Personally, I'm not a fan of taking 20 for stuff like perception on traps. Basically the way I run it as a DM is that taking 20 means that you're accepting every single roll from 1 all the way through 20. I also use 1's on a skill check as a crit failure, or a fumble. However you want to look at it. So that first 1 on a trapped square would give you the absolute certainty that there's no trap. And the reverse on an untrapped square.
No, it's not the exact RAW. But it's what works for me as a DM, and my group is fine with it.
If by "...not the exact Raw," you mean, "...the opposite of RAW," then, sure.
But, hey, whatever works at your table. [/NOT sarcasm]
Personally, I'm not a fan of taking 20 for stuff like perception on traps. Basically the way I run it as a DM is that taking 20 means that you're accepting every single roll from 1 all the way through 20. I also use 1's on a skill check as a crit failure, or a fumble. However you want to look at it. So that first 1 on a trapped square would give you the absolute certainty that there's no trap. And the reverse on an untrapped square.
No, it's not the exact RAW. But it's what works for me as a DM, and my group is fine with it.
[snark]
Do you also use natural 20s as auto-successes? Because if I have a 5% chance to not see the wall right in front of my face, I also want to have a 5% chance to jump all the way to the moon.[/snark]Seriously, I don't like this idea, but since it's working for you and your players, more power to you. There's also an exploit in your logic: If the rogue takes 20 on searching for traps, and consistently finds traps where there aren't any, and consistently doesn't find the real traps, eventually the rest of the party will say "Ok, it's trapped? Good, it's safe. What, you didn't find a trap? Everyone avoid that space."
That being said, taking 20 is the equivalent of getting every result in between, or as someone else suggested 19 1's and then a 20. So applying your house rules for getting 1's and 20's is entirely appropriate.
PRD under Vision and Light: A creature can't use Stealth in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover.
This is unequivocal and means that you are spotted if you are without cover or concealment and perception is automatic.
Thus, my interpretation of that DC0 example is that is not subject to distance modifiers. DC0 is the DC to see someone who is in the open, regardless of distance otherwise you get the silliness of not being able to see someone across a football field.
PRD is also you can stealth if the target is distracted, regardless of lighting. But the Perception DCs are to notice something regardless of steath, stealth is just one thing on the list.
It's a convoluted topic, common sense and real world experience have to apply. While someone on the other side of a football field isn't invisible, they're also not obvious if you don't already know they're there. Quite possible the first you notice someone that far away is after they already shot a bow at you. But I think that's what the condition modifiers are for. Those are the catchall for all those kinds of situations. So, other end of a football field a DC2or5 maybe (DC0 + modifyer for bad conditions of extreme distance, especially how you can't hear them, which is where the +1/10 reflects reality) - possible to miss them, not impossible to see. I agree could be a call whether stealth should layer on top of that, but I'd buy crouching and moving when they're not looking giving a benefit (i.e. sneaking). That works in real life after all.
[snark]
Do you also use natural 20s as auto-successes? Because if I have a 5% chance to not see the wall right in front of my face, I also want to have a 5% chance to jump all the way to the moon.[/snark]
Oh, and nat 20's are only autosuccesses for to-hit roles, I believe. Nothing about that in the skills section of the book. Same for 1's.
Oh, and nat 20's are only autosuccesses for to-hit roles, I believe. Nothing about that in the skills section of the book. Same for 1's.[snark]
Do you also use natural 20s as auto-successes? Because if I have a 5% chance to not see the wall right in front of my face, I also want to have a 5% chance to jump all the way to the moon.[/snark]
Yeah, attacks and saves but not skills, is the RAW.
Personally, I'm not a fan of taking 20 for stuff like perception on traps. Basically the way I run it as a DM is that taking 20 means that you're accepting every single roll from 1 all the way through 20. I also use 1's on a skill check as a crit failure, or a fumble. However you want to look at it. So that first 1 on a trapped square would give you the absolute certainty that there's no trap. And the reverse on an untrapped square.
No, it's not the exact RAW. But it's what works for me as a DM, and my group is fine with it.
You at least account for the 50/50 chance of rolling a natural 20 before rolling a natural 1 in that rule, yes?
In other words, you turn every "take 20" into a 50/50 roll.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the thing that gets missed is the take 20 rule is just substituting for rolling the same check over and over.
Skills list whether you can try them again. If you can try the check again, you can roll it again. For opening a lock for example, you can sit there and try to pick that lock for hours, roll the dice a thousand times. Perception is another skill you can try over and over again. Meaning, even if you roll in secret, the player can still just look again, and look again, and look again. Over and Over for as long as they want to spend on it. Eventually they're bound to get a 20. The Take 20 rule is just an acknowledgement of that, to speed play.
If you dissallow taking 20, really you're re-writing whether the skill can be tried again or not, because otherwise your players can still just roll dice over and over instead - such a change is a major house rule.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think the thing that gets missed is the take 20 rule is just substituting for rolling the same check over and over.
Skills list whether you can try them again. If you can try the check again, you can roll it again. For opening a lock for example, you can sit there and try to pick that lock for hours, roll the dice a thousand times. Perception is another skill you can try over and over again. Meaning, even if you roll in secret, the player can still just look again, and look again, and look again. Over and Over for as long as they want to spend on it. Eventually they're bound to get a 20. The Take 20 rule is just an acknowledgement of that, to speed play.
If you dissallow taking 20, really you're re-writing whether the skill can be tried again or not, because otherwise your players can still just roll dice over and over instead - such a change is a major house rule.
This. Seems like a lot of people think that Take 20 is just like Take 10, except ten points more powerful. This is why GMs should - either before making a ruling or after making a temporary ruling for that session - look things up. It might just turn out not to need a houserule in the first place! :D
E: Ignore text fail. Read the rogue. Everyone can find traps now. Trapfinding is only needed to find magical traps in PF.
Almost correct, trapfinding is required to disable magical traps, anyone can find magical traps in PF (barring a couple weird spells).
Almost correct, trapfinding is required to disable magical traps, anyone can find magical traps in PF (barring a couple weird spells).
E: Ignore text fail. Read the rogue. Everyone can find traps now. Trapfinding is only needed to find magical traps in PF.
LOL here I am saying "Ignore text fail" and I did a bit of the same myself. Hypocracy is definitely my strong suit.
This. Seems like a lot of people think that Take 20 is just like Take 10, except ten points more powerful. This is why GMs should - either before making a ruling or after making a temporary ruling for that session - look things up. It might just turn out not to need a houserule in the first place! :DI think the thing that gets missed is the take 20 rule is just substituting for rolling the same check over and over.
.....(more stuff elaborating on that)....
Yea, on the flip side lots of people tend to also confuse the two and say you can't take 10 if there's a chance a botch will screw you.... despite that the whole point of the Take 10 rule is that it specifically lets you avoid a botch roll where a botch can screw you.
I don't know if it would be easier for people if they were called the "I roll until I get a 20 rule" and the "I give up my chance for a good roll in order to not botch" rule, but for some reason these are up there among the most easily misinterpreted misunderstood rules.
Almost correct, trapfinding is required to disable magical traps, anyone can find magical traps in PF (barring a couple weird spells).
E: Ignore text fail. Read the rogue. Everyone can find traps now. Trapfinding is only needed to find magical traps in PF.
No wonder people see Pathfinder rogues as being so weak if one of their core class abilities was taken away from them.
No wonder people see Pathfinder rogues as being so weak if one of their core class abilities was taken away from them.Almost correct, trapfinding is required to disable magical traps, anyone can find magical traps in PF (barring a couple weird spells).
E: Ignore text fail. Read the rogue. Everyone can find traps now. Trapfinding is only needed to find magical traps in PF.
As someone who played in a trap heavy 3.0 campaign without a trapfinder, I am happy for the changes. The convoluted things we had to do to get around not having a rogue was highly annoying and very much in the not fun category. Not to mention the logical disconnect with having a +30 perception check, but you can't see a basic DC15 crossbow trap because you are not a trapfinder.
As someone who played in a trap heavy 3.0 campaign without a trapfinder, I am happy for the changes. The convoluted things we had to do to get around not having a rogue was highly annoying and very much in the not fun category. Not to mention the logical disconnect with having a +30 perception check, but you can't see a basic DC15 crossbow trap because you are not a trapfinder.No wonder people see Pathfinder rogues as being so weak if one of their core class abilities was taken away from them.Almost correct, trapfinding is required to disable magical traps, anyone can find magical traps in PF (barring a couple weird spells).
E: Ignore text fail. Read the rogue. Everyone can find traps now. Trapfinding is only needed to find magical traps in PF.
You should have seen it easily. Trapfinding in v3.0/v3.5 allowed rogues to find traps that were DC 20+ or magical. Since your trap was mechanical and under DC 20, anyone could have found it with a high enough check.