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.
Agreed, I'm not the one who keeps saying you only use your eyes. Look upthread. I think the perception roll is using all available senses and methods to look for the trap. However, that means you are using not just sight, but touch, smell, and hearing.
If you use touch, then you can set of a trap, so therefore depending on the trap, you may not be able to take 20.
Either you can search and take 20 because you never touch the trap, or else you can't take 20 if touching the trap might set it off. You can't have it both ways (searching for the trap with all senses and no chance of setting it off).
Abram,
Wrong, here's how it goes.
No. You're very wrong here. So wrong I'm not sure where to begin.
The Player can indeed take 20. He can elect to roll 50 times should he wish.
If he 'has to crack open the door' (why I don't know) then either that will set this stupid trap of yours off or it won't but his perception check isn't going to factor into this.
I'm sorry, but searching for traps is even one of the examples for taking 20. That's how wrong you are here.
-James
No, you are wrong. You are so wrong, and so unable to see it, that I just don't know where to begin.
I think the first step might be to tell you to chill, as insults simply don't do anything (that first sentance was an example of why they don't help).
You can't search for a trap on the other side of the door using only your sight, so therefore yes, you can take 20 to find the trap, and you can't find it. Not because the DC is greater than 20+your skill, but because no sight based perception will ever detect the trap if it's impossible for you to see. The only way to detect it is to use something besides sight, if that's the case, then you can possibly set off the trap looking for it by using your fingers/touch/etc, then in that specific case, you can set off the trap.
Unless you are saying that somehow you can magically touch a trap by speaking the incantation 'I take 20' and never set it off?
It is one of the examples of taking 20, but the rules don't stay 'You can always take 20', it only says you can take 20 if there are no penalties, and then lists a few examples of when that might be the case (not that it is ALWAYS the case, only that it might be the case).
I defy you to find in the rules where it says 'you may always take 20 on any of the perception checks below'.
What I find so head-scratch-worthy about this debate is this:
OK. We have one side saying that there are some traps you cannot detect by sight. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to go along with this.
This same side says that, because the trap cannot be detected by sight, you have to use some other sense to detect it. OK, that's still go-along-with-able.
Now here's where it gets tricky. Some of the people on that same side says that, because you're touching the trapped object, the trap goes off.
Pardon me, but doesn't that mean that the trap is undetectable, because it blows up the instant any attempt is even made to detect it? This makes it a jerk DM move, not a trap. If the trap cannot be detected by sight, but even attempting to detect the trap by other means sets it off, then you're forcing the players to eat the trap. Might as well drop an explosive cow on them and get on with the game at that point because you've given up any pretense of being an impartial judge.
Furthermore, in an only slightly related matter, the rules do not say that failed Perception checks set off traps, while very explicitly saying that failed Disable Device checks of sufficient magnitude of failure (ie, not even all DD failures) set off the trap. This leads me to believe that, amazingly enough, failing a Perception check isn't enough to set off a trap. You have to be actually doing something to the trap to set it off.
|
In my less than humble opinion, traps can be way too varied for a blanket statement to make any sense. But if you are going to err to one side or the other, I'd personally err on the side that makes more sense, that you shouldn't be able to take 20 to detect traps. Whether it be because you can't detect the trap without the danger of accidentally setting it off (like the fireball door trap above) or because the logical result of failure is to move into the trigger zone (my hallway pressure switch acid trap example).
What I find so head-scratch-worthy about this debate is this:
OK. We have one side saying that there are some traps you cannot detect by sight. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to go along with this.
This same side says that, because the trap cannot be detected by sight, you have to use some other sense to detect it. OK, that's still go-along-with-able.
Now here's where it gets tricky. Some of the people on that same side says that, because you're touching the trapped object, the trap goes off.
WRONG! BUZZZZZ! Thank you for playing.
You know very well that is not what anyone has been saying. What we've been saying, and what you are ignoring (which you have a tendancy to do when it doesn't fit what you believe) is that you can't take 20 if there is a chance of something bad happening. Since there are, as you go along with above, some traps you can't detect with sight, that require other senses like touch, that when you encounter one of them (usually about 1 in a 100), then at that point you can't take 20. Because the rule for taking 20 specifically states that you can't take 20 if there is a chance of something bad happening.
Pardon me, but doesn't that mean that the trap is undetectable, because it blows up the instant any attempt is even made to detect it? This makes it a jerk DM move, not a trap. If the trap cannot be detected by sight, but even attempting to detect the trap by other means sets it off, then you're forcing the players to eat the trap. Might as well drop an explosive cow on them and get on with the game at that point because you've given up any pretense of being an impartial judge.
A) Quit twisting words. I never, and no one else did, said that it automatically triggers when you attempt to detect it. We only said there will be cases when the trap is designed so that attempting to find it carries a posibility of something bad happening on a failure (for example, rolling 1 on your perception when you are searching a hole in a wall for traps). A good example of this would be the hole that Nick Cage's character in National Treasure II reached into to unlock the door to the city of gold. He couldn't look into it, he had to reach in and feel around to see if it was trapped or not. Such situations carry a chance for something bad to happen, and you can't take 20 on the search (imagine if there had been a bear trap inside the hole that chopped off your hand if you touch something the wrong way).
Furthermore, in an only slightly related matter, the rules do not say that failed Perception checks set off traps, while very explicitly saying that failed Disable Device checks of sufficient magnitude of failure (ie, not even all DD failures) set off the trap. This leads me to believe that, amazingly enough, failing a Perception check isn't enough to set off a trap. You have to be actually doing something to the trap to set it off.
Again, never said that a failed perception check always sets off the trap. Said that when you attempt to use a sense other than sight to detect a trap, there may be a chance to set off the trap (again, rolling one when you reach into that hole to search it). That means you can't take 20. Not that the trap automatically springs if you fail your perception check.
WRONG! BUZZZZZ! Thank you for playing.You know very well that is not what anyone has been saying.
Again, never said that a failed perception check always sets off the trap. Said that when you attempt to use a sense other than sight to detect a trap, there may be a chance to set off the trap (again, rolling one when you reach into that hole to search it). That means you can't take 20. Not that the trap automatically springs if you fail your perception check.
Yeah, but failed perception checks don't set off traps.
-James
If all you are doing is looking with your eyes, yes (assuming the trap is not a symbol trap, which most assuredly is set off by looking at it).
If you are feeling around in a dark hole in the wall that has a trap in it, then your preception attempt could most certainly set it off. You cannot perceive where your sight is blocked without using an alternate sense. It is flat out impossible.
I think the first step might be to tell you to chill, as insults simply don't do anything.
WRONG! BUZZZZZ! Thank you for playing.
Pot, kettle, goose, gander, etc.
Furthermore, in an only slightly related matter, the rules do not say that failed Perception checks set off traps, while very explicitly saying that failed Disable Device checks of sufficient magnitude of failure (ie, not even all DD failures) set off the trap. This leads me to believe that, amazingly enough, failing a Perception check isn't enough to set off a trap. You have to be actually doing something to the trap to set it off.Again, never said that a failed perception check always sets off the trap. Said that when you attempt to use a sense other than sight to detect a trap, there may be a chance to set off the trap (again, rolling one when you reach into that hole to search it). That means you can't take 20. Not that the trap automatically springs if you fail your perception check.
In the future, please base your responses on what I wrote and not what you imagined I wrote. Please re-read what I wrote in the paragraph above and then what you wrote in response to it.
-----
Your entire argument is based on a house rule. The rules as written and as intended, as supported by Sean Reynolds twice in this thread, are that Perception checks do not set off traps. Your entire argument to date, however, has been that you cannot take 20 on Perception checks to locate traps because failure can set off the trap.
Your entire argument is based on a house rule. The rules as written and as intended, as supported by Sean Reynolds twice in this thread, are that Perception checks do not set off traps. Your entire argument to date, however, has been that you cannot take 20 on Perception checks to locate traps because failure can set off the trap.
I'll quote your own words back at you, Zurai.
In the future, please base your responses on what I wrote and not what you imagined I wrote. Please re-read what I wrote in the paragraph above and then what you wrote in response to it.
Please actually go back and read what I said, even in the post you quoted. I said, 'not all traps can you take 20 on'. I did not say 'you can never take 20 on a trap detection', I simply said 'You cannot always take 20'.
As to what Sean Reynolds stated, twice, in this thread, he's most certainly contradicted by the rules directly. A symbol spell trap goes off 'when you see it', which means that perceiving that trap sets it off. You cannot get around that. It is an excellent example of a trap you can't take 20 on, because the very act of taking 20 to perceive it sets off the trap.
Mr. Reynolds is a very competent developer, and I have a great deal of respect for him, but developers are not always correct.
If you take the rules as you and Mr. Reynolds state must be the case every time a perception check is made to find a trap, you end up with the following happening. Frankly, I consider the following to be very much against the spirit of the rules, but to each his own.
Over clever Rogue : "I will take 20 to see if this hole has a trap in when I stick my hand in. The trap probably is designed to chop off the hand of anyone who sticks there hand in, as that is what I would do if I were building a trap where someone had to stick their arm down a hole to open a door mechanism. However, because I have stated that I am taking 20, I can stick my arm in here and feel around with impunity and laugh at the poor schmuck who built this trap that. O lord, I can imagine how he gnashes his teeth as my hand is shoved into this 2 and a half foot deep hole, past the spell that explodes when it senses movement, as I rub my fingers over the mechanical trip that when brushed causes metal blades to descend and chop off my hand. But I know the magic incantation of 'I take 20' and therefore I can rummage around inside here with impunity. Ah, I have felt the entire mechanism of the trap from the hair trigger to the blade and the gears. Now, I will disarm the trap. Unfortunately, my magic incantation doesn't work here, so I will roll my dice and ARRGGHH!! MY HAND! MY HAND!".
Please actually go back and read what I said, even in the post you quoted. I said, 'not all traps can you take 20 on'. I did not say 'you can never take 20 on a trap detection', I simply said 'You cannot always take 20'.
What you said here and what I said do not contradict. In fact, you're agreeing with me. I never asserted that you claimed a character can't take 20 on any trap location check.
A symbol spell trap goes off 'when you see it', which means that perceiving that trap sets it off.
You're using an explicit exception to the rule to try and prove that the rule is invalid. That doesn't work, logically.
Please actually go back and read what I said, even in the post you quoted. I said, 'not all traps can you take 20 on'. I did not say 'you can never take 20 on a trap detection', I simply said 'You cannot always take 20'.What you said here and what I said do not contradict. In fact, you're agreeing with me. I never asserted that you claimed a character can't take 20 on any trap location check.
A symbol spell trap goes off 'when you see it', which means that perceiving that trap sets it off.You're using an explicit exception to the rule to try and prove that the rule is invalid. That doesn't work, logically.
My god, you're claiming you never said the following? It's two posts above this one.
Your entire argument is based on a house rule. The rules as written and as intended, as supported by Sean Reynolds twice in this thread, are that Perception checks do not set off traps. Your entire argument to date, however, has been that you cannot take 20 on Perception checks to locate traps because failure can set off the trap.
I am reading that correctly, yes? I am not agreeing with you. My entire argument to date has been, and I'll say it one last time and then I'll stop trading posts on this subject. Not all traps can you take 20 on, because some traps may be set up so that a failed perception check sets them off.
As to an 'explicit exception', any exception to the rules, be it an explicitly called out one or an implicit one (such as not being able to use any sense except touch to find the trap), it is just as valid to point out that blanket answers of 'This never happens' are not acceptable. You are arguing 'You can never set off a trap with a perception check' while concurrently acknowledging that yes, you can set off a trap with a perception check. Zero Sum.
Please actually go back and read what I said, even in the post you quoted. I said, 'not all traps can you take 20 on'. I did not say 'you can never take 20 on a trap detection', I simply said 'You cannot always take 20'.What you said here and what I said do not contradict. In fact, you're agreeing with me. I never asserted that you claimed a character can't take 20 on any trap location check.
A symbol spell trap goes off 'when you see it', which means that perceiving that trap sets it off.You're using an explicit exception to the rule to try and prove that the rule is invalid. That doesn't work, logically.My god, you're claiming you never said the following? It's two posts above this one.
I am reading that correctly, yes?
Your entire argument is based on a house rule. The rules as written and as intended, as supported by Sean Reynolds twice in this thread, are that Perception checks do not set off traps. Your entire argument to date, however, has been that you cannot take 20 on Perception checks to locate traps because failure can set off the trap.
I'll admit that's badly worded. Allow me to say that I did not mean to imply that you said all traps functioned that way, OK? Like I said, poor wording on my part. Mea culpa.
As to an 'explicit exception', any exception to the rules, be it an explicitly called out one or an implicit one (such as not being able to use any sense except touch to find the trap), it is just as valid to point out that blanket answers of 'This never happens' are not acceptable. You are arguing 'You can never set off a trap with a perception check' while concurrently acknowledging that yes, you can set off a trap with a perception check. Zero Sum.
In order for there to be an exception to a rule ... there needs to be a rule in the first place, ne?
I'll admit that's badly worded. Allow me to say that I did not mean to imply that you said all traps functioned that way, OK? Like I said, poor wording on my part. Mea culpa.
That's perfectly fine. Sorry if I came off as being hot headed. I've just had about 4-5 people on this thread keep misrepresenting that I'm somehow this giant jerk GM who makes every perception roll a sword of damocles that can drop down and chop off every rogues hand on every perception roll.
As to an 'explicit exception', any exception to the rules, be it an explicitly called out one or an implicit one (such as not being able to use any sense except touch to find the trap), it is just as valid to point out that blanket answers of 'This never happens' are not acceptable. You are arguing 'You can never set off a trap with a perception check' while concurrently acknowledging that yes, you can set off a trap with a perception check. Zero Sum.In order for there to be an exception to a rule ... there needs to be a rule in the first place, ne?
Actually, no, there doesn't have to be a rule. There only has to be an example. In this case, the example is 'Search for traps' under the commentary of 'Take 20'. I still contend that the text doesn't say you automatically get to take 20 every time you search for traps. I contend that the take 20 text says you can take 20 if there is no penalty for failure and then lists some examples of when there is usually no chance for failure.
The disagreement, I think, comes from the fact that the wording doesn't say 'these situations you can always take 20 in', they instead say 'here's some examples of taking 20'. I think you are all inferring way too much into that.
For example, if I say you may take my food off my plate anytime I am done with it, and then I say, 'For example, right after I've eaten the third slice of my pizza'. That does not say that every time I've eaten my third slice of pizza you can take food off my plate. It is an example of a situation that commonly occurs, me getting full after the third slice. But today, I didn't eat lunch and I don't get full until after my 6th slice, so you can't take my food today until after I get done with the 6th slice.
The same thing with the wording on take 20. It says you can do it anytime there is no penalty for failure. Then it gives some common examples of when that might occur, but it doesn't say each and every one of those examples is 100% always take 20able. It just says that if there is no penalty, then you can take 20 on these.
If you are feeling around in a dark hole in the wall that has a trap in it, then your preception attempt could most certainly set it off.Why wouldn't a successful perception check set it off then?
If merely making the perception check could set off the trap then a successful one could set it off...
Player: I search for traps.
DM: You find one.. make a REF save.No. Sorry. It just doesn't work as you're describing. House rule it your way if you like, but RAW perception doesn't have a penalty for failure.
Notice in your Symbol example a rogue could successfully find the symbol trap and set it off... again not a penalty for failure just a consequence of the action.
-James
Because, the intent of a perception to find a trap is to find it without setting it off. If that wasn't the intention, then you'd just slam through the dungeon using the old Barbarian Trap Finding method.
So, if you make a successful perception check shoving your hand into the hole and feeling around, you've found the trap without setting it off.
Not really so hard is it?
As to the symbol trap, a successful search, to me, would be making a successful perception check. The rogue uses a reflection to look around (thus not actually looking at the symbol), but again, that's a successful check. If he fails it, he glanced up and set it off.
That's perfectly fine. Sorry if I came off as being hot headed. I've just had about 4-5 people on this thread keep misrepresenting that I'm somehow this giant jerk GM who makes every perception roll a sword of damocles that can drop down and chop off every rogues hand on every perception roll.
I'll admit that's badly worded. Allow me to say that I did not mean to imply that you said all traps functioned that way, OK? Like I said, poor wording on my part. Mea culpa.
Yeah, that wasn't my intent at any point. I actually wasn't referring to you at all in the post that set off this little disagreement, for the record. Furthermore, I did go back and read through again, and discovered that I had misread a couple posts. So, again, mea culpa there.
----
As to the rest of your post...
First, I say this without anger or rancor. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or anything. Please accept that my Internet Diplomacy modifier totals at -18 or so and take what I say in the best light.
Now then...
What I meant when I said that about exceptions and rules is that, because symbols do explicitly call out the fact that just perceiving them can set them off, it is therefore implied that this isn't true as a general rule. Therefore, it does take an exception to the rule in order to set off a trap by perceiving it. I realize that this is a case of an indirect rule (one that is only found by reading between the lines, rather than being explicitly stated) and is thus obviously less solid than, say, the rule that you don't get a second iterative attack until you have a +6 BAB.
BTW, note that Sean did note that symbols were an exception, just for the record :)
In my less than humble opinion, traps can be way too varied for a blanket statement to make any sense.
+1. If PCs are allowed to take 20 on every trap search, level appropriate traps will always be found. Combine that with a savvy or veteran player and traps become tedious and pedantic. Some should be easily found to bolster esteem and show the party the indispensability of the rogue, and some should keep the party on their toes and make players whose PCs have Evasion grin like monkeys as their characters dodge, dip, duck, dive and dodge out of the blast radius.
Zo
If PCs are allowed to take 20 on every trap search, level appropriate traps will always be found.
For the record, this is only true if PCs always take 20. As has been mentioned several times in this thread, that's really not feasible from either a mechanical standpoint (taking 20 on every 5' square and every object in a dungeon would render your party permanently buffless and constantly harassed by wandering monsters) and from an in character standpoint (no one is that paranoid). So no, really, your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
Yeah, that wasn't my intent at any point. I actually wasn't referring to you at all in the post that set off this little disagreement, for the record. Furthermore, I did go back and read through again, and discovered that I had misread a couple posts. So, again, mea culpa there.
Heh, no worries. I wish I had a dollar for every time that happened to me. I admit I misread at least one of your posts myself, but was too ticked off to apologize at the time. :) Mea culpa's all around.
As to the rest of your post...First, I say this without anger or rancor. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or anything. Please accept that my Internet Diplomacy modifier totals at -18 or so and take what I say in the best light.
Now then...
What I meant when I said that about exceptions and rules is that, because symbols do explicitly call out the fact that just perceiving them can set them off, it is therefore implied that this isn't true as a general rule. Therefore, it does take an exception to the rule in order to set off a trap by perceiving it. I realize that this is a case of an indirect rule (one that is only found by reading between the lines, rather than being explicitly stated) and is thus obviously less solid than, say, the rule that you don't get a second iterative attack until you have a +6 BAB.
BTW, note that Sean did note that symbols were an exception, just for the record :)
See, that's the issue. It's an implied rule, or an indirect rule. But I disagree that it's implied.
Let me see if I can overcome my own ID modifier to explain. :)
To me, it's like this.
A) If the object is a diamond, it is a gem.
The first part of that sentence is 'If the object is a diamond'. The second part is 'It is a Gem'. This is to me the same sort of statement on the take 20's. If there is no penalty, then you can B, C, D for example.
This is set up like a logical dependency. If A, then B, C, and D, for example. They all hinge on A. The problem is, the indirect or implicit interpretation is 'If B then A', which is not true at all.
From my example, the return logic would be 'If it's a Gem, it's a Diamond'. But that is obviously not true.
And again, I respectfully disagree with Sean. :) I think he is saying 'If A then B means If B then A', and that is not true without other evidence.
Except that you're making things up out of whole cloth here.Perception is about being able to notice something. There is no penalty for failure on perception, none. No matter how much you wish to ascribe to it, it is not the case.
The success or failure of a perception check is simply whether or not you've found/perceived what you were trying to find. It has nothing to do with making noise, setting off traps, moving, or whatever else you might add to it.
-James
No, I'm interpreting the perception skill, which encompasses all your senses. It is no longer just spot. It is hearing, taste, smell, touch, and sight. If perceiving the trap requires the use of touch (remember, perception rolls can have different penalties based on what type of perception check you have to make), then you are interacting with the trap to detect it. That means that yes, you can possibly set it off, as you must interact with it to detect it.
If PCs are allowed to take 20 on every trap search, level appropriate traps will always be found.For the record, this is only true if PCs always take 20. As has been mentioned several times in this thread, that's really not feasible from either a mechanical standpoint (taking 20 on every 5' square and every object in a dungeon would render your party permanently buffless and constantly harassed by wandering monsters) and from an in character standpoint (no one is that paranoid). So no, really, your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
Well, actually my conclusion *does* follow from my premise, but my premise as you mention is unlikely to be true. My only point was (and this is an issue that arose in our last two Sunday sessions, so I've been dealing with it as a DM) that trap distribution and discovery should be approached from an adventure design standpoint as an unknown or an uncertainty. We're a long way from the days of traps on every chest that would more than likely kill the party thief dead as old dad's hat band, but they still have a role in dungeon design. To that end, I was +1-ing Kthulhu's observation that a blanket statement doesn't really make sense.
Yes, taking 20 *can* be an option, and in my games is used quite often, but IMO a good DM will create situations in which the luck of the dice or good decision making skills are also required. YMMV.
Zo
You guys play some bizarrely specific games.
"I check the room for traps. Wait, this place seems extra suspicious, I'm gonna take twenty."
"You do/do not find traps."
Problem solved.
Having to check individual squares or both ends of a door just reeks of some of the worst parts of earlier editions, where you practically had to mime out tapping every damn stone in the room with a 12 foot pole in case all of them were trapped. We got thief skills to avoid doing that nonsense.
You guys play some bizarrely specific games.
"I check the room for traps. Wait, this place seems extra suspicious, I'm gonna take twenty."
"You do/do not find traps."Problem solved.
Having to check individual squares or both ends of a door just reeks of some of the worst parts of earlier editions, where you practically had to mime out tapping every damn stone in the room with a 12 foot pole in case all of them were trapped. We got thief skills to avoid doing that nonsense.
See, I would say you have the strange game wher every situation and trap is handled by a single roll and no rp or puzzles.
Me, I let the die rolls handle 90 % and do the other 10% in detail.
You guys play some bizarrely specific games.
"I check the room for traps. Wait, this place seems extra suspicious, I'm gonna take twenty."
"You do/do not find traps."Problem solved.
Having to check individual squares or both ends of a door just reeks of some of the worst parts of earlier editions, where you practically had to mime out tapping every damn stone in the room with a 12 foot pole in case all of them were trapped. We got thief skills to avoid doing that nonsense.
See, I would say you have the strange game wher every situation and trap is handled by a single roll and no rp or puzzles.
Me, I let the die rolls handle 90 % and do the other 10% in detail.
Who said every situation?
And puzzles are dumb. Puzzles are really dumb. What kind of idiot wizard builds magical riddles into a dungeon designed to protect his most precious trinkets? "All who dare trespass in my Tower of Insanity are doomed...unless they can answer these riddles I found in the back of a jokebook, then they can take whatever they want." Add to the fact that 90% of the time puzzles end in either 1) one player who solves all of them while the other players just look at him expectingly, or 2) none of the players know the answer and wait for the DM to actually carry the adventure further.
Lastly, I'd much prefer rolling perception and being told "Hey there's a trap" then "Looks like you forgot to poke the second cobblestone from the left, heh, roll fortitude not to die."
|
|
Having to check individual squares or both ends of a door just reeks of some of the worst parts of earlier editions, where you practically had to mime out tapping every damn stone in the room with a 12 foot pole in case all of them were trapped. We got thief skills to avoid doing that nonsense.
Maybe it's just my love of Tomb of Horror style deathtrap dungeons, but I greatly prefer having a trap that actually has some description of it's workings and how it can be triggered, etc. If I read a module that just gave the DC, the effects, and the approximate location, I'd feel ripped off.
A more detailed trap mechanism description not only allows you to be more specific about how it is triggered, but allows much more flavor in the desciption of what happens if it is triggered OR if it is disabled/avoided.
Having to check individual squares or both ends of a door just reeks of some of the worst parts of earlier editions, where you practically had to mime out tapping every damn stone in the room with a 12 foot pole in case all of them were trapped. We got thief skills to avoid doing that nonsense.Maybe it's just my love of Tomb of Horror style deathtrap dungeons, but I greatly prefer having a trap that actually has some description of it's workings and how it can be triggered, etc. If I read a module that just gave the DC, the effects, and the approximate location, I'd feel ripped off.
A more detailed trap mechanism description not only allows you to be more specific about how it is triggered, but allows much more flavor in the desciption of what happens if it is triggered OR if it is disabled/avoided.
Yes, but that leads to Tomb of Horror style gameplay, which is not very popular for a reason.
"Heh, gotchas" aren't fun for most people, and that's what most of these traps end up as.
|
|
And puzzles are dumb. Puzzles are really dumb. What kind of idiot wizard builds magical riddles into a dungeon designed to protect his most precious trinkets? "All who dare trespass in my Tower of Insanity are doomed...unless they can answer these riddles I found in the back of a jokebook, then they can take whatever they want."
Return to the Tomb of Horrors gave an excellent reason why Acerak left some hints in the Tomb...he was trying to draw worthy souls to the Fortress of Conclussion so that he could use them to power his Apothesis.
There's also the fact of villain arrogance...where it's not enough for the villain to defeat the heroes, he also needs to provem himself to be more intelligent than they are. What better way than to give the heroes clues to help them along the way, only to laugh as they fail regardless.
|
|
Yes, but that leads to Tomb of Horror style gameplay, which is not very popular for a reason.
"Heh, gotchas" aren't fun for most people, and that's what most of these traps end up as.
I didn't imply that the traps had to be unfair. But giving a description of how the rogue notices a slightly raised cobblestone in the floor of the dungeon and warns his allies to avoid it, or how the fighter feels the floor slightly give way beneath him before he being drenched with a liquid from above that begins to burn through his clothing is, to me, much more evocative than:
Rogueboy, you find a trap. Roll to disable, DC 27.
I succeed.
You disable the trap.
or
Fighterman, you set off a trap. Take 6d6 damage. Everyone else, roll reflex saves DC 19 for half-damage.
The reason for riddles and clues in most real world tombs came down to a few reasons.
A) the builder wanted to live. More than likely he wouldn't after completion. And it gets hard to remember after awhile if this is the trap where you deactivate by shaking the statues hand, or if it's the one where you grope the bust and push when you are on trap number 54.
B) you want a way to get through all the traps in a hurry to get to your precious precious and don't want to forget what order to step on the flagstones to avoid those poison darts.
C) you have set up a fake tomb and want to mess with any tomb raiders.
I'd post in more detail, and answer a few unmerited attacks, but my plane is taking off now.
|
It is on a case by case basis. You cannot automatically always choose to take 20 on searching for a trap.
If you have the time to spend then yes, you can take 20. You can even elect to roll 100 times to search for traps.
And guess what.. you don't set any off by looking for them. Failing a disable device roll by more than 4 will.. but searching for traps will not trigger a trap.
It's very simple, and how this thread has gone on so long is quite sad.
-James
+1. This thread makes me very, very sad.
|
|
I am unsettled by the lack of imagination in trapfinding fluff here.
You know that handbiter trap, the one down the hole?
That has an insanely high DC to find (because the trap is down a tight little hole).
However, you can still find it if you roll high enough (you notice the blood of an animal that crawled in, you let a dancing light float down to the end so you can see well. You carefully poke a thin, polished knife edge down the hole and watch the reflection).
All this because you're a master thief and you've passed the perception check.
If you reach your hand in and pass the perception check then you have very carefully and gently touched the casing for the trap and realised what is going on, then equally carefully removed your hand. Or maybe you smelt a certain type of resin which is produced by that spell in that kind of environment...
Similarly.
The trap on the other side of the door has an extra high DC because it is on the other side of the door.
You can still detect it (the door hangs funny, when you tap gently on the door it makes different noises, there are scratches on the edge of the door because the regular users of that door have to touch it in the same awkward place every time they want to safely open the door...)
There is always a fluff way of explaining how a trap has been found using one of the five senses and a mind.
Even if the trap is in a room which has been enchanted to prevent the use of all five senses, a high enough DC roll will let the character know: "You remember reading about a master thief-catcher who used these spells in this combination to block out all senses, which is why the door on the way into this room had a greasy tinge..."
So... you can always take 20
And, as has already been expressed, there is no penalty for failure Even a special exception (such as the symbol spells) does not punish you for failing, it punishes you regardless of whether you succeed or fail on the perception check.
If you disagree then please posit a trap.
First I will explain why the perception DC is or is not fiendishly high.
Secondly I will explain how it can be found.
Finally, I will explain if/how it is a fancy auto-wound spell/device.
As to what Sean Reynolds stated, twice, in this thread, he's most certainly contradicted by the rules directly. A symbol spell trap goes off 'when you see it', which means that perceiving that trap sets it off. You cannot get around that. It is an excellent example of a trap you can't take 20 on, because the very act of taking 20 to perceive it sets off the trap.
Interestingly, in this example, the trap will go off when the perception succeeds, not when it fails.
So, with a low perception score and a high perception DC, one would be safe with taking 20 on this trap.|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
No, I'm interpreting the perception skill, which encompasses all your senses. It is no longer just spot. It is hearing, taste, smell, touch, and sight. If perceiving the trap requires the use of touch (remember, perception rolls can have different penalties based on what type of perception check you have to make), then you are interacting with the trap to detect it. That means that yes, you can possibly set it off, as you must interact with it to detect it.
Then you're using a house rule, mdt. Period.
|
|
No, I'm interpreting the perception skill, which encompasses all your senses. It is no longer just spot. It is hearing, taste, smell, touch, and sight. If perceiving the trap requires the use of touch (remember, perception rolls can have different penalties based on what type of perception check you have to make), then you are interacting with the trap to detect it. That means that yes, you can possibly set it off, as you must interact with it to detect it.Then you're using a house rule, mdt. Period.
As are you, with you reducing the skill "Perception" back half of it's 3.5 equivalent: "Spot".
|
|
As to what Sean Reynolds stated, twice, in this thread, he's most certainly contradicted by the rules directly. A symbol spell trap goes off 'when you see it', which means that perceiving that trap sets it off. You cannot get around that. It is an excellent example of a trap you can't take 20 on, because the very act of taking 20 to perceive it sets off the trap.Interestingly, in this example, the trap will go off when the perception succeeds, not when it fails.
So, with a low perception score and a high perception DC, one would be safe with taking 20 on this trap.
I don't think so, it depends how the creator of the symbol has decided to use it.
The runes tend to be put where they can be seen with a very low DC indeed. Spotting that it is a trap is the high DC check.
For comparison. I can put a trap in a chest, the chest is easy to find, it's right there at the bottom of the evil guy's bed. The trap itself is harder to find.
I suppose you could carefully hide a symbol spell so that only those who are looking carefully will find it. I can only imagine a few instances in which a character would go for that option.
|
As are you, with you reducing the skill "Perception" back half of it's 3.5 equivalent: "Spot".No, I'm interpreting the perception skill, which encompasses all your senses. It is no longer just spot. It is hearing, taste, smell, touch, and sight. If perceiving the trap requires the use of touch (remember, perception rolls can have different penalties based on what type of perception check you have to make), then you are interacting with the trap to detect it. That means that yes, you can possibly set it off, as you must interact with it to detect it.Then you're using a house rule, mdt. Period.
I agree to a certain degree.
A player wants to use perception to search for traps it all very much dependent on what what kind of trap it is and how they go about it.
PC-"I want to search the room for traps, I'm taking a 20"
GM-"Ok... just the room in general?"
PC-"Yeah... like prolly by doors and such"
GM-"..."
This situation would bother the HELL out of me personally. I just sat there and described the room to you in three dimensions and you want to boil it down to "taking a 20"
There is a good chance that the kind of trap that is present would end up being set off in the process of looking for it. Say a tile has a pressure plate, who is to say that when he is searching that tile he wont miss his perception and accidentally step on it?
Although for doors and more specific objects/locations I can see it not being a problem at all.
GM-"There is a large treasure chest sitting on the altar on the dais in front of you, gold inlays in the columns to the left and right. There appears to be a lock of grey metal on the front and the entire thing is covered in a thick layer of dust"
PF-"Ok I want to try to look for traps on the chest and altar it is resting on, taking a 20 ok?"
GM-"Sweet- after about 30 seconds you find that the dull grey lock is not locked and is set to pull a hair trigger the moment you touch it."
Also I think it is worth noting that
|
|
As are you, with you reducing the skill "Perception" back half of it's 3.5 equivalent: "Spot".No, I'm interpreting the perception skill, which encompasses all your senses. It is no longer just spot. It is hearing, taste, smell, touch, and sight. If perceiving the trap requires the use of touch (remember, perception rolls can have different penalties based on what type of perception check you have to make), then you are interacting with the trap to detect it. That means that yes, you can possibly set it off, as you must interact with it to detect it.Then you're using a house rule, mdt. Period.
Regardless of how you word it. mdt is getting confused by the notion of interaction. All interaction is either safe or dangerous depending upon the context.
Again, rather than talking in abstracts I would invite examples. Where is this trap that you can only detect by touching it (and thus setting it off)?
Could it not actually be that this trap has a very high perception DC? And that a character might sense the presence of the trap using sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch in some combination?
I might also detect a trap using touch without setting it off (i.e. you can touch nettles in the correct way and not get stung, or you can touch them in the usual way and be stung, or you can 'touch' them while wearing the correct protective garments and not be stung) it's all very interesting and varied in fluff and that fluff can be used to represent the tidy and straightforward rules in an interesting way.
Which is what we do with the rest of the game's abstractions. So let's do it with traps as well.
"My goodness, Holmes, however did you spot that lighting cabinet, I feel sure that if I had reached toward it I would have been shot through with lightning like poor old Johnny Metheulen was!"
"My dear Watson, it is deceptively simple: as I reached toward the metal plate I felt a slight static energy play across my fingertips. That sensation, combined with the unnecessary use of a copper plate in the construction of the device, led me to the inevitable conclusion that a trap had been laid. A trap created by a cunning and cruel mind."
"That's brilliant, Holmes, brilliant!"
"Watson, please, do restrain yourself."
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.Agreed, I'm not the one who keeps saying you only use your eyes. Look upthread. I think the perception roll is using all available senses and methods to look for the trap. However, that means you are using not just sight, but touch, smell, and hearing.
If you use touch, then you can set of a trap, so therefore depending on the trap, you may not be able to take 20.
Either you can search and take 20 because you never touch the trap, or else you can't take 20 if touching the trap might set it off. You can't have it both ways (searching for the trap with all senses and no chance of setting it off).
Some traps have are set off by a certain amount of weight(pressure). Some are just touch. The ability of the rogue to find the trap without setting it off takes all this into account. Maybe you can move the door 1/16th and the trap does not go off. Maybe there something in the thieves kit that he can put in between the door and the trap so it does not goes off when the door is slightly open, but still gives him a chance to disarm it. How does he know where to place the device? I don't know, and I dont have too, but my character's skill in finding traps should handle that.
You can't have it both ways.
Search - the old skill - encompassed physically sorting through the space.
Perception - the new skill - either physically interacts with the trap (and conceivably might set it off sometimes) or it cannot find traps that require interaction.
If perception cannot find traps that require interaction then a dm has to ask if the player is going to search for traps as well as simply look for them or the player has to ignore traps he\she can't see. Then you're recreating search as a skill anyway.
All this to defend against a die roll in rare cases at the call of the DM.
Why not admit that there is an exception to most of the rules and that DMs will occasionally change things - because that's the situation anyway.
|
|
PC-"I want to search the room for traps, I'm taking a 20"
GM-"Ok... just the room in general?"
PC-"Yeah... like prolly by doors and such"
GM-"..."This situation would bother the HELL out of me personally. I just sat there and described the room to you in three dimensions and you want to boil it down to "taking a 20"
In this instance you're bothered that they have a different play style to you. Which is fine but is not the fault of the rules. My experience is that the DM sets the tone and players follow (so, if the DM is detailed the players will be thinking about details) but obviously/sadly that won't always work.
There is a good chance that the kind of trap that is present would end up being set off in the process of looking for it. Say a tile has a pressure plate, who is to say that when he is searching that tile he wont miss his perception and accidentally step on it?
If you are the DM then it is your job to say. That's pretty much the DM's job.
If he took twenty then he is searching carefully and taking a long time over it because he lacks confidence in his trap-finding ability. Do you punish that or do you respect it?
The DM could choose to say: "As you wander around the room you step on the tile and set it off."
Or... the DM could say: "As you carefully search every inch of the room you find a single tile which projects slightly and has a thicker layer of dust than the others, looks like part of a trap."
But, in reality, what you'll probably do using pathfinder rules is use one take 20 score from a single 5ft square and then add distance modifiers. If he still spots it then he has done so without leaving the original square, and thus has not had a chance to step onto the pressure plate.
This way the take-20 only takes a minute, regardless of the size of the room, and you get to use penalties for distance, light sources, fog, strong smells and other sensory distractions. Which is an immersive and sometimes neglected part of the game.
WRONG! BUZZZZZ! Thank you for playing.You know very well that is not what anyone has been saying.
Again, never said that a failed perception check always sets off the trap. Said that when you attempt to use a sense other than sight to detect a trap, there may be a chance to set off the trap (again, rolling one when you reach into that hole to search it). That means you can't take 20. Not that the trap automatically springs if you fail your perception check.
Yeah, but failed perception checks don't set off traps.
-James
If all you are doing is looking with your eyes, yes (assuming the trap is not a symbol trap, which most assuredly is set off by looking at it).
If you are feeling around in a dark hole in the wall that has a trap in it, then your preception attempt could most certainly set it off. You cannot perceive where your sight is blocked without using an alternate sense. It is flat out impossible.
The symbol of _____ traps glow. It is very possible to see the glow without looking at the symbol. The rules(the spell itself)also state that the trap can be found without setting it off. It does not say how. Once again the DM must provide the fluff. I would just say the rogue caught the glow out of the corner of his, suspected something was wrong, and disabled the trap without looking directly at it. Maybe you have to see the entire symbol for it to go off. There are any number of ways to fluff this.
|
|
Perception - the new skill - either physically interacts with the trap (and conceivably might set it off sometimes) or it cannot find traps that require interaction.
I've now written a series of posts answering that dilemma. See above.
Why not admit that there is an exception to most of the rules and that DMs will occasionally change things - because that's the situation anyway.
I had thought that everyone who played Pathfinder recognised this already.
Some people are suggesting/debating alternate principles and assumptions, and sometimes suggesting that the core rules are flawed or unsatisfactory, rather than considering occasional exceptions.
In my less than humble opinion, traps can be way too varied for a blanket statement to make any sense.+1. If PCs are allowed to take 20 on every trap search, level appropriate traps will always be found. Combine that with a savvy or veteran player and traps become tedious and pedantic. Some should be easily found to bolster esteem and show the party the indispensability of the rogue, and some should keep the party on their toes and make players whose PCs have Evasion grin like monkeys as their characters dodge, dip, duck, dive and dodge out of the blast radius.
Zo
-1. If you always have time to take 20 something is wrong. Many times trapped places are occupied by the enemy. Hanging out at the bad guys camp is not a good idea.
If the place is deserted then why not take 20. I think patience and thinking should be rewarded.One last thing is that finding a trap and disabling it are two different things. Just because you find the trap that does not mean you can just walk around it. Being a good player should not be punished by putting in house rules. Many good players became good players due to seeing a variety of situations. My players give other DM's headaches, because I throw everything at them. Making house rules because they have had to deal with multiple ways to possibly die would not be fair.
GeraintElberion: You are reserving the right to interpret any setting so that there is a safe way to look for traps. That may not be the construction of the room. The dm has said this section is very dangerous. You want the player to reply that it 'can't be so dangerous as to require me to roll'.
Even if the DM's choice wouldn't be your own, you can't unwrite the room.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As are you, with you reducing the skill "Perception" back half of it's 3.5 equivalent: "Spot".No, I'm interpreting the perception skill, which encompasses all your senses. It is no longer just spot. It is hearing, taste, smell, touch, and sight. If perceiving the trap requires the use of touch (remember, perception rolls can have different penalties based on what type of perception check you have to make), then you are interacting with the trap to detect it. That means that yes, you can possibly set it off, as you must interact with it to detect it.Then you're using a house rule, mdt. Period.
Common “take 20” skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
(emphasis mine)
I believe reality disagrees with you.
