Taking 20 on perception checks to discover traps


Rules Questions

151 to 177 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Brotato wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


Fact 1: You can take 20 on Perception checks to find traps because searching for a trap, no matter how poorly, does not trigger it.
Fact 2: A failed Disable Device check triggers a trap, not a failed Perception check.
Fact 3: Symbols have DCs to find and disable them.
Fact 3 corollary: Symbols follow the same trap rules as all other things that are traps.

I think it's funny that in a system full of exceptions to the rule you refuse to accept this one instance.

Edit: Moreover, you've already stated your outright refusal to accept a clarification of RAI from the Creative Director of the company, so at this point you're just arguing RAW out of a stance of obstinance.

That isn't the first time I disagreed with Jacobs' assertion of how things should work and it won't be the last. He may be the creative director, but that doesn't make his judgments above reproach.

His argument on how it should work is just as myopic as everyone else's here. You can't say certain traps work one way and other traps work another way. It's nonsense. The rules don't allow for that to work in the slightest. You would ALWAYS have to have ALL traps work using the most strenuous of the two rule sets.


Cartigan wrote:


That isn't the first time I disagreed with Jacobs' assertion of how things should work and it won't be the last. He may be the creative director, but that doesn't make his judgments above reproach.

His argument on how it should work is just as myopic as everyone else's here. You can't say certain traps work one way and other traps work another way. It's nonsense. The rules don't allow for that to work in the slightest. You would ALWAYS have to have ALL traps work using the most strenuous of the two rule sets.

I'm sorry you feel that way and it's become obvious that you will never accept any interpretation but your own. I think your rigid adherence to some rules over others is "myopic" personally, but you are free to run your game the way you wish. I'll take the words of the people that designed the game over yours though.


Brotato wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


That isn't the first time I disagreed with Jacobs' assertion of how things should work and it won't be the last. He may be the creative director, but that doesn't make his judgments above reproach.

His argument on how it should work is just as myopic as everyone else's here. You can't say certain traps work one way and other traps work another way. It's nonsense. The rules don't allow for that to work in the slightest. You would ALWAYS have to have ALL traps work using the most strenuous of the two rule sets.

I'm sorry you feel that way and it's become obvious that you will never accept any interpretation but your own. I think your rigid adherence to some rules over others is "myopic" personally, but you are free to run your game the way you wish. I'll take the words of the people that designed the game over yours though.

And you are free to ignore the rules as written in your game. Which you, and many others in this thread, have said you intend to.


Question wrote:
Does taking 20 on perception checks to search for traps automatically trigger any negative consequence? E.G. By rolling enough times to get a 20, you will also get at least one 1, and possibly trigger a trap while searching for it.

This is the question of this thread.

The answer, as this is the "Rules Questions" subforum and not the "Suggestions/Homebrew/House Rules" subforum, is "No, never." Otherwise you couldn't take 20 on Perception checks to find traps - a use specifically laid out in the PRD.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Question wrote:
Does taking 20 on perception checks to search for traps automatically trigger any negative consequence? E.G. By rolling enough times to get a 20, you will also get at least one 1, and possibly trigger a trap while searching for it.

This is the question of this thread.

The answer, as this is the "Rules Questions" subforum and not the "Suggestions/Homebrew/House Rules" subforum, not the "I will pick and choose which rules I wish to use" subforum, not the "The rules work the way I say" subforum, and not the "General Rules trump Specific Rules" subforum, that you can take 20 to search for any trap, however, due to the specific exception to the general rule set up in the specific Symbol school of spells, taking 20 within the range of a spell who's trigger is to be seen, then taking 20 will set that symbol off (unless you can, on a 1, still beat the DC of that symbol).

To reiterate, this is based on the posting of the Creative Director of Paizo, not on the rantings of a random, cranky forum poster.


Cartigan wrote:


Your "conclusion" is just as much a house-rule as his!

Either a Symbol is a trap and follows the trap rules or it isn't. There is none of this bs middle ground where symbols are special traps that ignore both the trap rules and the take 20 rules.

Moreover, a "reactive perception check to find a trap" is some thing you just made up. The point is obviously to benefit players when otherwise they would have triggered the trap by being morons or incapable of finding it.

Uh, apparently you missed it. I came over to your side of the fence. All traps are take 20 searchable. The thing is the rogue has to say he is going to take 20 to look for it, before he accidentally sets it off. Most rogues I know of don't make a habit of saying they're taking 20 to search that symbol from 65' away. They walk over to it first, thus triggering the trap.


ok i kept seeing posters refer to jacobs rulings so i did a search in this thread and finally found his OPINION on the matter. some agree some dont. i see some actually trying to address this issue per RAW which really it needs to be as it's in the rules thread. after reading further on traps, rogues, symbols and all the bits and peaces scattered around the core book, which most cases usually are to find a tough RAW ruling there's actually evidence to support JAMES ruling and im finally agreeing with it. Some still won't after the evidence but BLEH do as you want in YOUR game.

also i've seen some say either magical traps are traps and follow the normal rules or there not really traps. well as with a LOT of things in pathfinder there are GENERAL rules and then there are rules that TRUMP the general rule. there are a LOT of feats for instance that do this...

PRD-TRAPS

Magic: Many spells can be used to create dangerous traps. Unless the spell or item description states otherwise, assume the following to be true.

*A successful Perception check (DC 25 + spell level) detects a magic trap before it goes off.

*Magic traps permit a saving throw in order to avoid the effect (DC 10 + spell level × 1.5).

*Magic traps may be disarmed by a character with the trapfinding class feature with a successful Disable Device skill check (DC 25 + spell level). Other characters have no chance to disarm a magic trap with a Disable Device check.

PRD-SYMBOL OF DEATH

"As a default, a symbol of death is triggered whenever a creature does one or more of the following, as you select: looks at the rune; reads the rune; touches the rune; passes over the rune; or passes through a portal bearing the rune. Regardless of the trigger method or methods chosen, a creature more than 60 feet from a symbol of death can't trigger it (even if it meets one or more of the triggering conditions, such as reading the rune)"

a symbol of death by default has one of these triggers but not more than one.

It says "Unless the spell or item description states otherwise". well if the symbol has "looks at the rune" as the trigger then it is "STATING OTHERWISE so in this case "A successful Perception check (DC 25 + spell level) detects a magic trap before it goes off. would be superseded.

This all fallows RAW. Per the trap rules it even makes the point to say spells may have specific exceptions in there descriptions. It very clearly tells you under traps they are GENERAL rules and spells can overrule these general rules. So a symbol of death you could not take 20 unless outside the 60' range as seeing it and being within 60' would cause it to activate. ofc if your in the 60ft range it's going to go off anyway before you even have time to attempt a take 20 so it's mute!

I think looking at all the evidence there is enough to rule this is the correct ruling per RAW and supports James opinion on the matter.

Shadow Lodge

I can imagine plenty of traps that it wouldn't really be possible to "take 20" to search for them without risking setting them off. As with many things, it depends upon the trap in question, and is ultimately a situation for GM arbitration.


with the above stated, and as far as im concerned on the matter it's resolved i will address the original posters question and get off of arguing points of view and opinion.

Taking 20 on perception checks to discover traps.

Yes per RAW you can take 20 but the time to do so is 2 minutes per 5' square. An exception to this general ruling would be however if the trap in question is magical and has range (such as a symbol of death with "looks at the rune" as a trigger or fireball trap). In cases such as these you must be out of the traps range as inside the range would have a negative effect. you would add +1/10' of distance to the DC to detect the trap.

Obviously the latter is pretty redundant because if your inside the range of the trap you will take the traps effect anyway long before you have time to take 20 on perception. There may be super rare circumstances where your able to get within a ranged magical traps range. In a fantasy world where anything is possible it's hard to anticipate them all and should be left up to the GM. Examples may be flying you MAY be able to circumvent curtain specific traps,or being ethereal, or time stop perhaps etc.


Brotato wrote:
To throw more grease on the fire, if you allow any rogue to disable at a distance, you're basically giving away Ranged Legerdemain for free, weakening Arcane Trickster further.

i think this was a VERY good point and was not addressed. i feel however that this is a completely different can of worms of the original posters question so i will address it in a new thread.


Here is the deal IMHO.
Normally the perception check is to notice a hidden trap. This trap(symbol) is already out for anyone to see. The perception check in this case is to notice that it is a trap as opposed to some random writing.
If someone can identify/read the symbol at 20 feet out they will not notice it as a trap if they are not a rogue, which is really gamist because if I know something is a symbol of (bad things) then I am going to want to find a way to get rid of it or by pass it. At that point any caster with decent common sense will know that such symbols are often used as traps even if the current one is not recognized as one, and it is better to err on the side of caution and dispel it than to think-->"Oh look a symbol of death/pain/etc in between us and the person who is our enemy. It seems to still be radiating magic, but I am sure it is safe. Let us walk by it, for surely it is not dangerous."

Shadow Lodge

I personally dislike the concept of taking 20 as a whole. When it comes to searching for traps, I really dislike it, because it leads to the following situations:

1. The trap exists only as a time sink. As a level-appropriate trap, that's really all it can be. It's only dangerous if the party is in too much of a rush to spend the time to take 20 (being chased by a monster, etc). While I like to use traps in this way, if that's the ONLY way they can be effective, they loose their coolness. This situation leads to characters waltzing through the Tomb of Horrors if they have a week to kill. You might as well just make all the passageways in the dungeons a few miles long...it's the same net effect. Maybe it's just that I really like deathtrap dungeons, but I feel that 3.X has already neutered traps far too much. If you reduce them to only being dangerous to players who neglect to mention that they are taking 20, than they cease to have any real point.

2. It's an unavoidable trap with a DC that exceeds even the take 20 perception ranks of the party. This is actually the best situation, of the bunch, in my opinion, as it leads to old-school type gameplay. Unfortunately, when bundled into a game system that has coddled players away from unavoidable situations, it usually leads to people crying "unfair!"


wraithstrike wrote:

Here is the deal IMHO.

Normally the perception check is to notice a hidden trap. This trap(symbol) is already out for anyone to see. The perception check in this case is to notice that it is a trap as opposed to some random writing.
If someone can identify/read the symbol at 20 feet out they will not notice it as a trap if they are not a rogue, which is really gamist because if I know something is a symbol of (bad things) then I am going to want to find a way to get rid of it or by pass it. At that point any caster with decent common sense will know that such symbols are often used as traps even if the current one is not recognized as one, and it is better to err on the side of caution and dispel it than to think-->"Oh look a symbol of death/pain/etc in between us and the person who is our enemy. It seems to still be radiating magic, but I am sure it is safe. Let us walk by it, for surely it is not dangerous."

Do the dungeons you go into not often have runes and writing all over the place carved in the walls?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Cartigan wrote:
Brotato wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


That isn't the first time I disagreed with Jacobs' assertion of how things should work and it won't be the last. He may be the creative director, but that doesn't make his judgments above reproach.

His argument on how it should work is just as myopic as everyone else's here. You can't say certain traps work one way and other traps work another way. It's nonsense. The rules don't allow for that to work in the slightest. You would ALWAYS have to have ALL traps work using the most strenuous of the two rule sets.

I'm sorry you feel that way and it's become obvious that you will never accept any interpretation but your own. I think your rigid adherence to some rules over others is "myopic" personally, but you are free to run your game the way you wish. I'll take the words of the people that designed the game over yours though.
And you are free to ignore the rules as written in your game. Which you, and many others in this thread, have said you intend to.

Cartigan you have chosen to ignore this rule:

Quote:
Note: Magic traps such as symbol of death are hard to detect and disable. A rogue (only) can use the Perception skill to find a symbol of death and Disable Device to thwart it. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level, or 33 for symbol of death.

It is the spell description and effect.

As you can easily see it contain a specific rule that it differentiate from the generic rules about traps:

"A rogue (only) can use the Perception skill to find a symbol"

And this one:

Quote:
As a default, a symbol of death is triggered whenever a creature does one or more of the following, as you select: looks at the rune;

Again a clear difference from other traps. It can be set to activate when look at, another big difference from other traps.

So extolling the "purity" of your opinion in his adherence to RAW is a bit absurd.


wraithstrike wrote:

Here is the deal IMHO.

Normally the perception check is to notice a hidden trap. This trap(symbol) is already out for anyone to see. The perception check in this case is to notice that it is a trap as opposed to some random writing. (CORRECT
If someone can identify/read the symbol at 20 feet out they will not notice it as a trap if they are not a rogue, which is really gamist because if I know something is a symbol of (bad things) then I am going to want to find a way to get rid of it or by pass it. At that point any caster with decent common sense will know that such symbols are often used as traps even if the current one is not recognized as one, and it is better to err on the side of caution and dispel it than to think-->"Oh look a symbol of death/pain/etc in between us and the person who is our enemy. It seems to still be radiating magic, but I am sure it is safe. Let us walk by it, for surely it is not dangerous."

except in the case of 20'out you could be dead! "then I am going to want to find a way to get rid of it or by pass it." well thats the whole point of a challenge isn't it?! There are ways for a wizard to overcome traps if you think evil looking sinister symbol is a trap then thats just playing the game. It's up to your character how you get around it. For a wizard im sure there is a way. Overcoming challenges really has nothing to do with the thread...


Kthulhu wrote:

I personally dislike the concept of taking 20 as a whole. When it comes to searching for traps, I really dislike it, because it leads to the following situations:

1. The trap exists only as a time sink. As a level-appropriate trap, that's really all it can be. It's only dangerous if the party is in too much of a rush to spend the time to take 20 (being chased by a monster, etc). While I like to use traps in this way, if that's the ONLY way they can be effective, they loose their coolness. This situation leads to characters waltzing through the Tomb of Horrors if they have a week to kill. You might as well just make all the passageways in the dungeons a few miles long...it's the same net effect. Maybe it's just that I really like deathtrap dungeons, but I feel that 3.X has already neutered traps far too much. If you reduce them to only being dangerous to players who neglect to mention that they are taking 20, than they cease to have any real point.

2. It's an unavoidable trap with a DC that exceeds even the take 20 perception ranks of the party. This is actually the best situation, of the bunch, in my opinion, as it leads to old-school type gameplay. Unfortunately, when bundled into a game system that has coddled players away from unavoidable situations, it usually leads to people crying "unfair!"

Not so. yes it COULD be a time sink but it could also be a viable threat! look at it this way. while you could take 20 it's not an automatic success!And if your trying as a GM to use traps in a quest and your players often take 20 on detecting them then you should be taking that in to account for DC's of your traps. Remember a ranged trap to be discovered safely AND to even take 20 has to be outside the traps range. In the case of a symbol of death with "sees symbol" as the trigger, only a rogue can detect it and thus taking 20 at 65' would have a DC of 39! and thats in lighted conditions without any other penalties. also traps dont have to be static, use you imagination. the PC takes 20 and monsters burst in to attack, one grabs a pc and throws him into the trap. there's many ways to use traps other than to waste time, you just need to be creative. also finding the trap and getting around it are 2 different things, you can't take 20 on disarming traps...


RunebladeX wrote:


a symbol of death by default has one of these triggers but not more than one.

I agree with everything you said but this, and you said it all much more eloquently than I was able to. However, in the very description of Symbol of Death, it says "As a default, a symbol of death is triggered whenever a creature does one or more of the following," a symbol can by RAW be set to go off when any of those conditions are met.

At least, that's what I was GOING to say. But during the time I was writing the above paragraph I had a realization. Does "or more" actually mean you can set a symbol to go off only when multiple conditions are met, such as reading and touching the symbol? I'm unsure now.


Brotato wrote:
RunebladeX wrote:


a symbol of death by default has one of these triggers but not more than one.

I agree with everything you said but this, and you said it all much more eloquently than I was able to. However, in the very description of Symbol of Death, it says "As a default, a symbol of death is triggered whenever a creature does one or more of the following," a symbol can by RAW be set to go off when any of those conditions are met.

At least, that's what I was GOING to say. But during the time I was writing the above paragraph I had a realization. Does "or more" actually mean you can set a symbol to go off only when multiple conditions are met, such as reading and touching the symbol? I'm unsure now.

ah missed that bit i stand corrected also noticed this

Regardless of the trigger method or methods chosen

i guess per the spell you can choose all triggers if you want, it is an 8th level spell. i seen the OR in triggers and got jumpy.


RunebladeX wrote:

ok i kept seeing posters refer to jacobs rulings so i did a search in this thread and finally found his OPINION on the matter. some agree some dont. i see some actually trying to address this issue per RAW which really it needs to be as it's in the rules thread. after reading further on traps, rogues, symbols and all the bits and peaces scattered around the core book, which most cases usually are to find a tough RAW ruling there's actually evidence to support JAMES ruling and im finally agreeing with it. Some still won't after the evidence but BLEH do as you want in YOUR game.

also i've seen some say either magical traps are traps and follow the normal rules or there not really traps. well as with a LOT of things in pathfinder there are GENERAL rules and then there are rules that TRUMP the general rule. there are a LOT of feats for instance that do this...

PRD-TRAPS

Magic: Many spells can be used to create dangerous traps. Unless the spell or item description states otherwise, assume the following to be true.

*A successful Perception check (DC 25 + spell level) detects a magic trap before it goes off.

*Magic traps permit a saving throw in order to avoid the effect (DC 10 + spell level × 1.5).

*Magic traps may be disarmed by a character with the trapfinding class feature with a successful Disable Device skill check (DC 25 + spell level). Other characters have no chance to disarm a magic trap with a Disable Device check.

PRD-SYMBOL OF DEATH

"As a default, a symbol of death is triggered whenever a creature does one or more of the following, as you select: looks at the rune; reads the rune; touches the rune; passes over the rune; or passes through a portal bearing the rune. Regardless of the trigger method or methods chosen, a creature more than 60 feet from a symbol of death can't trigger it (even if it meets one or more of the triggering conditions, such as reading the rune)"

a symbol of death by default has one of these triggers but not more than one.

It says...

Apparently I need to reiterate what I said:

GIVEN ALL THAT ABOUT THE SYMBOL, it is impossible for them to be counted as traps. There is no way to bypass the triggers. No reasonable way, at any rate (no one is searching for traps in a 20x20 room from 65 feet away, around a corner - and if they are, they can't disable it, regardless of whether or not a DC exists). Therefore they either have to work like normal traps using the normal trap rules or symbols just screw everyone over no matter what and the listed DC to find and disable them is irrelevant.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:

I personally dislike the concept of taking 20 as a whole. When it comes to searching for traps, I really dislike it, because it leads to the following situations:

1. The trap exists only as a time sink. As a level-appropriate trap, that's really all it can be. It's only dangerous if the party is in too much of a rush to spend the time to take 20 (being chased by a monster, etc). While I like to use traps in this way, if that's the ONLY way they can be effective, they loose their coolness. This situation leads to characters waltzing through the Tomb of Horrors if they have a week to kill. You might as well just make all the passageways in the dungeons a few miles long...it's the same net effect. Maybe it's just that I really like deathtrap dungeons, but I feel that 3.X has already neutered traps far too much. If you reduce them to only being dangerous to players who neglect to mention that they are taking 20, than they cease to have any real point.

2. It's an unavoidable trap with a DC that exceeds even the take 20 perception ranks of the party. This is actually the best situation, of the bunch, in my opinion, as it leads to old-school type gameplay. Unfortunately, when bundled into a game system that has coddled players away from unavoidable situations, it usually leads to people crying "unfair!"

1. I'm generally OK with that. I think of traps mostly like minefields. To an army with competent engineers, minefields are barely a speed bump if no pressure is put on them. If you can't put the minefield under fire (artillery or machine gun), it's nearly useless to lay one. The other army just trots out its engineers, spends enough time to clear and mark paths, and it's on its way.

2. This is why PCs should be trying to work up ways to get circumstance bonuses, use aid another, etc, to get better bonuses and find more difficult traps.

Shadow Lodge

Bill Dunn wrote:
1. I'm generally OK with that. I think of traps mostly like minefields. To an army with competent engineers, minefields are barely a speed bump if no pressure is put on them. If you can't put the minefield under fire (artillery or machine gun), it's nearly useless to lay one. The other army just trots out its engineers, spends enough time to clear and mark paths, and it's on its way.

My problem with this...it turns the one of the deadliest dungeons in the history of the roleplaying hobby (the Tomb of Horrors) into a very slow, very boring walk through a bunch of relatively empty rooms and hallways until you get to the demilich (something else that's been rather neutered, but I digress).

Tomb of Horrors should be a meat-grinder, not an exercise in tedium.

Shadow Lodge

RunebladeX wrote:
Not so. yes it COULD be a time sink but it could also be a viable threat! look at it this way. while you could take 20 it's not an automatic success!And if your trying as a GM to use traps in a quest and your players often take 20 on detecting them then you should be taking that in to account for DC's of your traps. Remember a ranged trap to be discovered safely AND to even take 20 has to be outside the traps range. In the case of a symbol of death with "sees symbol" as the trigger, only a rogue can detect it and thus taking 20 at 65' would have a DC of 39! and thats in lighted conditions without any other penalties. also traps dont have to be static, use you imagination....

I wasn't just talking about ranged traps, I was talking about traps in general.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
1. I'm generally OK with that. I think of traps mostly like minefields. To an army with competent engineers, minefields are barely a speed bump if no pressure is put on them. If you can't put the minefield under fire (artillery or machine gun), it's nearly useless to lay one. The other army just trots out its engineers, spends enough time to clear and mark paths, and it's on its way.

My problem with this...it turns the one of the deadliest dungeons in the history of the roleplaying hobby (the Tomb of Horrors) into a very slow, very boring walk through a bunch of relatively empty rooms and hallways until you get to the demilich (something else that's been rather neutered, but I digress).

Tomb of Horrors should be a meat-grinder, not an exercise in tedium.

Honestly, I agree with Bill Dunn. A properly laid out dungeon relies on traps to slow things up, not as the begin and end all of the danger. If it relies purely on traps, then it's a bad dungeon.

It relegates all but the rogue to support roles. Instead, traps should be about slowing down the party while monsters get in place, funneling them into ambush spots, zapping their resources, and generally making their life difficult enough to convince them to leave.

If all you have are traps, then eventually someone will come along and disable them.


Kthulhu wrote:


Tomb of Horrors should be a meat-grinder, not an exercise in tedium.

Then it should have more in it than just traps.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:


My problem with this...it turns the one of the deadliest dungeons in the history of the roleplaying hobby (the Tomb of Horrors) into a very slow, very boring walk through a bunch of relatively empty rooms and hallways until you get to the demilich (something else that's been rather neutered, but I digress).

Tomb of Horrors should be a meat-grinder, not an exercise in tedium.

And it still can be a meat grinder. The tedium aspect of it, I think, shouldn't change that much. The PCs should be taking it slow and careful regardless of the trap-finding mechanic in use.

I think there may be a psychological difference in how the games play out. In 1e, any trap was potentially findable but all traps, whether mild or really nasty, were found based on a random variable. In effect the successful range on the d100 was an auto-success. Hit that range, you succeed at the check. In 3e/PF, some traps may not be findable at all depending on the DC, even when taking 20 (no overall auto success result), while others will always be found. In 1e, the thief will lament his luck if he trips a trap his roll was unable to find while in 3e/PF, the 20-taking rogue will lament that the DM put in a trap that was impossible to find.
I can see where, for the most part, the psychological impact of 1e's method is preferred, but I think it also leads to the problem that taking 20 was designed to prevent: the PC calling for repeated additional attempts until he feels certain that "the DM must have rolled a successful search by now". The only other way around that, ultimately, is to not allow retries or only allow a fixed number for any single situation. You need some mechanic along those lines to prevent the PC from retrying until the auto-success level is achieved.


Cartigan wrote:

Apparently I need to reiterate what I said:

GIVEN ALL THAT ABOUT THE SYMBOL, it is impossible for them to be counted as traps. There is no way to bypass the triggers. No reasonable way, at any rate (no one is searching for traps in a 20x20 room from 65 feet away, around a corner - and if they are, they can't disable it, regardless of whether or not a DC exists). Therefore they either have to work like normal traps using the normal trap rules or symbols just screw everyone over no matter what and the listed DC to find and disable them is irrelevant.

You are ignoring the most relevant piece of the rules. Symbol of Death, Core, 356, "Note: Magic traps such as symbol of death are hard to detect and disable. A rogue (only) can use the Perception skill to find a symbol of death and Disable Device to thwart it. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level, or 33 for symbol of death."

The rules say a rogue can disable it. Therefor a rogue can. Explain it with fluff however you want. As long as the rogue gets a 33+ on his disable device check, its disabled.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I think this thread has gone well past providing a useful overview of the relevant rules and into an endless debate. It is locked.

151 to 177 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Taking 20 on perception checks to discover traps All Messageboards