It's a tangent but I'm a bit surprised by the whole binary aspect of the debate.
As a ref (who knows that there are three traps in the room - one easy to find, one moderately difficult to find, and one exceedingly hard to find), the answer is clear.
For players, no matter what rolls are achieved (with out without taking 10's, 20's, whatever), there should always be a seed of doubt. Even if the roll exceeds the DC of the most hard to find trap, I don't feel it's necessary to eliminate the element of doubt in the minds of the players. Traps are supposed to be dangerous, unknown, and hard to find - doubt is an essential element to the whole debate, IMO.
"You are fairly certain there are no traps."
"You're pretty confident there are no traps."
"Well, you found that pressure plate, but you're not sure any other traps are in the room."
Etc.
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.
There is always a way to find the trap. Once again it is up to the DM to provide the fluff. The player just has to provide the roll. Instead of a player saying I open the door 3mm, he should only have to roll the dice.
The DM should say with your vast experience you seem to recall a similar trap a while ago, and you get the idea to open the door. Luckily(fill in other word as appropriate) you opened it just far enough to get your special tool in the door to keep pressure on the plate. The device is designed in such a way that you must disable it to pass safely. Now roll your disable device check.
Disable device(happens to fail by 5 or more): As you are trying to undo the pressure plate your hands become sweating and you drop your tools. You reach to pick them up, but the door moves far enough that the pressure on the door sets the trap off. Everyone make a fort save as a poisonous gas fills the room.
"You are fairly certain there are no traps."
"You're pretty confident there are no traps."
"Well, you found that pressure plate, but you're not sure any other traps are in the room."
Etc.
I like this. I normally say you don't find any. Every once in a while I will switch it up with there are no traps(then the trap goes off).
player:You said there were no traps
me:Your character did not find them so as far as he/she knows there weren't any.
|
Speaking as a GM/storyteller type, I use 'seem' a lot, to my players consternation.
"There does not seem to be any traps."
"The dragon seems to be asleep."
"The poison doesn't seem to have any lasting effects."
Player paranoia does the rest.
Heheh... I usually go the opposite way, with the same result.
"There are Definitely no traps!"
"You are 100% certain that the chest is safe to open."
For some reason, my players have trust issues. ;)
|
I'm visualizing a cartoon. It starts with Fighterman and Rogueboy standing in dungeon hallway. Rogueboy says to Fighterman "Don't move! I'm going to take 20 and search for traps!"
The next panel shows Rogueboy having proceeded maybe 10 feet down the hallway, and standing in front of a pressure plate (conveniently labeled TRAP!!! for the reader).
The next panel shows Fighterman having come up to Rogueboy, still standing next to the TRAP!!! Fighterman asks "Er...it's been three hours now, and you've only progressed about 10 feet. Are we gonna do this dungeon, or should I just go back to the Golden Bugbear and have some ale?"
Next panel, Rogueboy replies "I can't move past this trap that I haven't detected, because doing so would set it off, and we all know that's impossible. But I took 20 to search the entire hallway, so now I'm stuck!"
Next panel, Fighterman sighs, and says "I'll go get Wizardguy. He can use that scroll of wish we found to wish for a house rule. The trap might kill you, but at least you won't be stuck there anymore."
Next panel, Fighterman leaves. Rogueboy sighs..."Damn blanket statements."
Final panel, Admiral Ackbar pops up, and states "It's a TRAP!!!"
LOL
Ok, I give up. I think you are all reading way to much into a single example statement, and taking that example as solid 100% rock hard core rule, instead of what it is, an example of when you can take 20 if there's no penalty for failure.
You run your games however you want, with whatever interpretation you want. I'll run mine my way. Have fun with your games.
|
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."
My problem is this scenario. This is completely unrealistic with how taking a 20 works. Taking a 20 is essentially fumbling around long enough for you to eventually find something. Fumbling around recklessly can and should be dangerous when you are dealing with traps.
My problem is this scenario. This is completely unrealistic with how taking a 20 works. Taking a 20 is essentially fumbling around long enough for you to eventually find something. Fumbling around recklessly can and should be dangerous when you are dealing with traps.
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."
No, it's not "recklessly". Does a regular check represent checking recklessly once, then, since take20 is doing it 20 times?
It's more checking as carefully as you usually would, just that you check 20 times (or rather, 20 times as accurate) in 20 times the time (damn, good times!)
<snip>
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...
+1. I like the cut of your jib, sir.
With Taking 20 encompassing effectively 20 attempts, we don't assume that they're blundering into the attempt that triggers that trap. Think of it as peeling back a layer each time. With a perception (or search in 3.5) of +8, first attempt DC 9 - rogue notices what that perception check will bring, probably just superficial elements. Second attempt DC 10 - a little more detail. Third attempt DC 11 - more surface detail. And so on. And yes, maybe the character starts to manipulate little bits of the environment as they proceed, but since it is taking 20 as a trap search, we really can assume that it's all being done quietly. And if the character can achieve a check high enough to find the trap, we assume they search astutely enough to do so without setting it off. If they don't, then they don't find it and have the decision point ahead of them - open the door or not, cross the flagstones in the 5' area or not, open the chest or not.
But I have to say, if there's a trap on a door that can only be found by opening the door and opening the door triggers the trap, then there's no point in having a DC check to find it. In other words, if the only way to find it is to engage in the action of triggering it, it can't be found and disarmed.
|
Also remember that taking a 20 to search takes 20 move actions per 5 foot square you search. That is 10 rounds(1 minute) per five foot square. Searching a 30 foot long 10 foot wide hallway takes 12 minutes.
OMG I never put that together, I would just tell players that taking 20 takes a long time. Thank you, thank you, thank you. When players tell me they take twenty to search a room I'll now know exactly how long they took and will be able to track time so much better now.
Honestly I think we are beyond the point of the OP. Perhaps we should start a thread in the general discussion forum (or advice forum) on what "take 20" means and how to handle it both as a player and a GM?
My thought is we could get people to chime in that normally don't frequent the rules boards and get into a discussion on the effects of "take 20" on play and not just focus on the rules of "take 20"... in the correct forum.
Honestly with the "RAW" definition of taking 20 on perception rolls, I would just note when a trap is an exception to the rule, based on using touch only, etc. and then be able to explain to the the player, even after stating you can't take 20, and they fail a normal roll, what your reasoning is.
I have equal difficulty taking the time designing a trap, where I can explain why you can't take 20, and then have some player scream at me referencing "RAW".
That was the basis of my first post.
So I guess the perception "take 20" rule presents no problems, as long as people work together, and don't mind mixing things up now and again, as long as it doesn't get abused.
If we can accept there are exceptions to take 20 on perception, then a possible trap would be you need to detect the trap by touch only, like reaching into a mouth of a statue, where the opening slopes up out of site. At the end there is a lever. If you succeed your perception check you notice a pressue plate by touch just before the lever. If you fail, you press the pressues plate as you blindly reach in. Therefore, the perception check allows you to bypass the trap mechanism. You can take 20, but failure would result in pressing the plate.
Hmm... this whole perception/trap/disable debate has me curious about how Indiana Jones' idol swap would have been handled in the pathfinder game.
He suspected it was a trap, I think we can agree on it.
Did he fail his perception check to realize the weight difference between the idol and his bag of sand - thus triggering the trap?
Did he fail his perception check to notice the possibility of the giant boulder? (But he did know something bad could come of the trap, just not what it would be - did it really matter?).
He didn't even bother to try to "disable device", but if he had successfuly guessed the weight of the idol, would it have been considered disabled? Is this not a function of perception?
If he had taken a "20", how would the scene have played out?
Just curious about this whole debate- this is an adventure game after all and you can't get more "adventure" than IJ, IMO. How do people think this functioned in game terms?
Hmm... this whole perception/trap/disable debate has me curious about how Indiana Jones' idol swap would have been handled in the pathfinder game.
He suspected it was a trap, I think we can agree on it.
Did he fail his perception check to realize the weight difference between the idol and his bag of sand - thus triggering the trap?
Did he fail his perception check to notice the possibility of the giant boulder? (But he did know something bad could come of the trap, just not what it would be - did it really matter?).
He didn't even bother to try to "disable device", but if he had successfuly guessed the weight of the idol, would it have been considered disabled? Is this not a function of perception?
If he had taken a "20", how would the scene have played out?
Just curious about this whole debate- this is an adventure game after all and you can't get more "adventure" than IJ, IMO. How do people think this functioned in game terms?
When he went to switch the idol for the bag he was attempting to disable the trap -- disable device -- he failed the check by more than 5 and thus set off the trap. He made his reflex save.
You can take 20 on perception tests when looking for traps.
The rules say it, so do the devs.
It's even a specific example of taking 20.
The only negative repercussion to failing a perception test is that you don't see it. Not seeing something may have secondary negative effects, like that unlit train running you over, but it's not a result of the skill check failure.
It's not metagaming unless the players are using knowledge the characters can't reasonably have. "I'm checking the area 10' west of the east door, and 5' south. Ok, I found the only trap in the room, let's go."
It's perfectly reasonable for someone to check for traps on that gilded chest, or on the door to the high priests sanctum. That's not metagaming, that's being reasonably cautious. Going over it multiple times is probably a good idea, those trap makers are devious. As to checking every single 5' square you're going to travel through, that's just nuts. Still not metagaming, but taking 3 days to go down the hall is insane and totally paranoid. Unless you're in the legendary hall of a thousand traps, bane of adventurers and nightmare of rogues. In that case, paranoia may be your only chance at survival.
It's been my experience that groups having to put up with rogues that check every freaking square, soon get sick of it and either kill the rogue, talk them out of it, or leave them behind. It's kind of like a mage checking everything he sees with detect magic, rather than just the pile of loot you just got, or the suspicious painting that seem to be watching you.
Freds pretty sure this chest is trapped, and he doesn't want to take any chances, so he takes 20. He looks it over good, and doesn't see anything. Not good enough, maybe he missed something... so he goes over it again, this time peering into the cracks with a light on the off chance of spotting something. Still nothing, not giving up. He thinks back to what his mentor taught him for a bit, then starts looking for any discontinuity in the wood grain and metal. Nothing. There's no way the noble would leave his magic seal in an untrapped chest, would he? No, but Fred still can't figure it out. Hmmm... Taking yet another look, trying to figure out what traps could be there, Fred finally notices something he hadn't before. The lock is obviously a Smargaff design. Those things are tough to open, but they also have 3 inch bolt sticking up on the inside, and the placement of the lock wouldn't give room for that bolt... Ah Hah! This lock must be a decoy! Carefully peering inside the keyhole while carefully reflecting some light in it, he see's it's not deep enough for the normal key a Smargaff would use. It's definitely some kind of trap meant to fool people trying to pick the lock. (DC 30, take 20 + 11 skill = 31, a success and couple minutes)
Fred then searches it for the real opening mechanism and finds it, a set of brass buttons that must be pushed, and in trying to open it, triggers the second trap (DC 34) that his previous search (taking 20 for a 31 total) missed. Guess his GM really wanted to make things difficult.
|
When he went to switch the idol for the bag he was attempting to disable the trap -- disable device -- he failed the check by more than 5 and thus set off the trap. He made his reflex save.Hmm... this whole perception/trap/disable debate has me curious about how Indiana Jones' idol swap would have been handled in the pathfinder game.
He suspected it was a trap, I think we can agree on it.
Did he fail his perception check to realize the weight difference between the idol and his bag of sand - thus triggering the trap?
Did he fail his perception check to notice the possibility of the giant boulder? (But he did know something bad could come of the trap, just not what it would be - did it really matter?).
He didn't even bother to try to "disable device", but if he had successfuly guessed the weight of the idol, would it have been considered disabled? Is this not a function of perception?
If he had taken a "20", how would the scene have played out?
Just curious about this whole debate- this is an adventure game after all and you can't get more "adventure" than IJ, IMO. How do people think this functioned in game terms?
Sounds like a fun and detailed game.
Hmm... this whole perception/trap/disable debate has me curious about how Indiana Jones' idol swap would have been handled in the pathfinder game.
He suspected it was a trap, I think we can agree on it.
Did he fail his perception check to realize the weight difference between the idol and his bag of sand - thus triggering the trap?
Did he fail his perception check to notice the possibility of the giant boulder? (But he did know something bad could come of the trap, just not what it would be - did it really matter?).
He didn't even bother to try to "disable device", but if he had successfuly guessed the weight of the idol, would it have been considered disabled? Is this not a function of perception?
If he had taken a "20", how would the scene have played out?
He never failed his perception. He knew there was a trap, but he failed disarming it.
He didn't realize that a slight weight difference causes trap. He thought the bag was equal. Bad disable check.|
|
A successful perception check only lets you know there's a trap there. Not how to bypass it or disarm it. That's disable device.
-James
Since it has been stated by one of the developers
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.
Since the perception check means primarily visual examination, or using senses without actually touching the object or entering the space - if the trap has no visible components from the perspective of the rogue then it's undetectable by that skill?
Sounds like a fun and detailed game.
Fluff is what the GM is for -- you make the check the basics are that you find it -- the details of how you did it doesn't really matter from a game mechanics stand point.
The player can throw all the fluff into his description that he wants too -- so can the GM. That doesn't what the basic mechanics of the situation are.
This is actually the strength of the pathfinder system -- the mechanics of it are basic so the fluff can vary by situation and player/GM. So long as the basic mechanic is sound (i.e. roll perception to find a trap and you don't set off the trap automatically on a failed perception check) then the fluff (i.e. story) can be decided how you want to.
Example:
We had a paladin in our game smite a non evil foe while doing a spirited charge. He hit with a critical and killed it. We never actually detected evil on the creature so it could have been such (the GM told us *players* otherwise though) so in character we figured the paladin successfully smit his foe.
The mechanics of the situation are simple -- the smite didn't happen but the fluff of the situation worked just fine even with that failure.
Since the perception check means primarily visual examination, or using senses without actually touching the object or entering the space - if the trap has no visible components from the perspective of the rogue then it's undetectable by that skill?
No because it's perception -- not spot. Maybe he heard something, whatever. The key is you make the check and if successful find the trap -- how doesn't matter and is up to the GM at this point -- maybe he did touch it whatever.
However failure could have happened because he didn't touch it. This is why the mechanic simply states "roll for DC and achieve results" instead of "Do it this way specifically and find these things, do it this other way and find those things". After the check is made the fluff of how the character succeeded doesn't matter. If the character fails instead of detailing how he failed just leave it at "you don't find any traps" this leaves the GM and player both clear of metagaming ("he said I didn't see any traps I better feel it up and listen closely on this check") and "gotcha" games.
|
|
A successful perception check only lets you know there's a trap there. Not how to bypass it or disarm it. That's disable device.
-James
Since it has been stated by one of the developers
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.Since the perception check means primarily visual examination, or using senses without actually touching the object or entering the space - if the trap has no visible components from the perspective of the rogue then it's undetectable by that skill?
But that's where DCs come in. If a trap is so well made that the floor shows not the slightest discoloration, and it's seemingly completely level, and that the previous 15 times the trap has been set off it hasn't left any evidence or marks on the adjacent walls or floors and whatever other way a rogue could see a trap it is virtually undetectable then by all means give it a DC 50 or something so that its craftmanship is reflected in how hard it is to see.
The reason you can't take 20 on disable device traps is simple, it would make every trap auto disabled or auto failed...you would either have enough to disable it, or not have enough, it takes the randomness out of traps, and is stupid. personally I don't like take 10, because technically it's the low average. It should be Take 12, so it's above average. You should be able to take a feat to allow you to Take 15.
My two cents
-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.
(Were you -1-ing me or Kthulhu? I thought what Kthulhu wrote was on the money...)
I guess I didn't explicitly state that, as I felt it was implicit in my comment, but to clarify: I haven't houseruled anything, I don't disallow taking 20 unless the circumstances warrant it, I just feel that over-using it removes a large part of the uncertainty from trap finding. You may disagree with what I said, but I agree with you said :)
Zo
The reason you can't take 20 on disable device traps is simple, it would make every trap auto disabled or auto failed...you would either have enough to disable it, or not have enough, it takes the randomness out of traps, and is stupid. personally I don't like take 10, because technically it's the low average. It should be Take 12, so it's above average. You should be able to take a feat to allow you to Take 15.
My two cents
I have a homebrew class that has Take 12 as an early ability and later upgrades it to Take 15. I should post it here sometime.
I have a homebrew class that has Take 12 as an early ability and later upgrades it to Take 15. I should post it here sometime.The reason you can't take 20 on disable device traps is simple, it would make every trap auto disabled or auto failed...you would either have enough to disable it, or not have enough, it takes the randomness out of traps, and is stupid. personally I don't like take 10, because technically it's the low average. It should be Take 12, so it's above average. You should be able to take a feat to allow you to Take 15.
My two cents
What kind of class is it? And is it for ALL skills?
I present:
Skill Mastery
Requirements: 5th level, Skill Focus
Benefits: You may now take 15 on any checks related to this skill. Taking 15 does not take additional time.
Normal: You may only take 10 on skill checks.
Make for a nice rogue talent as well methinks.
|
|
But not by searching for the trap.That's right, because searching for a trap can be conducted by using visual senses exclusively, and thus getting all the details that something is trapped without any other kind of interaction.
Such as the inside of a chest from 5 feet away.
Tell us about this chest's trap and why someone would be five feet away when they are searching it.
Tell us about this chest's trap and why someone would be five feet away when they are searching it.But not by searching for the trap.That's right, because searching for a trap can be conducted by using visual senses exclusively, and thus getting all the details that something is trapped without any other kind of interaction.
Such as the inside of a chest from 5 feet away.
Because the chest is the lure for a falling pit trap? Search 5 feet away to search for exterior traps, then make a separate check for the chest itself...
|
|
Because the chest is the lure for a falling pit trap? Search 5 feet away to search for exterior traps, then make a separate check for the chest itself...Tell us about this chest's trap and why someone would be five feet away when they are searching it.But not by searching for the trap.That's right, because searching for a trap can be conducted by using visual senses exclusively, and thus getting all the details that something is trapped without any other kind of interaction.
Such as the inside of a chest from 5 feet away.
I'm assuming that's not what he means as he talks about being able to see inside the chest from 5 feet away. Unless I'm misinterpreting, he's saying it's silly for a perception check to be used for trapped chests as visual senses are used exclusively for perception checks. I disagree but I needed more information about the trapped chest.
As for your example, if the PC stated he wanted to check and see if the chest is trapped then he'd trigger the trap by when he started examining the chest. His intent was to examine the chest not the floor around it. If he stated he wanted to check the 5 ft. area the chest rests on then he'd make that check followed by the seperate check for the chest (like you wrote).
I guess in regards to RAW I will have to rethink my approach, in regards to making a perception check DC to notice a trap very high, because the circumstances (stimulus) to find it are very specific. So unless your perception skill is very high, then you will not notice it (even when taking 20), and therefore will not have a chance to disable. Or make the perception check standard, but make the disable attempt harder based on circumstances. Either way, I can work within the rules, but I could also except an exception to perception checks as well.
Because the chest is the lure for a falling pit trap? Search 5 feet away to search for exterior traps, then make a separate check for the chest itself...Tell us about this chest's trap and why someone would be five feet away when they are searching it.But not by searching for the trap.That's right, because searching for a trap can be conducted by using visual senses exclusively, and thus getting all the details that something is trapped without any other kind of interaction.
Such as the inside of a chest from 5 feet away.
I'm assuming that's not what he means as he talks about being able to see inside the chest from 5 feet away. Unless I'm misinterpreting, he's saying it's silly for a perception check to be used for trapped chests as visual senses are used exclusively for perception checks. I disagree but I needed more information about the trapped chest.
As for your example, if the PC stated he wanted to check and see if the chest is trapped then he'd trigger the trap by when he started examining the chest. His intent was to examine the chest not the floor around it. If he stated he wanted to check the 5 ft. area the chest rests on then he'd make that check followed by the seperate check for the chest (like you wrote).
And hopefully for the rouge, his roguey senses would tingle.
Perception encompasses all 5 senses though, if the rogue said he was going to visually inspect the chest, then it would rely on only visual senses, perhaps he has a magnifying class to inspect the lock. Then he proceeds to inspect it with his hands lightly feeling for abnormalities, he then taps his tongue to feel if he tastes anything "off", lightly taps it to hear any hollow compartments. These would be everything encompassing a thorough check.
The only rule I like in 4e is the skill challenge. Make 3 out of 4 skill rolls with a DC20. When skill rolls were percentile based they were better. Even changing back to percentile based skill rolls would nicely balance out the game once more. Multiply the DCx5 to get the target, each +1 is also multiplied by 5. BANG balanced system that works for any module with very little math involved.
I hate the fact that any number on a d20 can come up for a skill check with an equal 5% chance on any roll. 2d10 has a much better bell curve.
If i understand this right, we are discussing if we think the rule should be changed/doesn't make sense because a clear answer has been given.
I would say, make sure you are VERY clear to any PC wanting to play a rogue, which way you go on this. Most PC's will go by the book and feel very slighted when it blindsides them in a game situation.
Most rogues wont take 20 every square inch Now if they have knowledge (the pc's not the players) of traps then its understandable for the rogue to be on edge. If he abuses the take 20 and it slows things down, try talking to the player 1st, then make them pay by more prepared bad guys or ambushes. remind players that those 2h hour durations wont last if it takes 30 minutes to search each room. You could always move a trap into an area with another encounter just so they wont have time to check properly.
In the end, everyone has to decide if they will go with the rules or change them to homebrew, Just makes sure your players know and understand why
|
|
Tell us about this chest's trap and why someone would be five feet away when they are searching it.But not by searching for the trap.That's right, because searching for a trap can be conducted by using visual senses exclusively, and thus getting all the details that something is trapped without any other kind of interaction.
Such as the inside of a chest from 5 feet away.
Because as stated by one of the developers the Perception check involves a visual examination of the item/area with no risk to the the one examining when failing their check. Why be any closer?
Failing a Perception check to notice something in an adjacent square (5 Ft) 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.
The 5ft in brackets is mine.
So no risk to actually set it off, yet 100% abstraction that the trap can somehow always be detected due to - how did Spalding put it - "whatever".
Doesn't really matter what's inside the chest - 5kgs of C4 set to detonate if its opened (not tied to the locking mechanism). Something inside the chest which can only be detected unless you get close to the chest - closer than the 5'ft set by gamest world mechanics - AKA D20 system.
On a side track I think these one roll resolves/fails without any actual thought or player input is weak. At least in combat (which works on a very similar fail/succeed mechanic) you can make some decisions about how hard to hit, how to maneuver to hit and use abilities tied to movement and placement. Yet talking to a guy without substance, or making a check instead of challenging the player to ask questions about a chest and just rolling is weak. Of course I’m in the minority opinion on that one. side track off/
Explosives and chemicals, especially in primitive form, smell - some are even slightly sweet, like almond paste. Black powder, for example, smells a bit sharp and tangy from the nitrates. Historically you'd have the cloying stench of sulphur, the bitter sharpness of saltpeter, the stink of manure (saltpeter was acquired by forking through manure piles), and the char scent of charcoal. So a powder bomb would have a lot of smells that wouldn't be typical of a dungeon. Potassium cyanide tastes of bitter almonds, the smell of mustard or chlorine might indicate a gas trap. Mechanical devices require space and parts that aren't usual to chests or decorative work - ie you don't see the trap, but you maybe notice that the lid of the chest is unusually thick or oddly shaped. Or perhaps the click of gears or buzz of electricity is audible. Perhaps there is a small pile of dead vermin below a certain panel, indicating poison or electric current. Perhaps you can feel heat coming from below the floor, where there is a lava pit trap. The stone floor thumps differently, or a stone here or there has sunk in over the years of subsidence. There might be a chip in the wall from where a crossbow trap has hit before, during testing maybe. Maybe there's an odd protruding rivet that doesn't seem like it should be there.
Just because you can't directly see the trap itself doesn't mean there won't be cues you don't need to interact with to be able to use as an identifier. And you don't risk setting off a trap until you interact with it, represented by a disable device check.
-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.(Were you -1-ing me or Kthulhu? I thought what Kthulhu wrote was on the money...)
I guess I didn't explicitly state that, as I felt it was implicit in my comment, but to clarify: I haven't houseruled anything, I don't disallow taking 20 unless the circumstances warrant it, I just feel that over-using it removes a large part of the uncertainty from trap finding. You may disagree with what I said, but I agree with you said :)
PS:I think I was -1 the original statement and the agreer, but I am to lazy to go back and check
Zo
I dont remember who I was quoting. I just hit th quote button and started typing. I will just say whoever wrote it can respond. :)
|
|
Sorry, reward without risk is a poor design paradigm in a game which assigned rewards (xp) to risks taken. Even for perception checks.
Not saying that something can't be detected from a distance, but structuring the perception check that a trap should always be detectable from 5ft no matter what the circumstances is just silly.
Anyway, different styles of gaming and I am not going to fight to get my point across. People want the dice to manage everything for them - including detailed searching and investigation then go at it. Not my style.
Sorry, reward without risk is a poor design paradigm in a game which assigned rewards (xp) to risks taken. Even for perception checks.
I can't think of a single example of XP being given for Perception checks. In fact, XP isn't even really awarded for disabling traps; it's awarded for overcoming the trap by whatever means, including just using the party Barbarian as a minesweeper.
Sorry, reward without risk is a poor design paradigm in a game which assigned rewards (xp) to risks taken. Even for perception checks.
Not saying that something can't be detected from a distance, but structuring the perception check that a trap should always be detectable from 5ft no matter what the circumstances is just silly.
Anyway, different styles of gaming and I am not going to fight to get my point across. People want the dice to manage everything for them - including detailed searching and investigation then go at it. Not my style.
Taking 20 is the detailed searching and investigating, so the other players at the table don't have to sit and wait for the rogue to roll a perception check on every single item AND play a game a 20 questions with the DM. "I thoroughly examine the room for any indication of traps, taking sufficient time to do so," is a nice shorthand way of saying you take 20. Compared to "I check the walls for traps." (Perception roll) "Now the floor." (Perception roll). "Okay, better check the ceiling." (Perception roll.) "What else is there in the room? Okay, well, I'll start with the wardrobe," (roll), "now under the bed" (roll)...
I've been in sessions like that and THEY SUCK.
Sorry, reward without risk is a poor design paradigm in a game which assigned rewards (xp) to risks taken. Even for perception checks.I can't think of a single example of XP being given for Perception checks. In fact, XP isn't even really awarded for disabling traps; it's awarded for overcoming the trap by whatever means, including just using the party Barbarian as a minesweeper.
A Confusion trap will take care of the Barbarian minesweeper...low will save with a killing machine...nasty
|
|
I can't think of a single example of XP being given for Perception checks.
I wouldn't think you would - nor for intelligent insights instigated by the player who actually asked questions vs. relying on the dice to do his brainwork for him.
You know - insights independent of actual d20 rolls.Don't worry though, the die rolls will get you through.
I've been in sessions like that and THEY SUCK.
Yeah the one die roll take 20 check is much more stimulating and descriptive.
|
|
Sorry, reward without risk is a poor design paradigm in a game which assigned rewards (xp) to risks taken. Even for perception checks.
Not saying that something can't be detected from a distance, but structuring the perception check that a trap should always be detectable from 5ft no matter what the circumstances is just silly.
Anyway, different styles of gaming and I am not going to fight to get my point across. People want the dice to manage everything for them - including detailed searching and investigation then go at it. Not my style.
I assume that the characters in my game have different knowledge and skill sets then my players. After all, I do not know one player who can cast a fireball, but I accept that their character can with out making them RP it. I will sometimes grant bonuses to checks and other stuff for great RP and creative thought (as long as it is something that the CHARACTER could think of, no INT 5 characters with great plans).
This is the same with diplomacy and intimidate. I know many people who are not diplomatic, but want to pretend to be in a game. I do not penalize them for not RP'ing out everything that their character would say, but accept that they give me the general idea of what their character wants to say, and let the roll dictate just how smoothly it gets delivered.
|
|
This is the same with diplomacy and intimidate. I know many people who are not diplomatic, but want to pretend to be in a game. I do not penalize them for not RP'ing out everything that their character would say, but accept that they give me the general idea of what their character wants to say, and let the roll dictate just how smoothly it gets delivered.
Yeah, I get that point - you still ask them what they would say? No? Maybe?
Or do you hand wave it all and let the dice ask all the questions for the PC?
Just because certain elements are fantastic (fireball, etc) does that mean everything else in the game is reduced to 100% die rolls with zero PC input - not asking the right question or saying the right things?
There has to be some level of PC involevement here - well it is D20 gaming. I should consider the system and players involved.
Anyway, SKR has already spoken on the subject - enjoy.