RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the chest that has firetrap on it cannot be perceived without Detect Magic. Literally, sensing the trap without the spell is triggering the trap.
There will be a few traps that you simply cannot detect without interacting with it.
Incorrect.
Let's check the Core Rulebook, Environment chapter, Traps section:
All traps—mechanical or magical—have the following elements: CR, type, Perception DC, Disable Device DC, trigger, reset, and effect.
(Emphasis mine.)
All traps. No exceptions. Having a Perception DC is part of what it means to be a trap.Just a bit further down:
Creatures that succeed on a Perception check detect a trap before it is triggered.
And a couple of inches further down:
A successful Perception check (DC 25 + spell level) detects a magic trap before it goes off.
So for both mechanical and magical traps, a successful Perception check detects the trap WITHOUT triggering it. Not "maybe", not "sometimes", not "usually". It just does. End of story.
And just in case there was any doubt, there's even a nice big list of sample traps, including magical traps with touch or proximity triggers, and they all have listed Perception DCs.
Every trap has a Perception DC, and succeeding on that check detects the trap before it's triggered.
That is the rule, and in PFS that's all there is to it.
EDIT: And in case anyone thinks that taking 20 would somehow change any of that, we even have this:
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.
.....
Common "take 20" skills include ... Perception (when attempting to find traps).
Take 20 is "common" for searching for traps, and T20 can only be done if there is "no penalty for failure". Therefore, there is no penalty for failure on a Perception check to find traps.
|
Spells that can be disabled dont follow the rules for traps. Fire Trap is a spell, not a trap, yet it can be disabled
Yes they do.
Magic traps such as fire trap are hard to detect and disable. A character with trapfinding can use the Perception skill to find a fire trap and Disable Device to thwart it. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level (DC 27 for a druid's fire trap or DC 29 for the arcane version).
It is a spell that creates a magical trap. Its both (not that i see any difference between the two)
Now I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the bit about trapfinding is a 3.5 artifact that they missed, because trapfinding doesn't let you find magic traps anymore.
|
|
Now I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the bit about trapfinding is a 3.5 artifact that they missed, because trapfinding doesn't let you find magic traps anymore.Er, wha-huh?
Hmmm.. I can see i worded that poorly.
Perhaps i should have said trapfinding does not grant the ability to find magical traps, anyone can do it.
Pathfinder: Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.
Rogues (and others with trapfinding) have the ability to disarm magical traps from trapfinding, NOT find them.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Spells that can be disabled dont follow the rules for traps. Fire Trap is a spell, not a trap, yet it can be disabled
Even if it were true that fire trap was not a trap, it still lists a Perception DC to find it. It also says absolutely nothing about requiring detect magic to have any chance of finding it, contrary to your earlier claim.
The same is true of symbol of death (and by extension, all the other symbol spells based on it; though I checked them too just to be sure) and spike stones. I can't think of any others off the top of my head, but I bet if there are more and we checked them, we'd see the same thing: self-identification as a magic trap, affirmation of the ability to find them via Perception, and a lack of any need for detect magic.
|
|
Now I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the bit about trapfinding is a 3.5 artifact that they missed, because trapfinding doesn't let you find magic traps anymore.Trapfinding isn't required to FIND magic traps (as anyone can use Perception to find traps, magic or otherwise, regardless of DC), but it is required to use Disable Device to disable magic traps.
Right, I wholeheartedly agree (and have made characters around the distinction) but look at the wording in the firetrap spell i pasted in above, it hasn't caught up with the times.
|
Let's check the Core Rulebook, Environment chapter, Traps section:
All traps—mechanical or magical—have the following elements: CR, type, Perception DC, Disable Device DC, trigger, reset, and effect.(Emphasis mine.)
All traps. No exceptions. Having a Perception DC is part of what it means to be a trap.
While I totally agree with you on how traps and searching for and disabling them works there are traps that are missing some of these elements contrary to what the CRB says. See page 13 of First Steps pt 1.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
While I totally agree with you on how traps and searching for and disabling them works there are traps that are missing some of these elements contrary to what the CRB says. See page 13 of First Steps pt 1.
Let's check the Core Rulebook, Environment chapter, Traps section:
All traps—mechanical or magical—have the following elements: CR, type, Perception DC, Disable Device DC, trigger, reset, and effect.(Emphasis mine.)
All traps. No exceptions. Having a Perception DC is part of what it means to be a trap.
Yet even in those custom-made special exceptions, one thing that is NOT missing is a Perception DC.
|
All of this discussion is starting to push me, at least for when I GM PFS (which, honestly, has only happened 3 times to date, but to my defense, I only started playing in PFS this February ;)) to start doing ALL of my rolls in front of the screen.
I will still use a screen to protect scenario materials, track hps, etc... some times it helps to prevent scrying eyes. ;)
This weekend, I played in Thornkeep: Forgotten Laboratory, and the GM did all of his rolls in front of the screen. His reasoning was that our characters would have some idea of the skill of the opponents by seeing how he rolled... and interpreting them.
Example...
GM: rolls an 20, "the monster hits you, Armored Tank!" The tank, who is not in his first sword fight, realizes that based on the apparent skill of the combatant, that he was hit through the a "lucky blow", and then can better gauge if it is "safe" to move away from the creature to protect the unarmored mage that is about to get surrounded behind him. Follow up to that, when the creature rolls a 1 on his d8 for damage, and the GM declares, "Ok then, you are hit for 9 damage", he knows that if the creature does manage to hit, it will hurt!
I get the idea of trying to protect the newly starting players (and their characters), and I know the 7 year old with the Kitsune Andy is talking about (she was even in my game yesterday, as I ran a 3-4 tier of Blood Under Absalom), and I can understand his comments.
However, she did survive, in part due to her party-mates finally thinking of aiding another to get her out the final 5-10'.
All in all, I am coming to the conclusion that there is no reason not to roll in the open. As for most sense motive or perception checks, I tried the trick of getting 10 rolls ahead of time... and I may start just using those as well for initiative rolls. Seems like a nifty idea.
On the "active requested" sense motive checks, I don't usually have an issue with the players just rolling the dice and telling me their results. Most players I have seen in PFS are mature enough to play their characters the right way. Which reminds me of a certain bit of pain from Friday night, while playing Frostfur Captives.
So, of course, when we came to the little shack at the border during Frostfur Captives, I knew what was coming. However, I RP's my paladin, Magnus, as if he knew nothing of their capabilities (which he didn't). We were cautious, and he used his Detect Evil to determine that the doll was, in fact, evil. In true paladin's manner, he drew his sword, proclaiming "One smashed evil doll coming right up!" He then proceeded to:
1) Roll low on initiative (at least he wasn't surprised)
2) Get touched with the Inflict Serious Wounds
3) Miss his Will save (rolled a 3)
4) Miss the re-roll attempt (rolled a 2)
One spell later, he was at -11 (having taken 23 points of damage). I am not sure if the GM fudged this one, because he had asked "What's his CON?" Me, "14"; GM, "He's 3 away from death". In any case, doesn't matter... I could have done that calculation that fast as well... ;)
My point is, I chose to play the character only using character knowledge, and I trust most players to do the same. This trust was confirmed yesterday, when a couple players knew what the monsters they were facing could do, but played as if their characters didn't.
Thank you for your time... this post went on a little longer than I expected!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A-frickin-men. This is exactly my philosophy on the matter. Back in the days of 1e, nobody rolled in the open that I played with. But 3.5/PF is a different game. The modifiers communicate information that would be evident to the characters, but cannot be communicated to the player through IC methods. I have numerous analogies to point this out, but I'm glad to see this is intuitively obvious to you from your example.
Thank you for so clearly explaining that. It is exactly how I feel, I just hadn't come up with a proper expression for it.
|
|
Wonderful. I definitely think this is the way to go for combat. I would be happy to play at your tabl...wait. How do you feel about Take 10? :)
I take 10 all the time (when I can)... and I almost always take 20 when sweeping a room or picking a lock.
For combat, attacks and damage. I agree. There is at least one instance, per RAW, where players should not be aware of the result. Technically, when a PC casts a spell with a variable duration, the DM is suppose to roll that duration in secret. PC's are not supposed to know when the sleep spell will wear off. The same is arguably true about potions with things like Invisibility. But I don't know that I've ever seen it done that way.
Good point... that's why I still have a screen... if I even think about it. Hard to remember every rule and every spell/special effect while you are playing. In fact, while it is somewhat tough to do... you really have to trust your players are giving you the proper information on their characters. I am sure once I have done this a little more, I'll be a little more savvy on builds that I haven't played with, especially maneuver based characters (trip, disarm, etc).
|
|
This has been an interesting thread so far.
For those that advocate poor tactics (at least many of the tactics discussed) I don't see a technical distinction in terms of "cheating". One is blatantly obvious (perhaps even so to a newbie), the other not so much.
Though, I did have a group of players thank me for rolling all rolls in the open. They are relatively new to PFS (handful of scenarios each).
I pose an interesting philosophical question in terms of character death, even for new players. If I roll everything in the open, does it make your character's death feel better, since it is obvious that there is no funny business and that the dice Gods were against them that day?
Since there is no way to "win" at PFS, there is definitely a way to "lose", character death. It does stink when you get nerfed 45 minutes into your night but does it ruin your individual "fun" for the evening (or day). Is dying that way a "good" way to "lose"? Will that new player come back? I think this is where good GMing, making his death epic, with in depth description and drama, can keep that new player. Why? Table-top RPs not only compete with themselves, but also with MMOs and video games, where everything is easily seen. Making memorable experiences is key. A grisly, untimely death will engage the imagination and make the experience very personal to that person.
Slightly off-topic, I am a fan of the screen, especially to help avoid metagaming. Having players make the statement, "oh, he doesnt have combat reflexes, so i can be the 2nd to move through his space" just makes me roll in secret and say "he takes a swipe at you and juuuuuuust misses". Since melee isnt some static thing with people simply taking their one shot and thats it. Combat reflexes simply means that you get that "one good opportunity". Doesnt mean that someone without wont try and take a swipe as you pass by.
I have never, not will I ever, fudge in the BBEGs favour. But if i actually forget (and not "forget") to add a flanking (or other) bonus, is that fudging? Have I cheated? Has your play that game been diminished? If not, how is that any different than fudging?
The odd fudge for the player is forgivable, sa there's always tomorrow for them to die a grisly death.
|
|
Ricgeon, as a DM we all make mistakes for or against the players. Mistakes happen and they are mistakes we try to avoid. Fudging is intentional cheating.
I like the idea of the combat reflexes. I randomly roll dice when the PC take liberties and make fake notes. If the room is full of dead bodies I place minis all over the board(I have yet to have done this and people not watse their turns hacking at them). I also cover the map and slowly show it to the PCs as they explore.
I disagree with fudging for the players. I try to play the monster tactics as much as I understand them by. If I am with supid undead I will move through AoOs, chase the closest living creature, and make no preference for flanking.
Although If I playing a battle hardened NPC I will play them as such.
The PCs almost always have great control over their fights. It is rare they are surprise before they have a chance to do anything. It is rare they are not given a chance to run away.
Don't cross the streams.Its less of a track and more of a stream of collective consciousness.
row row row your boat...
Fudging dice in PFS..? Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.