|
Much debate on this very subject has raged on these boards, and as far as I can recall, no official word yet.
My personal take on it (minus the pages of indirect evidence) is that the Trapspotter trait is indeed passive and constant, and searching the same area for a trap is active and does effectively count as a second chance roll. How you describe it as a DM is up to you, and I would guess would have as much to do with the nature of the trap as anything.
Example: A 10'x10' pit trap in a hallway.
Without Trapspotter = rogue must state he is searching for traps in the area containing the pit, gaining an active Perception to notice it.
With Trapspotter = passive (rolled by the DM) Perception check when the rogue is 10' away from the nearest edge of the pit. Actively searching for traps in the area the pit is located gets the rogue a second, active Perception check.
But that's just me...
For the feeling, I would say play it how you and your players want to. It doesn't affect the game mechanics, so its up to you how you want to flavor it.
For your first question, I would say you get 2 checks if you are actively searching. You can search more than once. Perception has a try again. If I take 10 rounds searching I get 10 checks. Therefore, you get a free check for being amasing, and, when you fail, you get to actually actively search. This isn't overpowered. The player spent an ability to buy this and it doesn't come into play very often, so if you don't let them use it when it does, they will probably feel cheated. I know I would.
Trap Spotter (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should be made in secret by the GM.
Nothing says that you cannot actively search for a trap, or that you cannot use the ability when actively searching. There is also nothing preventing you from retrying a failed perception check, assuming you have some in-game reason (not "I rolled a natural 2").
A rogue could decide to actively search an area more thoroughly than usual, using two move actions to search each square twice. This would take more time than a single search (roughly twice) but much less than taking 20 would. That rogue gets the same benefits as a rogue with Trap Spotter who is actively searching and getting the Trap Spotter check as well.
Trap Spotter is partly a convenience talent (the player not have to remember to say he is checking for traps and the GM can just automatically make the roll as needed) and partly protection against traps in places you would not suspect of being trapped (e.g., 135 feet into a 400 foot corridor).
Trap Spotter (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should be made in secret by the GM.Nothing says that you cannot actively search for a trap, or that you cannot use the ability when actively searching. There is also nothing preventing you from retrying a failed perception check, assuming you have some in-game reason (not "I rolled a natural 2").
Hah, that's exactly the reason why all the DMs I game with, including myself, make this roll in secret instead of not letting the player do it.
No, it's not that I don't trust my players to roleplay properly. I am sure that if my player rolled a natural 2, he would roleplay that he opens the door and sets off the trap.
The reason for the secret roll is twofold:
1. It maintains the sense of the unknown. When that trap goes off, it will truly be a surprise for everyone.
2. It saves the player from having to deny himself good options because he doesn't want to "seem" to be metagaming. For example, if I'm a rogue and I find a chest sitting in the middle of a room, I would definitely search it, and the room, for traps. If I don't find anything, I would almost certainly try again, just to be sure. But if I am the player and rolled a natural 2, and then I tell the DM that I want to try again, it "seems" like I am metagaming, which means, I probably would NOT ask to try again - in which case I am making a bad decision for the sake of not metagaming. I can't win. I either do the dangerous thing and open the chest, or I do the metagame thing and say I try again. I don't want my players to have to choose between two losing options.
Personally as a player I like to roll for myself, but I also make sure we have an "established" plan for what happens when we get to places I would actively search. Normally this includes taking twenty on the area while the others wait a bit back (usually 15 feet~ish depending) and we establish who is the door opener as well. That way regardless of the check the GM knows what's going on. In odd situations we try to declare the contingents first so that regardless of the check we know what we are up to after it.
|
Well, the way I read the traps section is that any character gets a chance to detect a trap when they start to enter the square the trap is in.
Under mechanical trap on page 416: Creatures that succeed on a perception check detect a trap before it is triggered."
Under Magic traps, next page:
"A successful Perception check (DC 25 + spell level) detects a magic trap before it goes off."
Thus, I read it as any character can roll to perceive a trap as they move to enter the square the trap is in. And normally, that's the only time you get to roll. A rogue has to go through each square to make sure it's safe for the party.
With Trap Spotter, a rogue gets to make a check when she comes within 10 feet of a trap. This extends the range and speed the work can be done. Then, if the rogue or another player tries to enter the square the trap is in, they get a check *or in the rogue's case another check*, to detect the trap before it goes off.
Since the Trap Spotter doesn't negate, or specifically change anything regarding your check when you're about to set a trap off, I don't see why you wouldn't still get it.
I don't see anything under traps, the rogue tree, or the perception skill that says you can only make one perception roll against a trap. You get to make a roll each time you fulfill one of the two conditions.
I'd even say that if you moved forward a square and took your 10ft range perception check, and decided to backtrack for some reason, that you'd get another check when you moved forward back into range again.
What I have done in the past is to roll all of the trap spotter rolls before any of the players arrive and note on the map which ones the rogue will spot if they go by them.
This allows the story to flow better, to keep things going without the interruption of a pause while the GM rolls a passive perception check.
This way, when the player states that they are actively looking for traps, another roll is made (at times, depending on the players or situation, I have rolled their perceptions behind a screen, letting them know if they spot anything or not - to keep the suspense up and to stop some metagaming)
|
|
Considering all the things that could affect a Perception check between the time the rogue enters the front door of the dungeon until the time he actually encounters the trap, I can't imagine this is as useful as it seems. Lighting, stat damage, stat boosts, Guidance, bardic inspire competence, etc etc.
Considering all the things that could affect a Perception check between the time the rogue enters the front door of the dungeon until the time he actually encounters the trap, I can't imagine this is as useful as it seems. Lighting, stat damage, stat boosts, Guidance, bardic inspire competence, etc etc.
For the last campaign that I did this in (finished up about a month ago). The rogue in question had darkvision, so lighting wasn't really an issue. I cannot recall any time that that rogue had either wisdom damage or a stat boost on wisdom. No bard in the group. So, no real modifiers to the trap spotter's perception.
If there are modifiers that could come into play, write out the perception check number that you rolled beside the trap and adjust for the variables as the rogue get's close to the trap. I still think that it is smoother and interrupts the play less doing that way, than to stop, look up the DC to spot, then make the roll, etc...
1. It maintains the sense of the unknown. When that trap goes off, it will truly be a surprise for everyone.
2. It saves the player from having to deny himself good options because he doesn't want to "seem" to be metagaming. For example, if I'm a rogue and I find a chest sitting in the middle of a room, I would definitely search it, and the room, for traps. If I don't find anything, I would almost certainly try again, just to be sure. But if I am the player and rolled a natural 2, and then I tell the DM that I want to try again, it "seems" like I am metagaming, which means, I probably would NOT ask to try again - in which case I am making a bad decision for the sake of not metagaming. I can't win. I either do the dangerous thing and open the chest, or I do the metagame thing and say I try again. I don't want my players to have to choose between two losing options.
Why not just take 20? Is everyone constantly under minute-to-minute time pressure?
Or even take 10 -- at least then its an average roll.
Without Trapspotter = rogue must state he is searching for traps in the area containing the pit, gaining an active Perception to notice it.
With Trapspotter = passive (rolled by the DM) Perception check when the rogue is 10' away from the nearest edge of the pit. Actively searching for traps in the area the pit is located gets the rogue a second, active Perception check.
That seems reasonable.
I still think that it is smoother and interrupts the play less doing that way, than to stop, look up the DC to spot, then make the roll, etc...It still falls into the metagaming problem.
I recall one DM that would have initiatives pre-rolled and witnessed people use that information in-game.
Otherwise its what works best for the group. If pre-rolls walk that ledge for your group then go for it.
In general I think it has the flaws of both without much upside. However the world is such a big place that it is an option that will be perfect for some out there.
-James
Usually prior to a session i have all the players roll 20 d20s and write them on a car with some other info like skill checks, AC CMB/CMD and saves. When i need to do a secret roll for things like perception i roll a d20 and pick that value in the player's list of d20 rolls. It speeds things up, keeps results a secret and the players still get to roll their own fates.
|
|
I fail to see how having X number of charts of 20 results and rolling on that customized chart saves any time over rolling the same d20 and comparing it to the DM's "cheat sheet" for a PC. Especially since the PC cheat sheet only has to be updated 1/level in most cases.
But whatever works for you guys.
I fail to see how having X number of charts of 20 results and rolling on that customized chart saves any time over rolling the same d20 and comparing it to the DM's "cheat sheet" for a PC. Especially since the PC cheat sheet only has to be updated 1/level in most cases.
But whatever works for you guys.
It works best when more then one player has to roll. For instance, to spot an ambush. I roll 1 die, and everyone has a different result, instead of having to roll 5 or 6 dice.
And I only ever use it for rolls that need to be kept secret, like perception rolls, or a key disable device.
In case of an ambush, I'd just let them all roll their own dice. They will find out soon enough what's going on....
Not always, they could be followed for a while, or something of the like. Not to mention, they might just be passing something that could be an important detail later, if no one notices, i dont want them to stop and search again, it helps prevent metagaming.
|
|
Not always, they could be followed for a while, or something of the like. Not to mention, they might just be passing something that could be an important detail later, if no one notices, i dont want them to stop and search again, it helps prevent metagaming.
In case of an ambush, I'd just let them all roll their own dice. They will find out soon enough what's going on....
If it's a potentially "important detail", then it won't be jumping out at them, followed by the words "roll initiative"...
I use concealed rolls for Perception checks all the time in situations that call for it. I just use a different method than you do. It's all good.
Why not just take 20? Is everyone constantly under minute-to-minute time pressure?
Or even take 10 -- at least then its an average roll.
As for taking 20, yes, they could do that, if they want to spend forever to get anywhere. Taking 20 to search one 10'x10' area of the floor would take a full minute (20 move actions, 10 rounds = 1 minute). Add in the walls and ceiling, and now it's 4 minutes to move 10'
Imagine a 50' hallway. At 20' and 40' there are wall sconces. It would take a thorough rogue 22 minutes to move through this hallway, taking 20 on the floor, ceilnig, right wall, left wall, and each sconce.
Try it sometime. Measure out 50' somewhere and then spend 22 minutes walking that distance.
Now imagine that there are thousands of feet worth of corridors, rooms, passages, etc., all in just one decent-sized dungeon. How long could you keep up that pace? If you're not sure, go to your local shopping mall and start at one end. Move to the other end stopping in every store. Go to the back wall of each store. Make sure you spend at least 4 minutes to move every 10 feet. You'll find that it will take you several days to walk through a typical shopping mall at that pace, and it would be mind-numbing.
Yes, you could do it if your life depended on it. And maybe adventurers are willing to take that kind of time to be safe. But I think, more realistically, they'll settle for a quick scan (one rolled perception check) and move on. Life is short.
Now, taking-10 is a good idea. It saves game time. Unless you have a clever bad guy that pays a little extra to his trap-makers, and they have traps that are juuuusssst a bit above your rogue's ability to find them with a 10.
Yes, you could do it if your life depended on it. And maybe adventurers are willing to take that kind of time to be safe. But I think, more realistically, they'll settle for a quick scan (one rolled perception check) and move on. Life is short.
Eh, it's less an issue of reality and more an issue of gameplay. You typically adventure in an 8 hour day. If you're not pressed for time, then there's no reason not to spend 22 minutes to move through a hallway. How many hallways are you moving through? Almost 22 hallways? Do most adventures have 22 50 ft. hallways you're expected to get through in one sitting?
Now, I can understand if someone has buffs that they don't want to expire. That's a perfectly valid reason to take 10 or roll. But otherwise, why take chances?
One man's mind-numbing slog is another man's safe journey (:
Now, taking-10 is a good idea. It saves game time. Unless you have a clever bad guy that pays a little extra to his trap-makers, and they have traps that are juuuusssst a bit above your rogue's ability to find them with a 10.That can be the DM metagaming and is even worse than players doing so, imho.
That said, typically a 'look twice' method works best. Do one take 10 and one roll. This gives you a base line score of your take 10 with a chance for higher.
If the situation calls for it increase the number of rolls, even up to a take 20.
-James
There was an interesting sidebar in a 3.5 book called "Book of Challenges".
What it spoke about was how to play monsters smarter than you. Basically.
You metagamed. Since an int 24 creature is going to be WAY smarter than anyone playing. Including the DM.
Thus, that is when a DM must metagame, or they aren't playing the creature to its fullest potential.
Thus, that is when a DM must metagame, or they aren't playing the creature to its fullest potential.I disagree with this entirely.
-James
Actually, this is how most previous editions of the game (and just about every gamemastering book, including 3.5) have advised GM's to play monsters of such high intelligences. Beings of such high INT and WIS have insights into situations that normal mortals are not capable of understanding or emulating (including Gamemasters, no matter their level of arrogance or ego-centrism...) Disagree all you like, but how do you give a good accounting of a creature with a 40 INT and WIS? It is certainly capable of out-guessing and out-planning a party of adventures whose highest INT or WIS is 28 or so... So, designing a plan and sticking to it that lets the party defeat this creature is foolish and not playing this monster to it's potential... It's playing it to YOUR potential...