I can't believe I read through this entire thread. Honestly, before reading here, I was familiar with the case that has been referenced over and over that tells us that taking 20 on a perception check to find a trap, and that would've been my answer, end of story.
Now I understand it as this: as long as there is still no danger in failing the perception check, you may take 20 to find a trap. That doesn't necessarily mean that you may ALWAYS take 20 to find a trap, just that it's something that can be done. If a specific instance came up where the DM decided that there was significant risk involved in failure, he could inform the rogue that in this case it's not possible, and would be within his rights as the DM to do so (and supported by RAW).
Rule 0, by what it allows the DM to do, is not RAW. Rule 0 is the DM's way of getting around RAW, which I am not saying is bad thing, but to invoke the "DM can" statement is bad logic, and would lead to none of us every agreeing on anything since all us can say use that argument to your advantage or at least try too anyway.
Exactly. Normally there is no penalty for failing a perception check. However, I believe that those "issues" brought up in the thread are perfectly reasonable examples of how perception might require an action that could, if fumbled, set off a trap (we may just have to disagree on that one), especially when we consider that perception is the culmination of all senses, not just spot. I don't find it unreasonable to imagine that a DM could interpret it the same way, and am not closed minded enough to imagine that there couldn't possibly be any risk ever in such an action.
Now I understand it as this: as long as there is still no danger in failing the perception check, you may take 20 to find a trap.But there is no penalty for failing a perception check.
The 'issues' brought up in this thread have confused using the skill disable device to bypass a trap with using perception to find that there is a trap present. These are two different things.
A failed check on the former CAN have negative effects (setting off the trap if the disable device check is 5 or more below the DC) while a failed perception check does not run this risk.
A PC does not risk setting off a trap by looking for it and failing to perceive it. Thus one may take 20 on perception checks searching for traps as long as one has the time to spend so doing.
-James
That is not an interpretation issue. It is willful misreading of the rules or DM Fiat.
The book does not say perception checks allow for taking 20 except.....Now if a DM were simulationist it would not bother me if he ran the game that way, but if he tried to convince me the game was intended for it to be that way I would start to question his understanding of the rules.
|
Rule 0, by what it allows the DM to do, is not RAW. Rule 0 is the DM's way of getting around RAW, which I am not saying is bad thing, but to invoke the "DM can" statement is bad logic, and would lead to none of us every agreeing on anything since all us can say use that argument to your advantage or at least try too anyway.
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played.
Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
Rule 0 is RAW, pg 9 - Core Rule Book
Rule 0, by what it allows the DM to do, is not RAW. Rule 0 is the DM's way of getting around RAW, which I am not saying is bad thing, but to invoke the "DM can" statement is bad logic, and would lead to none of us every agreeing on anything since all us can say use that argument to your advantage or at least try too anyway.The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played.
Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.Rule 0 is RAW, pg 9 - Core Rule Book
Rule 0 is RAW -- use of Rule 0 isn't -- and is a failing of being able to find rules to support ones argument.
Basically in a rules forum it's a failure to have actual support from the RAW.
So my Rule 0 is that you can't use Rule 0 and therefore you rule your Rule 0 overrides my Rule 0 which I Rule 0 in return...
See? It adds nothing to the conversation other that "I fold I have nothing else to support my theory."
Rule 0, by what it allows the DM to do, is not RAW. Rule 0 is the DM's way of getting around RAW, which I am not saying is bad thing, but to invoke the "DM can" statement is bad logic, and would lead to none of us every agreeing on anything since all us can say use that argument to your advantage or at least try too anyway.The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played.
Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.Rule 0 is RAW, pg 9 - Core Rule Book
Rule 0 is RAW -- use of Rule 0 isn't -- and is a failing of being able to find rules to support ones argument.
Basically in a rules forum it's a failure to have actual support from the RAW.
So my Rule 0 is that you can't use Rule 0 and therefore you rule your Rule 0 overrides my Rule 0 which I Rule 0 in return...
See? It adds nothing to the conversation other that "I fold I have nothing else to support my theory."
Yeah, what he said. :)
Rule 0, by what it allows the DM to do, is not RAW. Rule 0 is the DM's way of getting around RAW, which I am not saying is bad thing, but to invoke the "DM can" statement is bad logic, and would lead to none of us every agreeing on anything since all us can say use that argument to your advantage or at least try too anyway.The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played.
Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.Rule 0 is RAW, pg 9 - Core Rule Book
Did Mr.spalding really have to explain that or were you playing the semantics game with me? We basically said the same thing.
|
|
Rule 0 is RAW -- use of Rule 0 isn't -- and is a failing of being able to find rules to support ones argument.Basically in a rules forum it's a failure to have actual support from the RAW.
Rule 0 is in the rules, thus it's RAW. Otherwise they wouldn't have included it.
But it's all about winning the "argument" isn't it?
Didn't I post earlier that I understood the RAW on the issue? Or in your forum rage did you miss all that?
On the issue of Rule 0, rule 0 is RAW and the use by it's very nature as defined RULE on page 9 of the CORE RULEBOOK is RAW. Rules As Written.
We can play these games all day.
Rule 0 is RAW -- use of Rule 0 isn't -- and is a failing of being able to find rules to support ones argument.Basically in a rules forum it's a failure to have actual support from the RAW.
Rule 0 is in the rules, thus it's RAW. Otherwise they wouldn't have included it.
But it's all about winning the "argument" isn't it?
Didn't I post earlier that I understood the RAW on the issue? Or in your forum rage did you miss all that?On the issue of Rule 0, rule 0 is RAW and the use by it's very nature as defined RULE on page 9 of the CORE RULEBOOK is RAW. Rules As Written.
We can play these games all day.
Nice ignoring of the rest of the post there. Rule 0 is RAW -- again use of Rule 0 isn't helpful or needed in a rules forum. For the above reasons.
Of course you're simply trying to switch subjects. When you don't have a valid theory move to another topic to avoid the original.
Beyond that this is a rules forum -- not then general discussion. If you want to take it out side of the rules take it outside the rules forum and discuss what you think should and shouldn't be in general discussion or advice.
|
|
Nice ignoring of the rest of the post there. Rule 0 is RAW -- again use of Rule 0 isn't helpful or needed in a rules forum. For the above reasons.Of course you're simply trying to switch subjects. When you don't have a valid theory move to another topic to avoid the original.
Again, pay attention.
I conceded that the interpretation that someone could take 20 on a perception check with no risk when looking for traps was RAW a few pages ago. Go back and actually make an effort read the thread before launching attacks.I didn't switch the subject, your cohort wraithstrike did. He brought up Rule 0, I just defended it.
Again read the thread before laying out the bilge flow.
Beyond that this is a rules forum -- not then general discussion. If you want to take it out side of the rules take it outside the rules forum and discuss what you think should and shouldn't be in general discussion or advice.
No, the issue was brought and people gave their input on the issue then SKR came down from the mountain of Dev design to decree that hazardous objects can safely be perceived from 5ft away with no risk to the one searching.
I thought that it was a poor implementation of the rules and skill system, and I wasn't the only one to think that the use of perception in that fashion doesn't work in their games.Things like that happen during the course of a thread.
Rule 0 is RAW -- use of Rule 0 isn't -- and is a failing of being able to find rules to support ones argument.Basically in a rules forum it's a failure to have actual support from the RAW.
Rule 0 is in the rules, thus it's RAW. Otherwise they wouldn't have included it.
But it's all about winning the "argument" isn't it?
Didn't I post earlier that I understood the RAW on the issue? Or in your forum rage did you miss all that?On the issue of Rule 0, rule 0 is RAW and the use by it's very nature as defined RULE on page 9 of the CORE RULEBOOK is RAW. Rules As Written.
We can play these games all day.
Yeah I saw that, but you were the one to jump in when I was countering the Count, which was on a different issue than the main topic. It was more or less a sub-topic. Had you not replied to me, nobody would have replied to you, so why are you acting like we did not see you admit you understood RAW on the perception check, which it has nothing to do with the sub-debate.
My point and Mr.Spalding's was that in a debate forum there must be some level of agreement, and while invoking rule 0 is fine at home, it does nothing for a debate online. We are not saying Rule 0 is not legal, just don't expect "well at my house" to get you any points in the rules forum. Yes we understand you don't like the perception rule, and if we play at your table we have to abide by your rules.
To explain this more, and in a different way I am not saying The Count or his theoretical DM can not do as he pleases, but he(the DM) should understand the intent of the rule.
I don't know how many other ways to state it.
To make things clear my point with The Count, was that there is a difference between understanding a rule, and deciding not to use it, and just not understanding it.
Nice ignoring of the rest of the post there. Rule 0 is RAW -- again use of Rule 0 isn't helpful or needed in a rules forum. For the above reasons.Of course you're simply trying to switch subjects. When you don't have a valid theory move to another topic to avoid the original.
Again, pay attention.
I conceded that the interpretation that someone could take 20 on a perception check with no risk when looking for traps was RAW a few pages ago. Go back and actually make an effort read the thread before launching attacks.I didn't switch the subject, your cohort wraithstrike did. He brought up Rule 0, I just defended it.
Again read the thread before laying out the bilge flow.Beyond that this is a rules forum -- not then general discussion. If you want to take it out side of the rules take it outside the rules forum and discuss what you think should and shouldn't be in general discussion or advice.No, the issue was brought and people gave their input on the issue then SKR came down from the mountain of Dev design to decree that hazardous objects can safely be perceived from 5ft away with no risk to the one searching.
I thought that it was a poor implementation of the rules and skill system, and I wasn't the only one to think that the use of perception in that fashion doesn't work in their games.Things like that happen during the course of a thread.
I did not change anything. You simply misread my post, and I am not anyone's cohort. Once you agreed that you knew the RAW I considered that part of the conversation over. My issue was with the Count understanding was the rule was written in no uncertain terms, and to possibly be interpreted a different way seems to be willful. If you had read my entire post you would have caught the part that said ".....but to invoke the "DM can" statement is bad logic, and would lead to none of us every agreeing on anything since all us can say use that argument to your advantage or at least try too anyway."
My point once again was that in a debate forum rule 0 has no affect on deciding how a rule was meant to be played because all of us being DM's can try to use it.
Once again I understand that you understand how the perception rule works, I know that Rules 0 has its place at the table. It just has no place in the rule forum.
The point I was trying to make with Rule 0 is not RAW, and I admit it was badly worded, is that once you invoke it you are not playing by RAW.
So to ask the obvious question at this point.
Why is this thread still going? It is clear discussion devolved into pointless arguments that only seem to be working to split the playerbase and offend people.
So again, why is this thread still alive?
These "long after the conclusion threads" happen all the time. :)
Smurf.
I gave up on this thread days ago.
|
|
So to ask the obvious question at this point.
Why is this thread still going? It is clear discussion devolved into pointless arguments that only seem to be working to split the playerbase and offend people.
So again, why is this thread still alive?
It is like watching NASCAR. I am not sure anyone cares about the OP question any more, they all just care about the wreck.
Smurf!
Use of rule 0 is both RAW and RAI. :)
Use of rule 0 is both RAW and RAI. :)
If that was really true, the answer to any rules question would be "whatever you decide to make up" and a Rules Questions forum would be pointless.
Use of rule 0 is both RAW and RAI. :)If that was really true, the answer to any rules question would be "whatever you decide to make up" and a Rules Questions forum would be pointless.
Rules question forums are useful for helping those new to the game... in common problems and eliminating rules misinterpretations. Also in forming a community and getting people talking about what was once relegated to dark garages.
I'd also point out that RPG's were made first - rules forums came much later, and the hobby grew and did fine up until and beyond their creation. :)
EDIT: horrible spelling! ugh
Another couple elements to consider. Located under the description of the rogue class. Under rogue talents, Trap Spotter (pg. 69) states:
"Trap Spotter (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should be made in secret by the GM."
A couple things about this:
1. 10 feet is much better than "the next adjacent 5 foot square". I argue that this extra distance is intended to lessen the possibility that a rogue would find himself stuck in the midst of a trap via a failed Perception skill roll, as well as greater distance to cover (basically, within 10 foot = 10 foot radius = 20 foot hallway). Note that this is extra benefit already layered on top of the rogue's natural ability of better trapfinding.
2. Checks should be made in secret (in this instance and it's also suggested elsewhere). Since it's an automatic check where the player is not requesting or declaring his intent to look for traps, a take 20 is *not* allowed. Of course, the player may request this on his own, distinct efforts to check, suffering the time to do so.
3. Perception skills checks draw their bonus (or malus) off the Wisdom ability score. Thus a charcter who is more or less wise, gains that benefit or suffers that detriment respectively. Wisdom "describes a character’s willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition" – while it covers awareness, it also covers common sense and intuition (or the LACK thereof). This suggests to me that a failed perception check roll, to notice a trap (say a pressure plate you're about to step on while you're in the process of searching for traps) it is perfectly reasonable that a failure might represent the possibility of suffering the consequence of that trap.
Therefore, I interpret a character's possible gross lack of wisdom (common sense, awareness, intuition) as a possible avenue for why a trap goes off while in the process of searching for one (a Perception skill check).
Just my 2 cents.
I gave up on this thread days ago.
Subtle :)
Perception skill checks!
I am the DM here slave!
Take 20 or die!
Subtle :)I gave up on this thread days ago.
:)
|
|
IURD the problem isn't really the take 20, it's more how the perception skill works.
But to build on your point
Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you a d20 roll enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.
I would think that its safe to say that an unidentified trap/hazard would constitute a threat. The only other variable being the range the trap may cover as a threat.
So maybe a better write on what you should and should not be able to detect based on senses used, range, the thing being detected, trap specific, etc? Something better than this unworkable design.The fact that you can get full use of perception from 5ft away in all cases + no risk is a poor write up of the skill. "Take 20" has nothing to do with this, this is a problem with the way the perception skill works and range of its ability.
Maybe there should have been more detail put in the descriptions of traps and hazards as how some may be harder to detect (not disable) or what sense may be required to discern their presence on a case-by-case basis.
They already make distinctions on bonuses to visual, audio and olfactory perception checks - why would short shrift traps and hazards on the other end and omit the use of these features of perception to detect them? Its like they built features into the skill and don't even realize their full use.
Why even include that level of detail of facets of perception (smell, hearing) if the visual check will get you the same results and can detect EVERYTHING within 5ft?
Possibly a better detailed section on traps or a cleaner write up on perception - one that dumps the "take 20 all-knowledge gained within 5ft" glitch? Anyway I will just file this one away under the "poor game design" folder and run what I've been using for years.
I know why they don't use a more detailed system - deemed too hard.
TSR hard - just bring that up + puzzles and watch some heads explode around here.
|
If a PC wishes to spend 10 or 20 combat rounds looking for traps instead of fighting the enemy, who are we to tell him that he cannot? Just like a cleric could elect to cast a 3 round casting time spell in combat.. they can elect to do so, but it might not be the best idea they've ever had.
Likewise if a PC wishes to spend minutes doing something when there are only rounds left, they are entitled to do so. They just won't finish it. Now you might be nice and tell them that they might not have that kind of time, that they realize how long this will take, etc...
But if the issue is allowing them to do so, then they certainly are allowed. That time might run out beforehand is not an issue in allowing them to attempt the action.
Perhaps this is semantics here, but it seems important to me,
James
Not really ever relevant right? A player couldn't "start" to take 20 in combat because the very idea of combat means that the following is not true:
"When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20."
A player could roll the check 20 times in a row, once each tick on the combat round at their initiative but taking 20 is an out of combat option right? Wouldn't the standard (note the word standard) use of combat tracking indicate that interruptions or threats are possible?
Aux, I considered the threat angle...
I believe the spirit of the threat angle is with regard to how able the character is to focus on his task at hand, not the "pure" perspective the GM holds as to what could be a threat to a PC or not.
Aside from this issue, the fact that Wisdom's affect on the perception skill check to look for traps only has it's positive effects considered (and not it's negative effects) is further suggestive of poor game design, IMO.
|
|
Aux, I considered the threat angle...
I believe the spirit of the threat angle is with regard to how able the character is to focus on his task at hand, not the "pure" perspective the GM holds as to what could be a threat to a PC or not.
Aside from this issue, the fact that Wisdom's affect on the perception skill check to look for traps only has it's positive effects considered (and not it's negative effects) is further suggestive of poor game design, IMO.
With all due respect, the entire concept of taking 20 is a mechanical substitution for what would be in reality a tedious time wasting affair. It is a magic hand wave conceding that the DM will, in fact, not screw with the player and the player has "all the time in the world" to get that magic 20 to be as sure as the *player* can be that their *character* has done the best they could.
The very mechanic rests on the concept of "game", the DM as arbiter, and the player as a player thinking mechanically not in any narrative fashion. If the table was interested in not breaking character and staying true to a narrative expectation that "danger is around every corner" then the players would roll the die time after time until either enough failures left the character with a sense that the task cannot be accomplished or the task was indeed accomplished and/or they were otherwise distracted, attacked, or whatever.
I don't have a specific problem with the idea of taking 20 (other than it being an inelegant solution to the problem inherent in d20 based systems).
My problem stems from the belief held by some in this threat that the perception skill check (in looking for traps) does not allow for the trap to be triggered via that very failed roll.
|
I'm not a big fan of take 20 in any situation, with any skill. I think that maybe it should be toned down to the following options:
Roll: I think we all understand this one.
Take 12: This takes 2x the normal amount of time, and basically replaces the take 10 rule. To use it, you must have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted must carry no penalties for failure.
Take 16: This takes 5x the normal amount of time, and basically replaces the take 20 rule. To use it, you must have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted must carry no penalties for failure.
By "threat", it means that failure can either directly lead to a penalty for failure, or it can indirectly but logically lead to a penalty for failure. As an example, you could not take 16 to search for traps, as failing to find the trap can obviously and logically lead to subsequently setting off the trap.
I think that giving players the chance to auto-succeed on anything that is approximately level-appropriate is not a good idea.
|
|
Aux, I considered the threat angle...
I believe the spirit of the threat angle is with regard to how able the character is to focus on his task at hand, not the "pure" perspective the GM holds as to what could be a threat to a PC or not.
Aside from this issue, the fact that Wisdom's affect on the perception skill check to look for traps only has it's positive effects considered (and not it's negative effects) is further suggestive of poor game design, IMO.
Yeah but the detection or non-detection of threat doesn't change the actual threat. That's why this is a horrid use of take 20.
If perception can detect everything at a range of 5ft, as the moronic RAW state, then the skill is perfect.
Once you enter the realm of quasi-reality (even for a fantasy game!) and every previous incarnation of the game and think the searcher may need to move, or touch items to examine them the it falls flat. Even having the searcher moving into the area and not touching anything but the floor the premise of detected/not detected is moot, they guy is in danger and one of those "ticks" on the take 20 check may set off the "threat" before it's detected. Take 20 = fail.
Could be used to detect features once the 20 is up, but shouldn't be used to exclusively detect if there is or isn't trap unless the traps description would fairly state a feature which could be detected from 5ft away, in good light, etc.
|
|
You could also say (within the RAW) that if the character was that worried about finding a trap, that they can not take 20, due to perceived threat (aka the trap). Then a minor house rule to allow the "Trap Spotter" rogue talent allow a "take 20" on the search when there are no threats other then the trap.
Yeah but the detection or non-detection of threat doesn't change the actual threat. That's why this is a horrid use of take 20.
The issue isn't that something's a potential threat. That sleeping dragon in the caverns 10 miles away is a threat, potentially, but he won't stop anyone from taking 10 or 20 because he's not perceived as a threat to the situation. A hidden trap isn't going to be a perceived threat either until it is found and recognized as one. The trap really can't distract from the act of searching for it.
|
However, I believe that those "issues" brought up in the thread are perfectly reasonable examples of how perception might require an action that could, if fumbled, set off a trap (we may just have to disagree on that one), especially when we consider that perception is the culmination of all senses, not just spot.
RAW aside, disallowing take 20 (or take 10) would make for a case of double jeopardy for the rogue. To overcome an obstacle that a rogue by RAW is uniquely prepared for (rogues get a bonus specifically for finding traps) it would seem to be immensely unbalanced and punishing to state that the rogue must overcome the 'find' DC or be hit with the trap, then beat the disable DC (or DC-4 if the GM is so generous as to allow a second chance on the check on a failed attempt) or again just have to suck up whatever the trap dishes out.
Forcing a rogue need to roll twice or trigger the trap would be akin to forcing a fighter to roll twice to hit an enemy when failure either time leads to being attacked by said monster.
|
|
However, I believe that those "issues" brought up in the thread are perfectly reasonable examples of how perception might require an action that could, if fumbled, set off a trap (we may just have to disagree on that one), especially when we consider that perception is the culmination of all senses, not just spot.RAW aside, disallowing take 20 (or take 10) would make for a case of double jeopardy for the rogue. To overcome an obstacle that a rogue by RAW is uniquely prepared for (rogues get a bonus specifically for finding traps) it would seem to be immensely unbalanced and punishing to state that the rogue must overcome the 'find' DC or be hit with the trap, then beat the disable DC (or DC-4 if the GM is so generous as to allow a second chance on the check on a failed attempt) or again just have to suck up whatever the trap dishes out.
Forcing a rogue need to roll twice or trigger the trap would be akin to forcing a fighter to roll twice to hit an enemy when failure either time leads to being attacked by said monster.
Which is why it's perfectly reasonable to leave the rule as is for the majority of situations. The exceptions would be just that - rare exceptions for especially difficult traps or some other unusual circumstance (pugwumpis?).
|
You're right, it's horseapples. Ask your GM if he only gets one chance in real life to look for something before being compelled to continue. If he can't find his car keys, does he look once, and then assume they're gone, so he has to walk to the store?In a trap laden place (which my character was specifically *told* there would be traps), I stated I wanted to start taking 20 on perception checks to find traps. I was told that I couldn't, because failure carried negative effects.
The logic seems to be that I can't take 220 because it assumes you 'roll' a 1, 2, 3... and so on till you get to 20, presumably failing several times along the way. In the case of looking for traps failure equates to concluding that there are *no* traps and the character continues on, thereby triggering the trap.
But if your car keys are rigged to explode upon movement and you happen to fail the check, you are dead as you didnt spot that they were trapped.
I have a real problem with the rules of taking 10 or 20 on perception checks to search for traps. If you search a chest that is rigged to shoot poison darts and you fail to find the trap, you most likely trigger the trap.
What purpose does a Rogue serve at this point if anyone can simply search for traps? Sure, they can disable traps, but most traps I have seen can easily be circumvented by jumping across it, moving around it on other parts of the floor, etc. Most traps in the scenarios are located on things or rooms. If anyone could simply see a trap on a lever, or on a spot in the floor, why bother even putting the trap there? I can understand the rare occurrence where a door that must be gone through is trapped forcing a DD check, but most traps I have seen, and I have played for a very very long time, can easily be bypassed. Plus, what good is Trap spotting for the rogue? It is useless.
The argument that it takes "time" to Take 20 is is simple and dumb. Who cares how long it takes? It doesn't take real time, only game time, and game time can go by in a split second. I don't think a GM counts the minutes and hours of a dungeon crawl, I would bet only the passing of a day is computed for any spellcasters. If a group of players had cleared some rooms of a dungeon and wanted to take 20 looking for traps they will, because who gives a damn about a supposed wandering monster or the fact that it may take 3 hours to search a room. So what, they don't care how long it takes. They want to search a room, they want to take 5 hours to do so, so what, we won't sit there for 5 hours, the GM will just say ok 5 hours passes an viola you have searched the room.
Besides, if a trap is triggered, there are other actions that need to be taken to see if it even works, like a save or attack roll.
I think it best to provide a failure chance to trigger the trap on a failed perception roll. If someone is actively searching for traps they are moving about in the area, using all their senses, and could possibly trigger the trap. I think if a perception failure of 5 or more should result in the trap triggering.
If Taking 20 on perception checks to find a trap isnt metagaming then I don't know what is...
|
|
When looking for traps, you don't have to touch anything. It's because you're *looking* for traps, not *poking* for traps. I don't see anything in the game that indicates you have to touch anything to search for traps (note that location-trigger traps would automatically go off when you touch the area they're in, which sort of defeats the purpose of trying to search for the trap without setting it off...).
The text doesn't say "looking" it says "find" in Perception. Finding is not only using your eyes. Look at all the different types of triggers for a trap...if you are using only sight, then you should be only to locate those traps which can be seen.
This thread died 2 and a half years ago. No real reason to continue it. For all we know, everyone that participated in this thread has changed their opinions.
Please look at the date of a thread before posting.
The GM absolutely should be tracking the passage of game time when you're burning it by the fistfuls via taking 20 to find traps or do anything else. Taking 20 times as long to do something means you're burning gobs and gobs of game time. Sure, it's easy to waive away in real time. However, how are the less-patient players going to handle the trapfinder burning off an hour in-game every 600 feet of movement? Some handle this just fine ... more than a few do not.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then the GM is ruling against RAW, RAI, and official statements from the rules team.
Have fun with THAT campaign...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And just because he is a developer doesn't mean he is Dictator.
The game can be ruled by whoever the GM is. If a GM wants to rule differently, it's his game, his prerogative.
Sure, a GM can rule however he wants. But if you want to talk about that, take it to the Houserules/Homebrew forum. This is the Rules forum, where we talk about what the rules actually say, and the people who wrote the rules are the ultimate authority on that.