|
You can't describe a perfect solution for the trap and say that's enough to bypass it. Why the hell would I bother with Disable Device or Diplomacy if the skill ranks don't matter anyway?so a wizard could not cast a summon monster to activate the trap cause that would make disable device usseles? A monk could not avoid a pit trap with a jump?
If the treasure is below a bed a player could not say "I look below the bed" cause that would make a high perception less useful?
A wizard still has to expend the quota. The monk still has to make a jump check. Yeah you still have to roll.
You don't get to roleplay your way past skills. Same as if you dumped a stat. You don't get to roleplay past things you kicked to the curb for other options. If you didn't pay for it you don't get it.
And of course, we need to discourage thinking creatively. Right.
Let me throw you a story.
In a game of C&S I played, many years ago, while wandering through some underground passages beneath an ancient lost city, we stumbled across huge double doors...the wizard asked us to stop, and examined the area for magic. He was able to determine that opening the door would cause an enormous fireball that there would be no surviving to go off...but it wouldn't reset. The party was about to leave, when I asked him if he could summon a creature. He said he could. I asked what type. He replied that he could summon a gargoyle from hell. I asked him to. We went far back down the corridor, while it opened the door. and was disintegrated in heat...heat powerful enough to disintegrate a creature from hell. Wow.
We walked in, casually, after it cooled. There were HUGE piles of treasure...it set us up for life.
Another case:
There was a key, obvious, in a carved stone dragon's mouth. I was playing the rogue. (Ftr/Rog, to be precise) I saw no traps. I had no way of knowing there were none, so my solution was to place my grappling hook so that it would fall into the open mouth and retreat to the door...tugging on it to dislodge the key.
I was told that I wasn't allowed to do that. (not that I couldn't)
How utterly ridiculous.
|
|
You can't describe a perfect solution for the trap and say that's enough to bypass it. Why the hell would I bother with Disable Device or Diplomacy if the skill ranks don't matter anyway?so a wizard could not cast a summon monster to activate the trap cause that would make disable device usseles? A monk could not avoid a pit trap with a jump?
If the treasure is below a bed it woudl be bad for a player to say "I look below the bed" cause that would make a high perception less useful
I honestly don't see your point, Nicos. I'm not defending the honor of Disable Device checks, I'm defending the point that if you want your character to be able to do something, you better try and give him the ability to do it, because simply saying "I succeed" will not suffice.
When you try to do something, you use your character's abilities/resources. Whether those abilities involve rolling dice or not is irrelevant.
If you want to disarm a trap, you say "I try to disarm" the trap and roll your Disable Device check. Or do it in some other way. Summoning is also part of your character's abilities. So is jumping. All of that is part of a character's abilties! Auto-succeeding is not!
If you have a 10ft pole and describe me how you're using it to search for traps, I might give you a +2 bonus to the task. If even then you fail to notice the trap, you are 10ft away from the area of effect.
Nobody is claiming auto-succeed outside of very specific circumstances...in the example I gave, if cutting a tripwire will disable a trap, why can it not be done? That, I find utterly ridiculous. It takes no special knowledge...I don't even have to know it will disable the trap. Is 'cutting a cord' an ability you can only do if you have an appropriate skill?
Because it's not simply cutting the cord that disables the trap. It's cutting the cord in such a way that it doesn't put enough pressure on either end of the wire so the hair trigger sensors don't trigger the trap anyway.
|
|
Because it's not simply cutting the cord that disables the trap. It's cutting the cord in such a way that it doesn't put enough pressure on either end of the wire so the hair trigger sensors don't trigger the trap anyway.
If that's actually what it is, fine. Of course, that means the average rat likely sets it off.
Because it's not simply cutting the cord that disables the trap. It's cutting the cord in such a way that it doesn't put enough pressure on either end of the wire so the hair trigger sensors don't trigger the trap anyway.If that's actually what it is, fine. Of course, that means the average rat likely sets it off.
If the rat pulls on the cord, yeah.
Of course unless he's a ROUS he probably just goes under it without even brushing against it. Assuming there's a rat there to begin with.
I'd be more worried about the rat setting off the pit traps in that case, if light tapping with a pole can set it off.
Another case:
There was a key, obvious, in a carved stone dragon's mouth. I was playing the rogue. (Ftr/Rog, to be precise) I saw no traps. I had no way of knowing there were none, so my solution was to place my grappling hook so that it would fall into the open mouth and retreat to the door...tugging on it to dislodge the key.
I was told that I wasn't allowed to do that. (not that I couldn't)
How utterly ridiculous.
I would have trouble playing with a GM who dictated how I role played. Why do I bother rolling up a character if the GM is going to play it?
Nobody is claiming auto-succeed outside of very specific circumstances...in the example I gave, if cutting a tripwire will disable a trap, why can it not be done? That, I find utterly ridiculous. It takes no special knowledge...I don't even have to know it will disable the trap. Is 'cutting a cord' an ability you can only do if you have an appropriate skill?
That's the thing, EldonG. You do need skill to A) know that trip wire is the trigger, and B) cut it.
However, the DC is really low. As in, DC 0 low. So when you say "I cut the wire", what that really means is "I take 10 at my Disable Device check to pass on this DC 0 Disable Device check", so you succeed. (assuming, of course, that cutting the wire is enough to disarm the trap)However, you still need roll Perception to find the wire (I always assume my player's characters are taking 10 in all their passive checks, such as Perception)
You're still making skill/ability checks even if you don't announce/describe them.
Now, if you tell me "I walk down the corridor and deactivate the traps", I'll make you roll for it. First to notice if there actually are any traps, second to deactivate them. Simply describing your actions as if you had already succeeded on your task is not enough.
|
|
Because it's not simply cutting the cord that disables the trap. It's cutting the cord in such a way that it doesn't put enough pressure on either end of the wire so the hair trigger sensors don't trigger the trap anyway.If that's actually what it is, fine. Of course, that means the average rat likely sets it off.If the rat pulls on the cord, yeah.
Of course unless he's a ROUS he probably just goes under it without even brushing against it. Assuming there's a rat there to begin with.
I'd be more worried about the rat setting off the pit traps in that case, if light tapping with a pole can set it off.
*rat goes scurrying across the cord, as they're wont to do* CRASH!...there goes another trap...
*rat goes scurrying across the cord, as they're wont to do* CRASH!...there goes another trap...Because it's not simply cutting the cord that disables the trap. It's cutting the cord in such a way that it doesn't put enough pressure on either end of the wire so the hair trigger sensors don't trigger the trap anyway.If that's actually what it is, fine. Of course, that means the average rat likely sets it off.If the rat pulls on the cord, yeah.
Of course unless he's a ROUS he probably just goes under it without even brushing against it. Assuming there's a rat there to begin with.
I'd be more worried about the rat setting off the pit traps in that case, if light tapping with a pole can set it off.
Why would he go ACROSS it?
Tripwire cords are not draped across the ground you know, they're usually at at least ankle height.
|
|
Nobody is claiming auto-succeed outside of very specific circumstances...in the example I gave, if cutting a tripwire will disable a trap, why can it not be done? That, I find utterly ridiculous. It takes no special knowledge...I don't even have to know it will disable the trap. Is 'cutting a cord' an ability you can only do if you have an appropriate skill?That's the thing, EldonG. You do need skill to A) know that trip wire is the trigger, and B) cut it.
However, the DC is really low. As in, DC 0 low. So when you say "I cut the wire", what that really means is "I take 10 at my Disable Device check to pass on this DC 0 Disable Device check", so you succeed. (assuming, of course, that cutting the wire is enough to disarm the trap)However, you still need roll Perception to find the wire (I always assume my player's characters are taking 10 in all their passive checks, such as Perception)
You're still making skill/ability checks even if you don't announce/describe them.
Now, if you tell me "I walk down the corridor and deactivate the traps", I'll make you roll for it. First to notice if there actually are any traps, second to deactivate them. Simply describing your actions as if you had already succeeded on your task is not enough.
No, I don't need to know the wire is the trigger. I just have to know the wire is there. If I *can* cut it, and decide to, it's up to the DM to tell me what happens. I'm not claiming that I call the shots...for the trap. I never did. I just respond to what my character has...as character knowledge...and if there's a tripwire...of normal material...it's not too much of a task to cut it. What happens next is out of my hands.
|
|
*rat goes scurrying across the cord, as they're wont to do* CRASH!...there goes another trap...Because it's not simply cutting the cord that disables the trap. It's cutting the cord in such a way that it doesn't put enough pressure on either end of the wire so the hair trigger sensors don't trigger the trap anyway.If that's actually what it is, fine. Of course, that means the average rat likely sets it off.If the rat pulls on the cord, yeah.
Of course unless he's a ROUS he probably just goes under it without even brushing against it. Assuming there's a rat there to begin with.
I'd be more worried about the rat setting off the pit traps in that case, if light tapping with a pole can set it off.
Why would he go ACROSS it?
Tripwire cords are not draped across the ground you know, they're usually at at least ankle height.
Because they do things like that. Why does a hamster run in a wheel? Why do birds sit on high power lines? Hell, I don't know...I just know they do.
Nicos,
Role-play is not giving your character abilities/resources she doesn't have through a nice description. Role-play is creating your character's personality and choosing what she does with the abilities/resources she has.
So if you're going to say I'm "rollplaying" for making players roll the necessary checks I'll say you're cheating for coming up with abilities/resources/knowledge/training your character doesn't have.
Nobody is defending the "I succed". it is just that I do not like the otther extre "You fail at it cause you have ero rank it does not matter if you try t do soemting that make perfect sense".
If you describe the trap as a highly complex machine with a very convoluted system, then only somebody with a high rank in disable deveice coudl deactivate it.
But not all cases are like this. Everybody seems to agree that The wizard is able to use his summon monster to activate the trap in the right circumtances, without rollling a dice, without a single rankin disable device. Why taht can not be achived by fighters in other kind of cicumtances?
would be cheat to use a 10 ft pole to activate a pit trap?
If the trap is so easy to spot/disarm, then it's a DC 0. Your automatic "taking 10" is more than enough to bypass it.
It's still a skill check, though.
Activating a trap is not disarming it. It's failing to do so. It only happens that you failed intentionally on the check. The pit will open, if it's not wide enough to affect character 10ft away, then you're safe.
But you didn't really deactivate it, you simply where not on the area of effect when it was activated.
If the rogue detect the trap with a high perception check, would hte fighter be unable to activate it with the 10 ft pole?
If for example. A window is closed, and in the moment it get open or the glass get breaked a fireball explode.
Would you allow a wizard summoning a monster to break it? Could the fighter trhow a rock at it to break it? Would you deny him that posibility?
Again, activating the trap is not the same as disarming it. Sure, the trap may be rendered useless anyway, but it's not the same.
If the window was set to explode when it was touched, sure, the summoned creature and the rock would activate it.That was a failed disarm attempt, though... The trap was not disarmed, it was activated, it just happens that your character were a far enough to be safe.
It basically the same as if someone else fell on a pit trap. If you're not in the AoE, you're safe. Except in your example, the "someone else" would be a summoned creature, or a rock.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a fighter. When not in combat, I like crochet, stamp collecting and long walks on the beach with my favorite girl.
Turn offs include bossy people, angry chefs and boogers.
|
If the trap is so easy to spot/disarm, then it's a DC 0. Your automatic "taking 10" is more than enough to bypass it.
It's still a skill check, though.
Let's go back to one of EldonG's examples:
There was a key, obvious, in a carved stone dragon's mouth. I was playing the rogue. (Ftr/Rog, to be precise) I saw no traps. I had no way of knowing there were none, so my solution was to place my grappling hook so that it would fall into the open mouth and retreat to the door...tugging on it to dislodge the key.
Now, He didn't know for sure if there was a trap. But he was paranoid, and acted as if there was a trap. Because his GM was a tool, we don't know for sure if there was truly a trap there, or how it worked. But the fact that he was such a tool strongly suggests that there was a trap, with a limited range, and likely non-resetting.
His solution should have worked. It would have worked with any decent GM.
And yet it didn't involve him succeeding at a perception check to know conclusively that there was, in fact, a trap.
Nor did it involve him succeeding at a disable device check to disable the supposed trap.
So what I'm getting from a large number of you guys is that you would be just as much of a tool as his GM was in that situation?
Of course, I highly doubt the "dice above all" crowd would have detailed out how the trap worked...traps aren't anything more beyond a DC and an effect, right?
No, I don't need to know the wire is the trigger. I just have to know the wire is there. If I *can* cut it, and decide to, it's up to the DM to tell me what happens. I'm not claiming that I call the shots...for the trap. I never did. I just respond to what my character has...as character knowledge...and if there's a tripwire...of normal material...it's not too much of a task to cut it. What happens next is out of my hands.
Oh, FFS, you're really don't get my point, do you?
No, you don't need to know the wire is the trigger to cut it. (although you do have to find it).
Assuming you did note the wire, and that you are able to cut it, you can do it. It's a sunder attempt. Most wires likely have 0 hardness and 1 hp, anyway, so you succeed.
If that's enough to disarm the trap, then the trap is disarmed. Uhu! Let's celebrate.
But here is the thing... 1- Not every wire is a trap, however, if you see a wire at ankle level in a corridor, you'll probably assume that one is in fact the trigger for a trap, and probably be right. (This is an DC0 Int check)
Remember, if you don't put extra effort in something, I'll assume you're taking 10.
e.g.: When you talk to someone... Taking 10 in a DC 0 Diplomacy/Bluff/whatever check and also taking 10 in a DC 0 Perception check to listen to them. I don't make you roll these checks because it's unnecessary. You can't fail at them, at all. You're taking 10 all the time! Even with Cha 1, that's a 5! More than enough to succeed at a DC 0 check!
But back to the trip wire. Now, you decide to cut the wire. Cutting the wire is a DC 0 Disable Device check. It's impossible for your character to fail. Even with a -5 penalty she still succeeds!
But what if the wire is set so that any variation in its tension will activate the trap? This is a more complex trap! Cutting it will be just as dangerous as stepping on it! The DC for the Disable Device check is not 0 anymore, it' probably something like 20. If you say "I cut the wire" (i.e.:take 10 on Disable Device) the fireball goes off anyway! If you cut if with a 10ft long spear, then you're 10ft away from the trigger! If the AoE of the fireball is not large enough to hurt you, you're safe! BUT YOU DIDN'T DISARM THE TRAP! YOU ACTIVATED IT.
I'm smart enough to know that by "I cut the wire" the player means "I disarm the trap", so if his Disable Device check is high enough, I'll tell him that before cutting the wire, his character notices simply cutting it will activate the trap, but she knows how to safely disarm it, and does it. (Unless the player says "Nah, I cut it anyway...", of course, but why would he do that?)
Again, activating the trap is not the same as disarming it. Sure, the trap may be rendered useless anyway, but it's not the same.
If the window was set to explode when it was touched, sure, the summoned creature and the rock would activate it.
That was a failed disarm attempt, though... The trap was not disarmed, it was activated, it just happens that your character were a far enough to be safe.It basically the same as if someone else fell on a pit trap. If you're not in the AoE, you're safe. Except in your example, the "someone else" would be a summoned creature, or a rock.
In this case the player, not the character, found a Way to do what he wanted. I,e not be caught by the explosion.
Does somebody find that to be bad?
Why that should be denied in other cases, for example social interactions?
Because they're using in game mechanics!
People don't auto-succeed because they describe their actions as successful. They succeed because they use their abilities and resources, which happen to include skill points and attributes. You can use most skills untrained, remember?
Some mechanics involve rolling dice (like skill checks), others do not (summoning). But they are all being used.
So are skill checks. When a character in my games auto-succeeds it's because the DC is so low that it was unnecessary for the player to roll. Every character is taking 10 most of the time. They are also using multiple skills at once. You may be walking down the street (Taking 10 for a DC 0 Acrobatics check) while saying hello to the occasional neighbor (Taking 10 on a DC 0 Diplomacy check), appreciating the view (Taking 10 on a DC 0 Perception check) and counting your coins (Taking 10 on a DC 0 Appraise check).
We don't make players roll these checks because they simply can not fail at them, so there is no point. Still, it's not the description that makes them succeed, no matter how eloquent the player is, it's their character's skills/ability score.
A player who says "I walk down the street" is just as successful as the one who says "Like so many did before me, ever since the first man decided he'd rather be somewhere else, I put one foot in front of another and avoid collision with whatever object or creature is between me and my destination."
A player can describe her actions anyway she wants. If she's successful on her checks, her description is exactly what happened, otherwise, something went wrong.
If the trap is so easy to spot/disarm, then it's a DC 0. Your automatic "taking 10" is more than enough to bypass it.
It's still a skill check, though.
Let's go back to one of EldonG's examples:
There was a key, obvious, in a carved stone dragon's mouth. I was playing the rogue. (Ftr/Rog, to be precise) I saw no traps. I had no way of knowing there were none, so my solution was to place my grappling hook so that it would fall into the open mouth and retreat to the door...tugging on it to dislodge the key.Now, He didn't know for sure if there was a trap. But he was paranoid, and acted as if there was a trap. Because his GM was a tool, we don't know for sure if there was truly a trap there, or how it worked. But the fact that he was such a tool strongly suggests that there was a trap, with a limited range, and likely non-resetting.
His solution should have worked. It would have worked with any decent GM.
Always nice to call someone else a tool. Especially when you don't know them. Not conceited and unnecessary at all.
And yet it didn't involve him succeeding at a perception check to know conclusively that there was, in fact, a trap.
Yes it did. If he didn't say anything, then he's character is taking 10. Maybe he succeeded and there no traps all, or maybe he failed and didn't notice the trap. Whatever the answer, he still made the skill check.
Nor did it involve him succeeding at a disable device check to disable the supposed trap.
Indded. Because he never tried to deactivate any trap. Just like he didn't have to roll a Perform skill check because he never tried dancing. If there was a trap, and if it was set in such a way that a hook would trigger it, the trap should have been triggered.
So what I'm getting from a large number of you guys is that you would be just as much of a tool as his GM was in that situation?
And what I'm getting is that you would be such a tool that you would let a character succeed at something even if she didn't have the necessary abilities/training/resources for it.
Of course, I highly doubt the "dice above all" crowd would have detailed out how the trap worked...traps aren't anything more beyond a DC and an effect, right?
That's odd... I'd say that someone who ignores the limitations of an unskilled/unprepared character is more likely to not bother detailing anything. After all, why give the trap a specific trigger, DC, effect and AoE when all that matter is how the player describes his actions? After all, if the player says "I avoid all traps", then his character avoids all traps.
I already pointed out who was claiming that to you Nicos.
Taking a different action to avoid things is fine, to an extent. But not describing some complex action. If any of the actions are ones that would trigger a skill roll, you're making that skill roll.
In the case of Eldon's scenario I'd have him at the very least make an attack roll against a decently high AC (allowing retries, however) to hit a target like that with his grapple hook, and then a Strength check to pull it loose. He'd still have to roll something instead of saying he succeeded, and if his attempts failing triggers the trap, then oh well.
Which is completely different from "I cut the tripwire".Ones don't auto-fail skills.
There's no way I'll penalize for someone actually bothering to come up with a workable plan that a third-grader should be able to carry out by making him roll. Sorry, no, that's worth more, in my book.
Who said anything about penalizing them? They'd have to make the check if they roleplayed or not. All I'm saying is just because you roleplay it doesn't mean you auto succeed. Otherwise...
** spoiler omitted **
Yes, but you still need to succeed with the disable device check, because if you fail the roll badly you have put just enough tension on the tripwire to set off the trap, or failed to fully cut the wire.
The skill rolls exist for a reason.
|
|
No, I don't need to know the wire is the trigger. I just have to know the wire is there. If I *can* cut it, and decide to, it's up to the DM to tell me what happens. I'm not claiming that I call the shots...for the trap. I never did. I just respond to what my character has...as character knowledge...and if there's a tripwire...of normal material...it's not too much of a task to cut it. What happens next is out of my hands.Oh, FFS, you're really don't get my point, do you?
No, you don't need to know the wire is the trigger to cut it. (although you do have to find it).
Assuming you did note the wire, and that you are able to cut it, you can do it. It's a sunder attempt. Most wires likely have 0 hardness and 1 hp, anyway, so you succeed.
If that's enough to disarm the trap, then the trap is disarmed. Uhu! Let's celebrate.
But here is the thing... 1- Not every wire is a trap, however, if you see a wire at ankle level in a corridor, you'll probably assume that one is in fact the trigger for a trap, and probably be right. (This is an DC0 Int check)
Remember, if you don't put extra effort in something, I'll assume you're taking 10.
e.g.: When you talk to someone... Taking 10 in a DC 0 Diplomacy/Bluff/whatever check and also taking 10 in a DC 0 Perception check to listen to them. I don't make you roll these checks because it's unnecessary. You can't fail at them, at all. You're taking 10 all the time! Even with Cha 1, that's a 5! More than enough to succeed at a DC 0 check!But back to the trip wire. Now, you decide to cut the wire. Cutting the wire is a DC 0 Disable Device check. It's impossible for your character to fail. Even with a -5 penalty she still succeeds!
But what if the wire is set so that any variation in its tension will activate the trap? This is a more complex trap! Cutting it will be just as dangerous as stepping on it! The DC for the Disable Device check is not 0 anymore, it' probably something like 20. If you say "I cut the wire"...
If it triggers another trap...so be it. Just don't be a dick and add one in.
My problem with the whole thing is - just in case nobody has figured it out...I like challenges. Not just the kind I have to fight my way through, but things where I have at least the option of thinking my way through it...and that's one reason I prefer intelligent characters. Now here, you get to tell me, no, thinking is wrongbadfun, and it's against the rules.
Screw dat noise.
|
|
I already pointed out who was claiming that to you Nicos.
Taking a different action to avoid things is fine, to an extent. But not describing some complex action. If any of the actions are ones that would trigger a skill roll, you're making that skill roll.
In the case of Eldon's scenario I'd have him at the very least make an attack roll against a decently high AC (allowing retries, however) to hit a target like that with his grapple hook, and then a Strength check to pull it loose. He'd still have to roll something instead of saying he succeeded, and if his attempts failing triggers the trap, then oh well.
I was standing there and placing it. Str? To drag a key? Ooookay...
@ Lemmy
Why you keep repeting thins like
"After all, if the player says "I avoid all traps", then his character avoids all traps. ".
I have not seen anyone in this thread claiming that.
If a player can concive a rasonable course of actions to solve one problem why not let him give it a try?
In EldonG example his DM just not give him the opportunity to do what he propposed just because tehre is no mechanic asociated to it.
I keep repeating things like that because that's what people said, only they use more words:
Question for you guys who put the dice before everything. What if you design a trap, and a character describes how he is looking for traps in the area that it is in. In fact, his description is fairly in depth, and he describes something that would DEFINATELY both find and disarm the trap.
What if he rolls a 3, and misses the needed DC?
(Please note, I deliberately didn't say rolled a 1, since that could be used to say that despite the correct actions, his hand slips and he accidentally sets it off, etc.)
A) Does he find and disarm it, depite the roll, because he performed actions that would have done this?
or
B) Does he set it off and suffer it's effects?
If B, what do you do if he then examines the trap and realizes that by all rights, he should have neutralized the trap?
Kthullu here is saying that because the player gave a very detailed description of a skill check, his character succeeds at the skill check.
IMO, it doesn't matter the depth of the description. The player tells the GM what his character is attempting to do, not if she is successful or not.
You're free to try anything you want. Anything. I'll even give you a bonus if you give me a creative/cool/interesting description of how you do it. I'll also create game mechanics where you have a reasonable chance of success if there is no rules for whatever you're doing.
Hell, I even remove arbitrary limitations from the game like the fact that you can't ever trip a giant even if your human Barbarian has a Str score of 900, and a CMB twice as high. You are strong enough to throw 10 giants into the sun, but it's absolutely impossible to trip one of them. Yeah, that makes sense...
However, bonus or not, rules or not, you are still only trying to do something. Maybe it's so easy that you can't possibly fail, in which case I won't ask for a roll... Maybe it's impossible/extremely difficult to succeed, in which case I'll tell you it's very unlikely to succeed, as the DC is too high, but I'll give you a DC and let you try. I'll never say you auto-fail something, but I'll also never say you auto-succeed at doing something your character is incapable of because your description was nice. You still get the bonus, though.
I was standing there and placing it. Str? To drag a key? Ooookay...I already pointed out who was claiming that to you Nicos.
Taking a different action to avoid things is fine, to an extent. But not describing some complex action. If any of the actions are ones that would trigger a skill roll, you're making that skill roll.
In the case of Eldon's scenario I'd have him at the very least make an attack roll against a decently high AC (allowing retries, however) to hit a target like that with his grapple hook, and then a Strength check to pull it loose. He'd still have to roll something instead of saying he succeeded, and if his attempts failing triggers the trap, then oh well.
A DC 0 Str check is still a Str check. Sure, if the DC is truly 0 (as this one would be, assuming this is a normal sized key with regular weight), I'd not make you roll it, as you'll succeed anyway...
My point is that you're could do it because your character beat the DC (or overcome the AC/SR, or whatever check you have to make), not because you described your action really well.
There is such things as a DC 0 and Taking 10.
|
|
I was standing there and placing it. Str? To drag a key? Ooookay...I already pointed out who was claiming that to you Nicos.
Taking a different action to avoid things is fine, to an extent. But not describing some complex action. If any of the actions are ones that would trigger a skill roll, you're making that skill roll.
In the case of Eldon's scenario I'd have him at the very least make an attack roll against a decently high AC (allowing retries, however) to hit a target like that with his grapple hook, and then a Strength check to pull it loose. He'd still have to roll something instead of saying he succeeded, and if his attempts failing triggers the trap, then oh well.
A DC 0 Str check is still a Str check. Sure, if the DC is truly 0 (as this one would be, assuming this is a normal sized key with regular weight), I'd not make you roll it, as you'll succeed anyway...
My point is that you're could do it because your character beat the DC (or overcome the AC/SR, or whatever check you have to make), not because you described your action really well.
There is such things as a DC 0 and Taking 10.
Ummm...no...if you have to be insanely strict by the rules, there is no DC 0 skill roll. Ever.
Edit: Let me rephrase - there is no DC 0 when there is no penalty. It's considered an automatic success. 1 is the lowest you can get with no penalty.
it triggers another trap...so be it. Just don't be a dick and add one in.
I'd never do it. This is just the GM being a jerk, and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
My problem with the whole thing is - just in case nobody has figured it out...I like challenges. Not just the kind I have to fight my way through, but things where I have at least the option of thinking my way through it...and that's one reason I prefer intelligent characters. Now here, you get to tell me, no, thinking is wrongbadfun, and it's against the rules.
Screw dat noise.
First, I never said anything even remotely close to "you're having badwrong fun". I disagree with you on this subject and I'm defending my point just like you're defending yours.
I never accused you of playing it wrong or whatever. I'm just sharing my opinions and the reasoning for them.Read what I said in one of my posts:
IMO, it doesn't matter the depth of the description. The player tells the GM what his character is attempting to do, not if she is successful or not.
You're free to try anything you want. Anything. I'll even give you a bonus if you give me a creative/cool/interesting description of how you do it. I'll also create game mechanics where you have a reasonable chance of success if there are no rules for whatever you're doing.
Hell, I even remove arbitrary limitations from the game like the fact that you can't ever trip a giant even if your human Barbarian has a Str score of 900, and a CMB twice as high. You are strong enough to throw 10 giants into the sun, but it's absolutely impossible to trip one of them. Yeah, that makes sense...However, bonus or not, rules or not, you are still only trying to do something. Maybe it's so easy that you can't possibly fail, in which case I won't ask for a roll... Maybe it's impossible/extremely difficult to succeed, in which case I'll tell you it's very unlikely to succeed, as the DC is too high, but I'll give you a DC and let you try. I'll never say you auto-fail something, but I'll also never say you auto-succeed at doing something your character is incapable of because your description was nice. You still get the bonus, though.
Bolded for emphasis.
For those that want to just cut the wire, there are traps where that sets off the trap, because the wire is holding the trap from going off.
Ummm...no...if you have to be insanely strict by the rules, there is no DC 0 skill roll. Ever.
Edit: Let me rephrase - there is no DC 0 when there is no penalty. It's considered an automatic success. 1 is the lowest you can get with no penalty.
Yes, there are DC 0 checks... SKR even mentioned a few examples in a thread where a player asked if a Natural 1 means you auto-fail on skill checks.
It's considered an auto-success because it's impossible for you to fail at them. As you said, you can't roll less than 1. That doesn't mean the check is not there, just that there is no point in rolling for it, since there is no possibility of failure.
For those that want to just cut the wire, there are traps where that sets off the trap, because the wire is holding the trap from going off.You've seen a copy of Grimtooth's?
Have a copy right here.
|
|
Nope not yet.I kind of want to make a low perception dc wire based pit trap that dumps the treasure in a pool of acid now.Ok. I've done things like that. Have YOU seen Grimtooth's?
They're old. They come from an era when the highest disable trap around...would get a vat of acid dumped on your head.
|
|
For those that want to just cut the wire, there are traps where that sets off the trap, because the wire is holding the trap from going off.You've seen a copy of Grimtooth's?Have a copy right here.
You probably understand what I'm getting at. Most of those traps are not 'I rolled a 30, it's disabled' sort of traps. You actually have to figure them out.
PS: Somewhere around here, I have one through ate.
I was standing there and placing it. Str? To drag a key? Ooookay...I already pointed out who was claiming that to you Nicos.
Taking a different action to avoid things is fine, to an extent. But not describing some complex action. If any of the actions are ones that would trigger a skill roll, you're making that skill roll.
In the case of Eldon's scenario I'd have him at the very least make an attack roll against a decently high AC (allowing retries, however) to hit a target like that with his grapple hook, and then a Strength check to pull it loose. He'd still have to roll something instead of saying he succeeded, and if his attempts failing triggers the trap, then oh well.
What kind of key? If it was a normal sized key your grapple hook would be too big to fit inside the ring at the end.
So I figured you were talking about some giant key.
|
|
I was standing there and placing it. Str? To drag a key? Ooookay...I already pointed out who was claiming that to you Nicos.
Taking a different action to avoid things is fine, to an extent. But not describing some complex action. If any of the actions are ones that would trigger a skill roll, you're making that skill roll.
In the case of Eldon's scenario I'd have him at the very least make an attack roll against a decently high AC (allowing retries, however) to hit a target like that with his grapple hook, and then a Strength check to pull it loose. He'd still have to roll something instead of saying he succeeded, and if his attempts failing triggers the trap, then oh well.
What kind of key? If it was a normal sized key your grapple hook would be too big to fit inside the ring at the end.
So I figured you were talking about some giant key.
Six or eight inches long, IIRC.