|
That's not how take 20 works though. He's spending a full 20 rounds (2 minutes) on each 5 ft. square. So he's searching A for 2 minutes, then one square in front of A for two minutes, etc. He's not going all the way down the hallway once, back, all the way down again and repeat 20 times.But my point is, whether he spends 2 minutes or 20 minutes, if he misses the trigger plate, there is a negative consequence, because he's going to continue on and step on it, releasing large quantities of acid that will burn his eyes out, giving him an even worse Perception check.
At this point, we are discussing the merits of various house rules, since the RAW is perfectly clear.
I’m not sure how your suggested rule is supposed to operate.
Is it a special function of pit traps and pressure plates that the act of looking for them can cause you to stand on them, or would you also set off a trap in a door if you looked for it and didn’t find it?
Or is it the act of taking 20 that triggers the trap, so that looking for 6 seconds and failing to spot the pit doesn’t mean you fall into it, but deciding to spend 2 minutes looking for the pit means you definitely fall into it at some unspecified point in the next 20 rounds?
Also, how does your rule work if I decide instead to make Perception checks until I roll a 20? (Or alternatively, if you want to roll for me behind the screen so I don’t know if I get a 20, if I ask you to make 30 Perception checks for me.)
If I had to wait 10 minutes + to advance 15 feet into a corridor without apparent reason I'd call you a dramaqueen and might just take my chances I did not become an adventurer to die of old age.
Fair enough. That would get you elected as the pointman and door opener with the people in my game. As long as you're willing to be the trapfinder (by setting them off), I don't see a problem with not wanting to move so slowly through the adventure area.
The way my players (in 3.5) decided to handle searching for traps, as long as they weren't fleeing anything, they had the scout in the lead searching for traps along the way. But he just spent a single action and was taking 10 at it. He had invested in a very good search score and, the player also being a long-time DM, did't want to make a lot of useless, time-consuming rolls for every step of the way. So I wrote down his score taking 10 and off we went, I revealed to him any traps that his check made and resolved any he might have triggered. Pretty much textbook use of taking a number to speed up play resolution.
If 'looking' for traps is just looking and cant set anything off then the mechanic is wrong.
If you only use visual references than there should be a fair number of false positives. That sconce looks like a lever. That shadow looks like a pressure plate. Without confirmation, that is inherently dangerous in a magic world, the DM should respond accordingly.
A successful perception roll can return a false report without confirmation. You have seen the places you would put a trap if you were trapping the hall.
You go about disabling your perceived traps and take your risks in the second part of the process.
That's a workable process too but it is not how I have understood the rules. My understanding was that searching for traps tested your perceptions to make sure that the next step really included a trap. If perception is designed to be safe then it will be less accurate.
Sigurd
If I had to wait 10 minutes + to advance 15 feet into a corridor without apparent reason I'd call you a dramaqueen and might just take my chances I did not become an adventurer to die of old age.Fair enough. That would get you elected as the pointman and door opener with the people in my game. As long as you're willing to be the trapfinder (by setting them off), I don't see a problem with not wanting to move so slowly through the adventure area.
The way my players (in 3.5) decided to handle searching for traps, as long as they weren't fleeing anything, they had the scout in the lead searching for traps along the way. But he just spent a single action and was taking 10 at it. He had invested in a very good search score and, the player also being a long-time DM, did't want to make a lot of useless, time-consuming rolls for every step of the way. So I wrote down his score taking 10 and off we went, I revealed to him any traps that his check made and resolved any he might have triggered. Pretty much textbook use of taking a number to speed up play resolution.
I'll let the rogue be front man ofcourse, he just needs a little encouragement...
If I play a rogue I do not have a problem going upfront and just rolling my checks going through possibly trapped hallways, or whatever.. just when I spot a location that is more likely to be trapped or seems a good spot for an ambush I will take extra care, or when a path is not commonly used by the local orcs for some non-identifiable reason, some things like tombs are just natural death traps.
Taking 20 all the time is just silly, it will just encourage the DM to make traps with impossibly high DC or find another way to negate your skill's effect.
I think the naysayers are also overestimating the time it takes to take-20 while searching for traps. First off, we're all in agreement that take-20 = 20 attempts? Checking the PRD I also see that an active Perception check is a move action, not a standard action. Thus you can take two active Perception checks per round, or 20 in 10 rounds, which is 1 minute.
Further, there's nothing that says that you have to focus on a single square. Taking a Perception check is looking for "fine details in the environment." If there's a DC25 trap 50' away, then it's a DC30 to notice it. Assuming you have line of sight to whatever you need to notice the trap of course. In a cluttered room, you'd have to go slower still.
With all that in mind, you can cover 10' per minute at a minimum. If you're willing to gamble that the -1 for the distance between 10-20' isn't causing you to miss anything, you can move up to 20', and so on. Once you hit a +12-14 Perception modifier, you should be fairly comfortable moving along at around your normal movement rate but in feet per minute rather than rounds.
But my point is, whether he spends 2 minutes or 20 minutes, if he misses the trigger plate, there is a negative consequence, because he's going to continue on and step on it, releasing large quantities of acid that will burn his eyes out, giving him an even worse Perception check.
While some traps might be exceptions to this rule, the assumption is that the trapfinder wouldn't step in an area until it has been thoroughly scrutinized. Consider the land mine mentioned earlier: The soldier looking for mines wouldn't do ANYTHING that might trigger one until he exhausted all available means to safely scrutinize the minefield. There's a substantial difference between discovering the trap (Perception: "Yep. There's a minefield there. Can't you see the damaged plants?") and disarming the trap (Disable Device: "You might want to stand back while I mark a safe trail through. I'll need to probe ahead to pinpoint each mine.")
Can you take 20 to climb a rope above a pool of lava? Falling itself doesn't have a penalty. Hell, falling doesn't even have a penalty above normal ground. It's crashing into the ground at a high speed that has a penalty. :P
Good question!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you take 20 to climb a rope above a pool of lava? Falling itself doesn't have a penalty. Hell, falling doesn't even have a penalty above normal ground. It's crashing into the ground at a high speed that has a penalty. :P
If failing a Perception check to notice a trap caused gravity to pull you into the trap, you'd have a point.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
Can you take 20 to climb a rope above a pool of lava? Falling itself doesn't have a penalty. Hell, falling doesn't even have a penalty above normal ground. It's crashing into the ground at a high speed that has a penalty. :P
The point about Take 20 is that is it is like you sitting there and rolling 20 times.
The question I think you should ask about the 'penalty for failure' is: does the penalty for failure of the skill check itself affect the PC, or stop them from using the skill again? Or another way, can they sit there and roll the dice 20 times?
If staring at a point in a corridor the wrong way had some negative affect then yes (you couldn't take 20). But normally staring at a spot in a corridor doesn't prevent a PC from staring at that spot some more. Stepping forward may have a negative affect, but that is the step not the skill check.
It is a mechanic to speed up play. Trap DCs are generally 20 to 25+. They are hard to find in 3-6 seconds. If you think the rogue is scamming their way around rolling dice, they still have to roll, and roll high, to disarm the trap. BTW does a caster have to roll to detect magic?
To answer your statement, if a PC had a ring of feather fall and was immune to lava (and there was no other game reason to worry about exactly how long it took to climb the rope) then YES, I would let them take 20.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you take 20 to climb a rope above a pool of lava? Falling itself doesn't have a penalty. Hell, falling doesn't even have a penalty above normal ground. It's crashing into the ground at a high speed that has a penalty. :P
If you can't miss the DC 15 Climb check to climb an unknotted rope (i.e., your Climb bonus is +14 or higher), then there is no chance of failure, let alone a penalty for failure, so yes, you could take 20 on that Climb check.
"Penalty," in the context of skills, in some ways means "placing the character in a position or situation that is worse off than before, OR where it is impossible for the character to repeat using the skill again."
Failing a Climb check by 5 or more means you fall; you can't repeat the skill check because you're no longer holding the rope. A simple failure (by 4 or less) means you make no progress--you're no worse off than before. Thus, if the worst that can happen with a Climb check is you fail by 4 or less, then the worst outcome is that you stay where you are, thus you can repeat as much as you want.
Failing a Perception check to notice something in an adjacent square doesn't have any penalty for failure; you can look at the square all you want, even if you fail by 5 or 20 or 100, because LOOKING at a trapped square doesn't set it off. Does looking at a pressure plate 5 feet from you set it off? No. (Looking at a symbol spell, maybe, but not a mechanical trap.) So, having looked at a square, or searched it by taking 20, you can decide whether or not you want to MOVE into that square, which may activate the trap. Or you could attempt to reach into the square (you know, with your 5 ft. reach) and try to disable the trap... which DOES have a chance of failure (the DisDev skill talks about "something going wrong" if you fail by 5 or more).
*Looking* at a square with a land mine doesn't set it off, even if you look at it REALLY HARD for a REALLY LONG TIME. It's *stepping* on the land mine--or *poking* at it to see how to disable it--that has a risk of triggering it.
Aye, he's confusing the 'move in and oops!' part with the 'I didn't see that' part. He went straight from not finding to trap effects, without triggering it via other means in between.
==Aelryinth
|
As part of the unspoken contract between GM and Player when designing a dungeon w/ traps. Using Knowledge (Dungeoncraft) you generally only place traps to guard the really important stuff like treasure or special places OR to slow PC's down in an area where encounters are likely to happen. Unless of course the Dungeon is merely a giant death trap in and of itself...
There's really no need for a Rogue to have to take 20 to search every single square of every corridor. The GM should give them subtle hints now and again. Doors, isolated corridors, near pedastals or daises, areas with multiple niches or ornate decoration/carvings, etc.
--Masterwork Vrock pick
Although I'm happy in general with people being able to take 20 on searching for traps:
1. Saying you only use sight and not touch is totally silly. You're going to search a chest for traps without so much as touching it? When you search for secret doors, it's usually assumed you find the opening mechanism too, and IMO there's no way to do that without some pushing/pulling/prodding. In my game, if you said "I'm going to search it for traps from 5' away without touching it" I'd say "fine" and assess a -10 or so penalty. Saying it's sight only just starts leading people down other silly paths like "well that trap door is under a thick rug you can't find it with Search."
2. In a dungeon, who is ever in enough of a hurry not to take 20 on trapfinding checks, and search checks of every kind? It's a very rare dungeon that you're on a timer. It would be one thing if it really took a minute and the players got dangerously bored and just started running around, but in real-world time it's:
"each square we move down in this hallway I do a Search of 30 to find traps." That's faster than rolling once.
And it only takes a minute, so unless you really do it everywhere, even enhanced wandering monster checks etc. are minimal.
|
For your 2nd question Ernest, I'd say a LOT of parties. It's a rare case in the APs I run that the parties feel like they can slow down that much at all. Most of the mages or casters that have buffs going are on timers, and with ones that only last 10 minutes/level the need to spend 2-3 minutes on a room to search it instead of 40-60 is great.
In *few* cases will the group take 20, and usually only if the room is small and important looking. Most of the time the group has a couple of the high Perception guys do their search, and then they move on.
|
|
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.
Depends on the trap and its trigger. The ruling has to be made on a case by case basis. If it's something you can accidentally trigger before finding it, I would say no. Perception covers a lot of ground now and while a lot of traps can be safely identified before tripping them, some can't.
Although I'm happy in general with people being able to take 20 on searching for traps:
1. Saying you only use sight and not touch is totally silly. You're going to search a chest for traps without so much as touching it? When you search for secret doors, it's usually assumed you find the opening mechanism too, and IMO there's no way to do that without some pushing/pulling/prodding. In my game, if you said "I'm going to search it for traps from 5' away without touching it" I'd say "fine" and assess a -10 or so penalty. Saying it's sight only just starts leading people down other silly paths like "well that trap door is under a thick rug you can't find it with Search."
2. In a dungeon, who is ever in enough of a hurry not to take 20 on trapfinding checks, and search checks of every kind? It's a very rare dungeon that you're on a timer. It would be one thing if it really took a minute and the players got dangerously bored and just started running around, but in real-world time it's:
"each square we move down in this hallway I do a Search of 30 to find traps." That's faster than rolling once.
And it only takes a minute, so unless you really do it everywhere, even enhanced wandering monster checks etc. are minimal.
1) So, what you're saying is the rogue is going to blow the search check on every trap that triggers by touch, such as a shocking grasp trap, or contact poison. Since those are the only traps that work without fail, then, ALL traps should be like that. goodbye Rogues.
2) Taking 20 eats up time, buffs, countdown timers to midnight, what have you. But if you have time, you should do it. If you were walking into a deathtrap, would you have any problems with the guy in front of you making sure you didn't die instantly if you took two steps past him?
Thought not.
==Aelryinth
1) So, what you're saying is the rogue is going to blow the search check on every trap that triggers by touch, such as a shocking grasp trap, or contact poison. Since those are the only traps that work without fail, then, ALL traps should be like that. goodbye Rogues.
No, just because you also use touch doesn't mean you just paw retardedly at it. When searching for something you use all your senses. First you look (and maybe smell, for poison/explosives/magical reagents), then you touch it lightly perhaps with a probe or gloves, feeling for seams or "give", then you do things like tap on it to use hearing... Applies for traps, secret doors, hidden compartments in the bottom of desk drawers, whatever.
This really is better for thieves because otherwise you go down a stupid path. "You can't find that trap, it's a wire-to-explosive device on the other side of the door. No way to see it. Line of effect neener neener." Well, we've all seen in movies/TV how you can detect it - the person opens the door just a crack, hopefully not enough to set it off, and sees/probes for the wire. Anyway, you can only expect to find things at maximum efficiency if you are bringing all your senses into play. I think the Perception skill writeup makes it crystal clear that all the senses are used in its commission.
Does this mean that there are some traps the thief might set off while looking for them? Yes, but then again, that's life. That's why detecting (even without disarming) land mines is dangerous work.
This really is better for thieves because otherwise you go down a stupid path. "You can't find that trap, it's a wire-to-explosive device on the other side of the door. No way to see it. Line of effect neener neener." Well, we've all seen in movies/TV how you can detect it - the person opens the door just a crack, hopefully not enough to set it off, and sees/probes for the wire. Anyway, you can only expect to find things at maximum efficiency if you are bringing all your senses into play. I think the Perception skill writeup makes it crystal clear that all the senses are used in its commission.
Or instead of playing a bizarre one-upsman game, you just nod and accept that he took 20 for perception and that dunking a perception roll doesn't case you to set off the trap.
Hrm ... so the trapfinder is sloooowly making its/her/his way down the 10' x 100' generic dungeon hallway. Each 5' x 5' square takes 2 minutes to search. Each 10' x 10' section takes 8 minutes to search. The 10 sections of the hallway takes 80 minutes. Hope they brought plenty of torches, dirty mags for the wizard to read and a squirrel-on-a-stick to entertain the fighter...
I can see the "get ON with it!" comments flying thick and fast though, taking the better part of an hour and a half to go 100' (30 meters, maaybe 31 meters, depending). I hope that the group doesn't depend upon maintaining rosters of buff spells to survive. Most (buff spells) won't last that long. ^_^
Hrm ... so the trapfinder is sloooowly making its/her/his way down the 10' x 100' generic dungeon hallway. Each 5' x 5' square takes 2 minutes to search. Each 10' x 10' section takes 8 minutes to search. The 10 sections of the hallway takes 80 minutes.
Slightly over half that time, actually. It takes 20 move actions to take 20 searching a 5'x5' square, and an occasional move action to advance down the corridor. You can take 20 move actions in 1 minute (two per round for ten rounds).
But yes.
If the Rogue in my party were taking so freaking long to meticulously search the corridor for traps most of my characters would eventually get impatient and just say "get on with it" to the overly paranoid Rogue. Out of game you don't have to experience that your characters are being made to wait 5 minutes to search a flappin' 5 foot square, but you have to RP that you are in a potentially hostile environment where the Rogue is taking way too long.
Sometimes "looks clear" is enough for me.
Mr. Fishy works for the bomb squad. He has to disarm a bomb instead of being careful Mr. Fishy just starts cutting wires until he disarms it, or set that sucker off. Taking 20 implies failure and fail by five or more sets off a trap.
Mr. Fishy refuses to stand next to you.
Mr. Fishy works for the bomb squad. He has to disarm a bomb instead of being careful Mr. Fishy just starts cutting wires until he disarms it, or set that sucker off. Taking 20 implies failure and fail by five or more sets off a trap.
Mr. Fishy refuses to stand next to you.
Yes, failure on a disable device check could set off the bomb.
Fortunately perception is a different skill and doesn't set off traps.
Sounds like Mr Fishy doesn't search for traps, he just cuts and hopes he lives. Not very wise decision.
Hrm ... so the trapfinder is sloooowly making its/her/his way down the 10' x 100' generic dungeon hallway. Each 5' x 5' square takes 2 minutes to search. Each 10' x 10' section takes 8 minutes to search. The 10 sections of the hallway takes 80 minutes.Slightly over half that time, actually. It takes 20 move actions to take 20 searching a 5'x5' square, and an occasional move action to advance down the corridor. You can take 20 move actions in 1 minute (two per round for ten rounds).
But yes.
Is there an actual reference to searching for traps being limited to a single 5' square per attempt? I know it was there in 3.5 when Search was a distinct skill from Spot/Listen, but I see no reference to that in the Perception skill now. Which suggests to me that, within reason, a single Perception check covers everyhing in line of sight. Still taking into account distance modifiers and whatnot.
Thus, if you were standing at the end of a 30' long, 5' wide corridor and wanted to check it for traps, you could take-20 once (1 minute) and have basicially searched the whole thing. Just remember that the two squares 10'-20' out you take a -1, and the two squares from 20'-30' are at a -2.
I picture this as a version of the 'Sherlock Scan' you see in media. A character arrives at the crime scene, and just takes it in (sometimes pacing the room, sometimes just standing the doorway, almost never actually touching anything), and then announces exactly what happened, what the victim did for a living, what he ate for breakfast, the name of his first pet goldfish, etc.
ZappoHisbane actually has a point. I just looked through, and there's nothing about looking for traps, only the perception DC to spot one.
This has one of two implications. You can make the perception check for everything you can see over and over again, or else, you can't take 10 or 20, since you can't make the perception until you encounter the trap.
I don't like either one of those, honestly.
But, the RAW have nothing I can find about how much area you can search with a perception check. So I suppose it's up to the GM to assign penalties to the check based on how big an area you want to search.
Man, this get's complicated. Blech. I can see arguments coming a mile away.
Man, this get's complicated. Blech. I can see arguments coming a mile away.
Probably not. The distance modifier for a mile is what, -500 or so? You won't see it coming. :P
The problem is in order of operations.
If you are only using your eyes then you cannot know what your other senses can confirm or deny. You must treat suspicious instances as possible traps (This is a false positive) or accept that you cannot find them.
You will of course disable false alarms all the time because there is no trap but they will also be a time sink.
The OP was in a situation where the DM wanted to model the risk. With a lot of traps about, the dm thought actively looking for them was risky enough to set them off. That is how I've always thought about the skill too.
"*Looking* at a square with a land mine doesn't set it off, even if you look at it REALLY HARD for a REALLY LONG TIME. It's *stepping* on the land mine--or *poking* at it to see how to disable it--that has a risk of triggering it."
This is also a viable mechanic but it puts more danger and time into the disable traps part of the process. It also creates the very real possibility that there are a lot of traps that simply can't be detected because they are hidden and the viewer is doing little or nothing to lift things or unhide them.
I don't think the OP was treated unfairly but I think the process could be clearer.
Sigurd
This is also a viable mechanic but it puts more danger and time into the disable traps part of the process. It also creates the very real possibility that there are a lot of traps that simply can't be detected because they are hidden and the viewer is doing little or nothing to lift things or unhide them.
Well it is the disabling part that is dangerous. LOOKING generally isn't dangerous it's when you get busy doing something to it that you are jarring and possibly setting it off. The key here isn't the "oh you are touching" it's them mechanics:
I can take twenty on searching for traps. It is supported by the rules. The trap has a DC that's what I need to beat. I don't have to say how I'm looking, or what I'm looking for beyond traps. IF I beat the DC for the trap I find it without setting it off -- how I found it doesn't matter. I did find it and I didn't set it off.
Perception =/= disable.
Disable does give a chance to set off the trap.
Perception doesn't.
Anything else is in house rule or discussion -- which this forum isn't.
Anything else is in house rule or discussion -- which this forum isn't.
You'd be right if this didn't happen after a DM's Call. The situation was interpreted to the the OP and we inherit that interpretation. We are following on Rule Zero.
The game is not designed to ignore the DM. If player and DM saw the rules differently the DM had every reason to make a different call.
If we don't explore the rules interpretation here we reduce the game.
I can take twenty on searching for traps. It is supported by the rules. The trap has a DC that's what I need to beat. I don't have to say how I'm looking, or what I'm looking for beyond traps. IF I beat the DC for the trap I find it without setting it off -- how I found it doesn't matter. I did find it and I didn't set it off.
That is simply arrogance when the DM has said otherwise.
Here's a quandary for you then:
1. I can't take twenty because of all the traps in the room.
2. I don't know the traps are there until I find them.
3. How do I know I can't take twenty when I don't "know" the traps are all there since I haven't found them yet?
The GM in question is guilty of forcing his players to metagame. They "know" something they don't know and have to act according to their knowledge of something they don't know.
NOW if monsters were present or there was a specific reason to rush sure I could see issues.
BUT this is a case of the GM simply stating that a player can't do something because the character feels threatened by something he doesn't know is there and that prevents him from doing what he would normally do.
That's a valid and useful quandary.
My response is that the character knows there are many traps in the room by some sixth sense or as an intuition. Knowing more than that intuition involves unraveling a complicated situation to separate one trap out from another.
The traps are too complicated and interwoven for one achievable disable trap roll. Separating out where to disable takes more effort than simply looking. You are still 'finding traps' because you have to know what you are dealing with before you can disable them but the trap you study might be within another trap.
It is dangerous enough that you cannot take 20. Sorting out the trap you're looking at might set off a trap you haven't seen yet.
Even just looking at all the traps in a room might make you wander into a trapped place to get a different perspective. The trap you are discovering might be part of another trap that you set off.
Its not like the DM has necessarily penalized the player. The player just cannot escape the risk of the situation by taking 20.
That will always be the DM's call.
The player has to come up with the _right_ plan - the character can't simply do what he was trained for until he succeeds.
I will reiterate my stance, not that anyone seems to be paying much attention to it.
It is on a case by case basis. You cannot automatically always choose to take 20 on searching for a trap.
Let's take an easy example. A crossbow is attached to the other side of the door you are checking for traps. The bolt is enchanted to set off a fireball when it hits a target. The door is flush with the floor and the door jamb is an inch thick so there's no way to look around the door. If you open the door, the string pulls the lever on the crossbow and you are attacked by the crossbow.
There is no way to see the trap, because it is not visible from outside the room. In this case, a perception check to take 20 to look for the trap does nothing to locate the trap. It is not locatable by sight.
On the other hand, touching the door, pulling on it slowly as you open it, checking for wires once you have the door open a crack, you can then try to find the wire. However, at this point, there is a penalty for failing to find it, or for opening the door a bit to wide in your attempts to perceive it. That penalty is that the trap can go off. Since there is a penalty, you can't take 20 to find the trap.
A different case, same setup, but the bottom of the door has a one-inch gap. If you have some tools, you can put a mirror on a rod under it and look for the trap. In this case, you can take 20 on looking, since you have no penalty for failing your perception test, as you don't have to open the door to check.
See the difference? The book says you can take 20 on a perception check for traps, but it also says you can't take 20 if there is a penalty for failure. Most traps, yes, you can take 20 without penalty when looking. However, some are going to be set up to make them as difficult as possible to disarm, this includes making it as hard as possible to even find them before they go off, or setting it up so just looking can trigger them (symbol spell traps for example).
stuffs
Course none of this matters cause I don't know the traps are there until I find them and I can't find them because I can't search for them cause doing so will set them off -- which doesn't actually happen by the way since simply using perception to find traps doesn't set them off.
Perceptions doesn't set off traps -- otherwise there would be no point in having a perception check followed by the disable check. You should simply make one check since failure means it goes off --
Which isn't supported by the rules.
Disabling sets it off -- failing to find it means you might wander into it but that's not the same as saying "you didn't find it it goes off."
Fluff it how you like -- it doesn't matter -- you do perception find the trap if you beat the DC for it then you may attempt to disable it.
MTDThat's a great example.
As soon as you have to do anything active to look for traps you might set them off.
AS "There are traps in this room" is not much worse than suggesting the player make a role to begin with. You see a suspicious situation that is very dangerous.
Even letting the player role the dice involves trusting a convention and a DM call. You can't get away from rule zero.
Except for again: That's not how it works.
Perception doesn't set it off.
Disabling it can, blundering in to it can.
However it should go like this even in MDT's example:
Player "I search for traps."
Player rolls, fails the check.
DM "You don't find any traps."
Player "I open the door to travel through."
DM "The trap you didn't find goes off."
NOT
Player "I search for traps."
Player rolls, fails the check.
DM "The trap goes off because you failed to find it."
Player "Wait a minute how did I set it off I was just looking for it."
DM "Well I assumed you were opening the door slightly to..."
Player "I never said I was opening the door I was searching for traps not opening doors!"
Abram,
Wrong, here's how it goes.
Player : I take 20 searching the door for traps.
GM : You find no traps on the door.
Player : I open the door.
GM : You set off the trap.
Player : Wait a minute, you said there weren't any traps, I took 20, and I have a +20 with perception for finding traps, that means the dc had to be higher than 40, but we're only level 10 so that's not fair or possible.... blah blah blah
Second option :
Player : I take 20 searching the door for traps.
GM : You find no traps on this side of the door.
Player : I open.. wait, on this side?
GM : Yes, no traps on this side.
Player : I check the other side of the door.
GM : You'll have to crack the door open to do that.
Player : OK, I crack the door and take 20.
GM : You can't take 20 on this, you're cracking the door open, that means if there is a trap, you might set it off.
Player : <grumbles> Ok, I roll and roll a 15, I get a 35 perception check when cracking the door open.
GM : You find a trap.
I will reiterate my stance, not that anyone seems to be paying much attention to it.
It is on a case by case basis. You cannot automatically always choose to take 20 on searching for a trap.
Let's take an easy example. A crossbow is attached to the other side of the door you are checking for traps. The bolt is enchanted to set off a fireball when it hits a target. The door is flush with the floor and the door jamb is an inch thick so there's no way to look around the door. If you open the door, the string pulls the lever on the crossbow and you are attacked by the crossbow.
There is no way to see the trap, because it is not visible from outside the room. In this case, a perception check to take 20 to look for the trap does nothing to locate the trap. It is not locatable by sight.
On the other hand, touching the door, pulling on it slowly as you open it, checking for wires once you have the door open a crack, you can then try to find the wire. However, at this point, there is a penalty for failing to find it, or for opening the door a bit to wide in your attempts to perceive it. That penalty is that the trap can go off. Since there is a penalty, you can't take 20 to find the trap.
A different case, same setup, but the bottom of the door has a one-inch gap. If you have some tools, you can put a mirror on a rod under it and look for the trap. In this case, you can take 20 on looking, since you have no penalty for failing your perception test, as you don't have to open the door to check.
See the difference? The book says you can take 20 on a perception check for traps, but it also says you can't take 20 if there is a penalty for failure. Most traps, yes, you can take 20 without penalty when looking. However, some are going to be set up to make them as difficult as possible to disarm, this includes making it as hard as possible to even find them before they go off, or setting it up so just looking can trigger them (symbol spell traps for example).
Perception implies searching, not just looking(visually). It does not say how the trap is found. If the trap has a DC it can be found. If the trap can not be found then the DC would be -. The game does not say how the rogue finds the trap, only that he finds it. It is up to the DM to provide the fluff.
options and opinions
I disagree. If I search the door I search the door. If you tell me I don't find a trap on the door then either I failed to notice it, OR it isn't there.
To allow oneself to get bogged down in the "How" of searching the door invites metagaming and "gotcha!" games (DM: "HAHAHA You searched that side of the door not this side so you set it off!" or player: "but I specifically said I was doing this because it would prevent me from not finding the trap because of...")
IF i state I'm looking for traps on the door the only thing I want to hear from the GM is if I find or don't find traps. I don't want sematics games I want to know about the trap and not have to check the same door three times because I didn't check "this side, that side and the inside."
I make the check so I don't have to play the head games -- I check for traps, roll perception tell me what I know based on the roll -- not how you think I would go about it or how you want your word games to go.
Abram,
Wrong, here's how it goes.Player : I take 20 searching the door for traps.
GM : You find no traps on the door.
Player : I open the door.
GM : You set off the trap.
Player : Wait a minute, you said there weren't any traps, I took 20, and I have a +20 with perception for finding traps, that means the dc had to be higher than 40, but we're only level 10 so that's not fair or possible.... blah blah blahSecond option :
Player : I take 20 searching the door for traps.
GM : You find no traps on this side of the door.
Player : I open.. wait, on this side?
GM : Yes, no traps on this side.
Player : I check the other side of the door.
GM : You'll have to crack the door open to do that.
Player : OK, I crack the door and take 20.
GM : You can't take 20 on this, you're cracking the door open, that means if there is a trap, you might set it off.
Player : <grumbles> Ok, I roll and roll a 15, I get a 35 perception check when cracking the door open.
GM : You find a trap.
Taking 20 assumes you go through every method to find the trap, not just gazing around the room, hoping your eyes fall upon it. Now if you have your players describe in detail how they will find the trap, that is not a bad think but RAW the dice roll should handle it, since the character, not the player is the expert at trapfinding.
edit:ninja'd by Abraham spalding
Abram,
Wrong, here's how it goes.Player : I take 20 searching the door for traps.
GM : You find no traps on the door.
Player : I open the door.
GM : You set off the trap.
Player : Wait a minute, you said there weren't any traps, I took 20, and I have a +20 with perception for finding traps, that means the dc had to be higher than 40, but we're only level 10 so that's not fair or possible.... blah blah blahSecond option :
Player : I take 20 searching the door for traps.
GM : You find no traps on this side of the door.
Player : I open.. wait, on this side?
GM : Yes, no traps on this side.
Player : I check the other side of the door.
GM : You'll have to crack the door open to do that.
Player : OK, I crack the door and take 20.
GM : You can't take 20 on this, you're cracking the door open, that means if there is a trap, you might set it off.
Player : <grumbles> Ok, I roll and roll a 15, I get a 35 perception check when cracking the door open.
GM : You find a trap.
The second option is reasonable. But either way, it wasn't looking but opening door that was issue.
If one had Ring of X-ray vision, you could take 20 because you can see through the door.
It is a sight issue not s search issue.
The second option follows completely on how you interpret the 'perception' roll.
It's not a word game if you're expressly told the score.
All that happened is the OP couldn't avoid a roll. The player stats and skills still came into play but there was an unavoidable five percent chance that something bad would happen.
The rules for the situation were shared by the DM. The rules didn't change after the roll. The situation was not obscured from the player.
Significantly, we don't even know what the bad event was. We assume it was a trap going off but it might not be.