Spotter talent by suggesting it would be a last second, saving-throw-like extra roll for the rogue in addition to everyone else's Perception check.
I, however, am firmly of the school of thought that says finding traps works just like it did in 3.5, except the name of the skill "Search" was changed to "Perception".
|
|
I, however, am firmly of the school of thought that says finding traps works just like it did in 3.5, except the name of the skill "Search" was changed to "Perception".
99% agree and while the rules in the core book don't break it down as such very well there are two factors that lead to the use of the ability as 3.5 intended...
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
This line indicates that searching to find something requires actively looking/feeling/exploring via a move action. This is followed by the entry for traps on the table.
Find a hidden trap - Varies by trap
Of the entries on the table under perception only Concealed Doors, Secret Doors, and Hidden Traps use the term "Find" the other visual stimulus use the word "Notice" such as Notice a visible creature.
I didn't 100% agree and the other 1% is due to the cumbersome rules of search in 3.5. I like that, with the Pathfinder search, its only a move action now where as in 3.5 it was a full round action to search a 5 ft by 5 ft area which ended up with rogues rolling multiple checks searching every inch of the 200ft long 50 ft wide room!
People went around and around about this
No kidding!! This is the question that refuses to die! Has Paizo ever come out with an official answer to this? Personally, I think you're on the right track on this, Twowlves.
People went around and around about this, many ignoring the 3.5ed pedigree of the PRPG rules on this, and using rather flimsy logic/creative interpretations to suggest characters should get free rolls to spot traps. They justified the rogue's Trap Spotter talent by suggesting it would be a last second, saving-throw-like extra roll for the rogue in addition to everyone else's Perception check.
I, however, am firmly of the school of thought that says finding traps works just like it did in 3.5, except the name of the skill "Search" was changed to "Perception".
I was among those who used the so called 'flimsy' logic. And rather then restart the argument I would say that clarification in errata would be appreciated, since there is nothing that says that traps must be specifically looked for. Spotting the trap can just as easily be a 'response to stimulus' such as seeing the trip wire, or the depressable panel (whatever mechanism sets off the trap). It is only the carry over of impressions from 3.5 that indicate traps need to be actively looked for.
Personally I dont care overly much since I have forever disliked the concept of needing to actively search for traps. And will always have a 'passive' ability to observe them at my table.
Edit:
As for my justification of trapspotter, it was nothing of the sort. My thought is that the range of 10ft allows the rogue to not need to go first in the dungeon. Since he can spot traps from 10 ft away there is room for the fighter/paladin/barbarian to stand in front of him. Something most rogues appreciate. Which remains a boon for the rogue, regardless of your interpretation on what is required to spot traps.
I think, in general, without any consideration for any game system or rules, I envision two sorts of perception, passive and active.
Passive is when you are walking down the street and out of the corner of your eye you notice the rogue hiding in the shadows. You didn't do anything intentionally to search for a rogue, you just happened to catch a glint of reflected lamplight off of his revealed dagger.
Active is when you are suspicious that there is something there and you are actively looking for that something.
I think the rules do not reflect both scenarios well.
In general I roll a perception check for all parties whenever they are in an area where there is a trap (or something else of relative importance that is not obvious). I assign a -10 penalty to this check because the PC's are not focused on looking for something. This might mean that some individuals have no chance to notice something- which I am fine with. I decided to go with a roll as opposed to assuming the characters are taking 10 because I dislike the notion that as soon as a persons Perception score reaches a certain point they will ALWAYS detect things at a certain DC or less. I prefer a bit more randomness.
If the PC's are actively looking for something, they get Perception checks with no penalty.
Just how I've been doing it.
|
|
I was among those who used the so called 'flimsy' logic. And rather then restart the argument I would say that clarification in errata would be appreciated, since there is nothing that says that traps must be specifically looked for.
I wasn't calling you out specifically, and I wasn't quoting your personal justification for why you chose to read it the way you did. You weren't the only one, and yours was not the only reasoning given. I was merely summarizing the multipage thread that already existed.
I agree with you, in that an "official" answer from the Paizo boys would be nice, but you have already stated that no matter what they say, you will do things your way in your game. Which is just fine. However that might be a little less useful to those who are looking for "official" answers in the Rules forum, as the core set of shared rules is more important to those running Organized Play games, or those who might be playing with multiple different groups.
I was among those who used the so called 'flimsy' logic. And rather then restart the argument I would say that clarification in errata would be appreciated, since there is nothing that says that traps must be specifically looked for.I wasn't calling you out specifically, and I wasn't quoting your personal justification for why you chose to read it the way you did. You weren't the only one, and yours was not the only reasoning given. I was merely summarizing the multipage thread that already existed.
I agree with you, in that an "official" answer from the Paizo boys would be nice, but you have already stated that no matter what they say, you will do things your way in your game. Which is just fine. However that might be a little less useful to those who are looking for "official" answers in the Rules forum, as the core set of shared rules is more important to those running Organized Play games, or those who might be playing with multiple different groups.
Certainly. Which is why I presented my opinion. I dont doubt that my dislike for actively searching for traps influences my interpretation of the rules as presented. Just like i dont doubt that dms that like traps being a particularly signficant threat dont like the idea of a 'free' perception check, and that likely scews how they read the rule. So I tried to put my opinion on the rules in perspective.
And I didn't think you were calling me out specifically, but we certainly had a significant exchange on the matter. And since my opinion was among the ones you were refering to, I wanted to clarify that my view differed from it.
|
|
And I didn't think you were calling me out specifically, but we certainly had a significant exchange on the matter. And since my opinion was among the ones you were refering to, I wanted to clarify that my view differed from it.
I was only referring to you in that you were in the "other" camp.
It's a big camp.
And I didn't think you were calling me out specifically, but we certainly had a significant exchange on the matter. And since my opinion was among the ones you were refering to, I wanted to clarify that my view differed from it.I was only referring to you in that you were in the "other" camp.
It's a big camp.
Perhaps, but I saw we stick with agreeing that we want Paizo to clarify the matter in the errata.
|
|
Thanks to everyone for their replies! I think that I am of the same opinion as Twowlves, Quijenoth and Treantmonk, i.e. that traps should be dangeous and actively searched for. It had been a while since I ran 3.5 (ever since Alpha we've concentrated on urban adventures mostly, and I've used very few traps), and this was one of the issues that suddenly rose on the last session, and my players managed to mess with my mind (damn those crafty players!). When I looked at the rules I couldn't find any confirmation on whether they DO get automatical Perception rolls or not.
People went around and around about this, many ignoring the 3.5ed pedigree of the PRPG rules on this, and using rather flimsy logic/creative interpretations to suggest characters should get free rolls to spot traps. They justified the rogue's Trap Spotter talent by suggesting it would be a last second, saving-throw-like extra roll for the rogue in addition to everyone else's Perception check.
I, however, am firmly of the school of thought that says finding traps works just like it did in 3.5, except the name of the skill "Search" was changed to "Perception".
100% agree.
Table 7-7,Hampered Movement, lists the condition "Obstacle*" with an additional movement cost of x2 where "*" notes "May require a skill check". Assuming a trap to be the obstacle and perception to be the required skill check, it follows that a PC looking for traps could move at half speed and make one skill check for the distance covered.
For example, Giblet the rogue with a move speed of 30 could search 15 ft of hall for traps per move action with a single perception skill check.
The perception modifiers listed in the perception skill description (p 102) list a modifier of +1/10 feet to the source object.
For example, say there is a trap with a DC of 20 in the hall being searched by Giblet. The trap DC would remain 20 so long as it were in the first 10 ft. However, the DC would raise to 21 were the trap to be in the last 5 ft (given Giblet can only search 15 ft at a time).
Giblet could choose to move slower and only search 10 ft at a time knowing that his chances to notice things beyond 10 ft were slimmer, but he might take the chance at 15 ft if time were of the essence and he needed to move quickly.
The closest trap would be noticed first on a successful roll. Subsequent rolls would be required to notice additional traps beyond the first discovered. It would be up to Giblet to determine if he wished to continue searching beyond the first trap discovered.
Encumbering trap spotters with perception checks every 5 ft slows the game down significantly and generally discourages using the skill. While some may get a giggle out of plunging PCs into every available trap, the joy is definately one sided.