Taking 20 means you spend 2 minutes standing still (doing nothing else) and looking while not distracted/threatened.One minor nit to pick. Active perception, searching, is a move action. Since you can substitute a move action for a standard action, essentially making two search checks a round, it only takes one minute to take 20.
Yeah I changed it in my post. . . my bad (:
I haven't had a player attempt to take 20 on a perception check where the time duration actually mattered since 3.5.
Taking 20 means you spend 2 minutes standing still (doing nothing else) and looking while not distracted/threatened.One minor nit to pick. Active perception, searching, is a move action. Since you can substitute a move action for a standard action, essentially making two search checks a round, it only takes one minute to take 20.Yeah I changed it in my post. . . my bad (:
I haven't had a player attempt to take 20 on a perception check where the time duration actually mattered since 3.5.
Although the rules-as-written say: "Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform)." You might have been right after all. Meh.
Well, that works for me -- although it hasn't really been an issue in my games for years. . . .
Although the rules-as-written say: "Taking 20 takes 20 times as long as making a single check would take (usually 2 minutes for a skill that takes 1 round or less to perform)." You might have been right after all. Meh.Taking 20 means you spend 2 minutes standing still (doing nothing else) and looking while not distracted/threatened.One minor nit to pick. Active perception, searching, is a move action. Since you can substitute a move action for a standard action, essentially making two search checks a round, it only takes one minute to take 20.Yeah I changed it in my post. . . my bad (:
I haven't had a player attempt to take 20 on a perception check where the time duration actually mattered since 3.5.
Possibly. I have always handled it at 20 move actions so 1 minute.
|
Respect your opinion, TOZ, but you are threadjacking a little, no?
Then people should stop replying to my offtopic statements, no? I can't very well continue a conversation without a second party. :)
I get that you dislike traps, but to contribute nothing to the thread about how to fix that... you're just trollin'.
Me, trolling? Perish the thought. :P
Well lesse.
Character searches for traps.
Character finds traps.
Character attempts to disable trap.
Character takes damage on failure, party moves forward on success.
Character doesn't search for traps.
Character gets Perception check to notice trap.
Character takes damage on failure, or attempts to disable. See previous.
So generally speaking, I don't use instant death traps, players mark off HP/healing, and move on. If the trap is clever, they get to spend a little time figuring out how to recover from it.
My players tend to tie a rope to the trapfinder and have the rest of the party ready to catch him, which negates pit traps pretty well.
My players tend to tie a rope to the trapfinder and have the rest of the party ready to catch him, which negates pit traps pretty well.
Boy would I put an end to that real quick. Stone giant wanders along, finds rope attached to rogue. "Grog like hammer throw. Grog go for new distance record." or "Grog lost spiked chain. Grog use puny thief on rope instead." :-P
You put stone giants in 10x10 halls?
Nope. I put 'em in the big room at the end of hall waiting for dopes on ropes. :-P
That's no stone giant.
Stone giants have 10 int and speak common.
Not after you give them class levels and dump-stat INT so you can throw the dope on a rope even further. ;-)
Why would I change the world to punish the players?
+1
I like you more and more everyday.
Nope. I put 'em in the big room at the end of hall waiting for dopes on ropes. :-PWhy would I change the world to punish the players?
Why has the real world been GM'd to punish me? :D
Nope. I put 'em in the big room at the end of hall waiting for dopes on ropes. :-PWhy would I change the world to punish the players?
Because apparently your would is deprived of sarcasm (and even smilies are unknown hieroglyphics)?
I think traps lost a lot of their fun when they got reduced to a series of die rolls. In previous editions a trap could consume a party for a whole sessions as they tried to engineer a solution around it - now it's just "I Disable Device it."
That doesn't have to happen unless you, the GM, choose to run it that way. The engineering a solution can easily be (and should be) treated as a prerequisite for the die roll to disable the trap, rather than as a substitute for it.
That's what really irks me about all this "role-playing vs. roll-playing" stuff that people spew -- it's a false dichotomy. It can easily be BOTH.
Player: "I get a 26 on Disable Device."
GM: "OK, doing what, exactly?"
Player: "Whattya mean? I disable it."
GM: "When you attack a monster, you have to announce what monster you're attacking, and with what weapon. THEN you get to roll the dice. That's how this game works."
Player: "Oh, yeah! I guess I see what you mean. OK, then, I try to jamb my dagger into the cracks in the stone so the block won't depress when I step on it."
GM: "26 succeeds! You weren't sure for a second if it would hold, but it looks like that block is staying put, as long as the dagger doesn't break."
Player: "Cool! But now I have to figure out how to get my dagger back before we go into the next room..."
Indeed, I completely agree Kirth. Players will usually give back as much as you put into traps. If when the character finds the trap, you not only indicate it is there, but describe the trap, its location and probably trigger mechanism, you are far more likely to get a detailed response. A lot of dms will fall into the same pitfall of reducing everything to die rolls and wonder why their players just roll dice.
In a recent session I had a blast as I placed a wall hidden by an illusion over a spiked pit trap with smallish gaps above and bellow the wall. It was quite enjoyable to watch them come up with a solution to get around it since the whole party wasnt able to fly, only a single character. "Ok so the we need to tie the druid's wolf to a ropen and swing him to the other side. Wizard get over there on the other side so you can catch him when he gets there."
I think traps lost a lot of their fun when they got reduced to a series of die rolls. In previous editions a trap could consume a party for a whole sessions as they tried to engineer a solution around it - now it's just "I Disable Device it."That doesn't have to happen unless you, the GM, choose to run it that way. The engineering a solution can easily be (and should be) treated as a prerequisite for the die roll to disable the trap, rather than as a substitute for it.
That's what really irks me about all this "role-playing vs. roll-playing" stuff that people spew -- it's a false dichotomy. It can easily be BOTH.
Player: "I get a 26 on Disable Device."
GM: "OK, doing what, exactly?"
Player: "Whattya mean? I disable it."
GM: "When you attack a monster, you have to announce what monster you're attacking, and with what weapon. THEN you get to roll the dice. That's how this game works."
Player: "Oh, yeah! I guess I see what you mean. OK, then, I try to jamb my dagger into the cracks in the stone so the block won't depress when I step on it."
GM: "26 succeeds! You weren't sure for a second if it would hold, but it looks like that block is staying put, as long as the dagger doesn't break."
Player: "Cool! But now I have to figure out how to get my dagger back before we go into the next room..."
The main problem i have with this style is that it forces the player to know something about traps to be able to play their character effectively. Part of the reason I play this game is to play character that can do things I can only dream of. I can't even begin to imagine how a level 15 rogue would go about disarming a symbol trap without destroying it.