|
This came up in our last game so I've been searching around for an answer. I still have yet to find a definitive ruling in the Pathfinder rulebook.
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Search_Skill
Action
It takes a full-round action to search a 5-foot-by-5-foot area or a volume of goods 5 feet on a side.
Can anyone point out where in the Pathfinder rulebook this is clarified?
Searching takes a move action. You can do it twice in round. So the 5' wide 20' long corridor takes two rounds, not four. It's safe to say that someone who knows what they're doing ought to be fairly well able to spot many traps, maybe most traps, in just a few seconds of looking.
However, many of us have the mental picture in our minds of carefully searching every nook and cranny and shadow, testing everything with meticulous thoroughness. Spy movies, Indiana Jones, etc.
But remember those were very nasty traps and the heroes didn't settle for a quick examination.
Searching for traps can be repeated. Maybe one quick search doesn't satisfy you, so do another. And another, and another. Suddenly, that move action is turning into a long string of move actions, searching more and more thoroughly until you're satisfied there was nothing to find - or until you find the trap.
That's what's happening in those long cinematic sequences, and our PCs can do the same thing.
Or they can just settle for a quick once-over and call it good enough. Remember, even Indy used a move action most of the time. In the opening sequence of Raiders of the Lost Ark, he walked right up to the light in the tunnel and waved his hand through it to spring the spear trap. He set off a dart trap with a torch with barely a glance. And he found the weight trap under the golden idol with only glance (though he spent some time evaluating the means to disable it with a bag of dirt, and still failed the disable roll - but he found that trap just by glancing at the pedestal).
|
It seems that you can use Perception to search for traps as long as you're in line of sight to them. It used to be you could only search w/in 10ft. and one square at a time. Now you just take penalties for distance & conditions. The only mention of the 10ft. distance is in the Trapspotter Rogue Talent and that's just for an auto passive Perception check.
Am I missing anything?
--Masterwork Vrock Picks
A move action would let you take a 10(if not distracted or under threat) for each square. This would be a quick search of the area.
If you spend 20 move actions(10 rounds), you can take a 20 on each square. This would be a complete search of the area.
A player can decide they are making multiple searchs. I generally make the player decide before they roll the dice how many times they are going to search each square to prevent metagaming. They can then roll the dice that many times, and take the highest roll.
If you roll 3 d20s and take the highest, the average result is a 15. I have a house rule where I let my players "Take a 15", this take 3 times longer than normal.
If you're thoroughly searching that means you go for "20". Which takes 20 times more i.e. 10 rounds if you do nothing else (1 min) looking for a trap.
D&D PCs have the eyes of the hawk, are able to run faster than Carl Lewis and jump higher than anyone else.
Real heroes.
Actually, depending on the trap, taking 20 to search for it may just set it off (remember, the Take-20 rules assume that you first roll a 1, then you roll a 2, then a 3, etc., so if a 1 would set off the trap, well, kaboom!). Very dangerous.
It's probably safer to just roll the dice a handful of times until you're as sure as you can be.
If you're thoroughly searching that means you go for "20". Which takes 20 times more i.e. 10 rounds if you do nothing else (1 min) looking for a trap.
D&D PCs have the eyes of the hawk, are able to run faster than Carl Lewis and jump higher than anyone else.
Real heroes.
Actually, depending on the trap, taking 20 to search for it may just set it off (remember, the Take-20 rules assume that you first roll a 1, then you roll a 2, then a 3, etc., so if a 1 would set off the trap, well, kaboom!). Very dangerous.
It's probably safer to just roll the dice a handful of times until you're as sure as you can be.
Searching for a trap has no penalty for failure. Disarming does.
It's probably safer to just roll the dice a handful of times until you're as sure as you can be.
Do you let your players roll more than once to look for traps? When I was rogue-ing in our group, the DM and I discussed this and decided that I wouldn't "know" if I had rolled low and would have no reason to roll again. (I'm asking you specifically because you and I often seem to be on the same wavelength- or I guess I should say I'm on your wavelength, as you post a lot and I mostly lurk.)
Charender- I like your idea of predeciding the number of rolls- seems to simulate the idea of "I'm going to inspect this for x-number of seconds before I decide there's nothing to find.
Do you let your players roll more than once to look for traps? When I was rogue-ing in our group, the DM and I discussed this and decided that I wouldn't "know" if I had rolled low and would have no reason to roll again. (I'm asking you specifically because you and I often seem to be on the same wavelength- or I guess I should say I'm on your wavelength, as you post a lot and I mostly lurk.)
It's probably safer to just roll the dice a handful of times until you're as sure as you can be.
My players can search for traps as often as th wish - but I roll their search checks behind the DM screen. I make sure all my players know in advance that I will keep track of their skills and when they try something that they cannot possibly know the outcome, I roll for them.
I also make sure they understand that this is not so I can "get them" or "beat them", but just so I can maintain a sense of mystery. And I never cheat on these rolls (I have been known to turn an enemy attack roll from a miss to a hit, or from a hit to a miss, etc., to liven up or soften up a combat, but I never cheat for hidden player rolls - I don't let them cheat on their own rolls, so I never cheat for or against them when I roll, regardless of whether I think the roll would have been more interesting with some other outcome).
As far as "knowing whether they roll low", they don't know. If I say "You didn't find a trap", they have no idea if I rolled a 1 or a 20, or anywhere in between. They often say they will take the time to search again, sometimes several searches, but usually only when something seems suspicious. Usually if they're just looking at a door or a hallway, they're satisfied with one check.
As for comments that searching never sets off the traps, that is usually but not always the case. Some traps are magically triggered just by entering a space (even to search it). Some might be mechanically triggered (a wall-to-wall pressure plate might be triggered by searching that wall, or the door that it sits in front of). Sometimes it's a matter of wording (a pressure plate on the floor might catch a rogue who searches the floor, misses the trap, then decides to search the desk which requires him to stand on the pressure plate, setting off the trap).
Often, the player just says "I search the room". OK, there's a pressure plate in the floor. If he rolls well, he finds it, but if he fails, he doesn't. The question then becomes one of whether "searching the room" includes moving around and maybe stepping on that pressure plate that he failed to find. No real RAW for that, so I use the same rules as Disabling that trap - failure by 5 or more means he springs the trap.
No, that's not quite RAW, but the alternative is "OK, I've drawn the room - move your mini around the map to show me exactly where you step." That's too obvious; the player will know there is a trap and will be forced to metagame, or forced to anti-metagame (deliberately not search again because he thinks tht would be metagaming - the problem is that if I had said nothing, he might actually have searched again, but now he won't because he is "anti-metagaming" himself right into the trap). I prefer the not-quite-RAW solution to the obvious-metagame solution.
My players can search for traps as often as th wish - but I roll their search checks behind the DM screen. I make sure all my players know in advance that I will keep track of their skills and when they try something that they cannot possibly know the outcome, I roll for them.
I like this! Will discuss this again with my DM next time this circumstance comes up.
Thanks.
It's probably safer to just roll the dice a handful of times until you're as sure as you can be.
Do you let your players roll more than once to look for traps? When I was rogue-ing in our group, the DM and I discussed this and decided that I wouldn't "know" if I had rolled low and would have no reason to roll again. (I'm asking you specifically because you and I often seem to be on the same wavelength- or I guess I should say I'm on your wavelength, as you post a lot and I mostly lurk.)
Charender- I like your idea of predeciding the number of rolls- seems to simulate the idea of "I'm going to inspect this for x-number of seconds before I decide there's nothing to find.
I let my players roll, but I make them decide before any dice are rolled how many attempts they are making. Either way, the main goal is to prevent metagaming, where the player rolls until they get a good result.
I have also been known to make my players roll perception checks when there is nothing to see. Great way to keep them jumpy and on edge.