Disable Device wrote: Retry? You can retry checks made to disable traps if you miss the check by 4 or less, though you must be aware that you fail in order to try again. So the question begs "How is one aware that they failed?"
Example: While searching a corridor a Rogue comes upon a pressure plate for an arrow trap (Disable Device DC:20), he rolls an 18. He/she didn't fail by 5 or more so no spectacular failure happens, so how would they know they failed without actually stepping on the pressure plate and releasing a volley of arrows?
Thoughts?
Where are you taking that rules quote from?
Because the rules quote from the Core Rule Book is:
Quote: Try Again: Varies. You can retry checks made to disable traps if you miss the check by 4 or less. You can retry checks made to open locks.
Nevermind then. That's what I get for checking d20 PFSRD rather than the actual PRD.
So are you automatically aware that you failed if it's by 4 or less?
Only if there's an obvious indicator of it. For instance, if there's two pendulum blades swinging back and forth across the corridor, you can probably tell if you failed to jam the gears.
If there's a pressure plate that you think/know will trigger two swinging pendulum blades (but they haven't been triggered yet) and you fail to disable it, you might think you've wedged or spiked the trigger in place, cut the right wire, or blocked the blade gears, but the only way to know is basically to test it, either by triggering the trap or trying to pass it.
Typically, you use your brain in those situations if you aren't certain; a ten-foot pole to depress the trigger, a heavy weight or bowling ball to roll down a corridor, or send the barbarian.
I would say yes, if you barely fail, you know that something went wrong. If you fail by more, you think you got it. That's the danger of failure in disable device. (This is with the check rolled in secret by the GM, so the player doesn't know they actually failed.) The way this works in my games is the following:
succeeded: 'You think you got it.'
barely failed: 'Something didn't go quite right.'
badly failed: 'You think you got it.'
I dont think you would know if you failed or not. There would need to be an indication that you failed. It is not different than not knowing if you didnt succeed on a sense motive check or perception check. Everything will seem ok, until it is too late.
If, as stated above, the trap is obvious, likely because it has already been set off then yes you can tell.
PS: The rules are actually silent so it would require an FAQ to get an official answer.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
As kind of a quick and dirty house rule I had them roll another Perception check against the traps DC to see if they could tell if it was disabled or not (they failed).
It may be a GM's call in letting them know or not, or a GM could just ask if a player wants to try again or not, and letting the dice fall where they may. failed by 5 or more "well it doesn't look like you disabled it, do you wish to try again?" *rolls* (trap goes off regardless of roll). This would keep a level of tension in game rather than just rolling to succeed, otherwise why put a challenge in front of them? that's almost as bad as rolling stats until you have all 18's...
wraithstrike wrote: I dont think you would know if you failed or not. There would need to be an indication that you failed. It is not different than not knowing if you didnt succeed on a sense motive check or perception check. Everything will seem ok, until it is too late.
If, as stated above, the trap is obvious, likely because it has already been set off then yes you can tell.
PS: The rules are actually silent so it would require an FAQ to get an official answer.
Given how abstract trap mechanisms are, there's nothing that says you wouldn't know that you failed. You know you need to remove a certain pin from a gear, you try, you fail to remove the pin from the gear. You need to cut a spring that's deep down in the mechanisms, you try and fail to cut the spring that's deep down in the mechanisms.
If you've ever tried to repair a mechanical gadget, it often takes several tries to get that part placed correctly, or remove that snap washer, or get the spring in place and secured. Very rarely do I think I've repaired something correctly, but actually failed to notice that I didn't actually put a gear back where it was needed.
It's not unreasonable to ask the player to devise some sort of test their character could do in order to figure out if the device is disabled, if they really want to know. The aforementioned "you know a lock is successfully picked when you can open the thing" for example. There's not rules for this, but it's reasonable that whoever built the pressure plate does not want to set off the arrow trap (and subsequently have to reload it) if a bird lands on it.
So you could, without setting off the trap, put a small amount of pressure on it from a safe distance (behind cover say) and see if there are any mechanism noises. For cases like this, I would say leave it up to the rogue player to describe how the trap functions (within reason, no "the lever to disable it is immediately to the left of the trap"), so their idea of "how to tell if it's disabled" can apply.
Redelia wrote: I would say yes, if you barely fail, you know that something went wrong. If you fail by more, you think you got it. That's the danger of failure in disable device. (This is with the check rolled in secret by the GM, so the player doesn't know they actually failed.) The way this works in my games is the following:
succeeded: 'You think you got it.'
barely failed: 'Something didn't go quite right.'
badly failed: 'You think you got it.'
Disable Device wrote: If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you spring it. If you’re attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally. In this case (discussing traps) if you fail by 5 or more than you pretty much know you failed because the trap will go off (if you're not in the 'kill zone' you should be safe, but you'll still set the trap off, which might actually make it safe to pass.) In some rare cases, you may be fiddling with the trigger of a trap that goes off somewhere else, out of your sight completely, like opening the cage to a guardian monster somewhere up ahead. In this case, you still wouldn't know you set it off and a GM shouldn't tell you that unless it was something obvious. "You thought you slipped for a second and pressed the plate too hard. Odd, nothing happened, maybe it was a dud."
They might think it was a dud, already disabled, or they might think you're being devious and take any other reasonable action. With so many varied trap designs, situations, and outcomes there's not a perfect one-size answer but, if there's nothing that your character can observe or notice, then it shouldn't be roleplayed that way.
In the case of succeeding or failing by a narrow margin, (the GM should be rolling in secret so you don't know the results.) anything he rolls should just be responded to with a basic "Okay, you spend some time tinkering and think you've got it." Obviously they can go into more detail depending on the situation, "You cut a wire you believe handles the trigger," or "You carefully wedge a piton into the trap door, that should hold it shut." Other than in cases where something actually happens based on the check, ie. the trap goes off, should you get any awareness of it.
Marik Whiterose wrote: Example: While searching a corridor a Rogue comes upon a pressure plate for an arrow trap (Disable Device DC:20), he rolls an 18. He/she didn't fail by 5 or more so no spectacular failure happens, so how would they know they failed without actually stepping on the pressure plate and releasing a volley of arrows? In this case, the GM makes the check, (you shouldn't know whether you rolled high or low or what the DC might or might not be.) He sees the result and he says, "You think you've disarmed it." He could also say anything else reasonable based on what you were doing, "You get some putty and bung up a few suspicious holes you think arrows might shoot from," "You slip a wedge into the edge of the pressure plate which should hold it from depressing if you don't put too much weight on it," "You bend a small wire which you think might disable the trap," etc.
Since there's nothing otherwise visible that occurs, based on the roll, there's no way to know whether it worked or not without either pressing the pressure plate (which, if you know where to stand, is a valid way of disabling certain traps that don't reset.) You could keep checking the trap, but technically and realistically, you either think you did it or don't, so unless you're a character that constantly second-guesses themselves you probably shouldn't. Also, there's a chance that if you did disable it, you might roll worse and somehow set it off instead.
Like PossibleCabbage's suggestions, you can take reasonable actions to check, but, since you're question is about not triggering the trap, all you can really do is not step on it. Walk around it, jump over it, go a different route, etc. Completely reasonable actions.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Disable Device wrote: If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you spring it. If you’re attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally. ...
In the case of succeeding or failing by a narrow margin, (the GM should be rolling in secret so you don't know the results.) anything he rolls should just be responded to with a basic "You think you've disarmed it."
The bit where a character wrongly thinks something (not a trap) is disabled when it isn't appears to be in reference to having failed by 5 or more.
This says to me that in general if you miss by less than 5 you shouldn't wrongly believe that you've achieved something.
Question: if you successfully disable a trap and then you keep on tinkering with it, can you set it off? If not, any ambiguity is going to create a situation where the player always keeps disarming the trap until it goes off or he rolls high enough that there's no doubt.
Matthew Downie wrote: Question: if you successfully disable a trap and then you keep on tinkering with it, can you set it off? If not, any ambiguity is going to create a situation where the player always keeps disarming the trap until it goes off or he rolls high enough that there's no doubt. You should never know what the roll was. You might, as a player know what your skill bonus is, whether you are getting bonuses from a masterwork tool kit, etc. but in character, you don't know that you 'rolled a 2' or 'rolled a 20'. The check should made secretly.
Disable Device wrote: Check: When disarming a trap or other device, the Disable Device check is made secretly, so that you don't necessarily know whether you've succeeded. Understanding that disabling a device isn't the same as destroying it, it's entirely possible to mess up if you keep tinkering with something after you've sufficiently disabled it you might trigger it (or otherwise have a mishap.) You might have passed your first check and the GM says you believe you've wedged the pressure plate in place so you can pass. Even though your first attempt succeeded you aren't sure. So you make another check, the GM rolls and tells you that you think it's disabled. Let's say you keep rolling, but this time you fail by 5 or more, now maybe you accidentally bumped lose the wedge you placed and trigger the trap.
Maybe you tried to jam the wrong gear and started it moving instead.
Maybe you think (or did) cut the right wire (the first, second, or even third time,) but you kept making checks, and one fails by 5 or more and that time a tiny zap of static electricity from your finger tip arced out and set the trap off. Maybe that wedge you slipped under the boulder trap worked, but you keep messing with it and fumble, knocking it loose and dropping the boulder on your head when you should have just left well enough alone. Either trust in your skill... or avoid the trapped area regardless.
Obviously there are countless traps and scenarios so no one can go into all details or safeguards, but yes, basically if you fail your check (by 5 or more), you set the trap off. A lot of people say 'how' you use Disable Device doesn't matter, it's just a dice roll, so if there's a spear trap and you GM tells you that you disabled it by pulling out all the spears, then yes, it would be weird if spears shot out, but for those who want to have it ambiguous and abstract then they have to take the good with the bad. Again, we're talking about a disabled or bypassed trap, not one that was destroyed or something and, again, the topic isn't about setting of traps, it's knowing whether you succeeded or failed. Obviously if the trap triggers or does anything else observable, then you know, otherwise, you don't.
Plus, trying to roll over and over again is basically like Taking 20, only without paying the extra time and since that's not allowed with Disable Device (for traps) since it's assumed you're going to roll low as well as high eventually, you'd likely trigger the trap, so that's what should happen if you keep fiddling with a dangerous device. UNLESS you have a good in-character reason to keep fiddling with the trap, like someone else telling you it isn't disabled or you can still see it working. Or possibly you beat the DC by 10 and are considered to have studied it sufficiently (or skillfully) enough to know how it really works (in which case you might not even disarm it unless you wanted to.) Again, since a player never knows what the check result is (unless they're metagaming) so they can only react to actual stimulus. If they want to keep making the check, as long as it's in-character for them to do it... they can do it until something happens, either they trigger it or not, but there are easier ways to trigger a trap without Disable Device and likely from safer distances.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
