|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I was contemplating how traps are handled, and realized that I've actually seen some decent table variation on how GMs handle when and how the PCs spot traps.
So my question spans both home games (where folks may have their own enhancements/alterations to the rules) and organized play games (where folks are intended to strictly adhere to rules).
Here's some snippets for the discussion.
**
Now let's take the example of a party of five PCs walking down a 5ft wide forest path for hours, which eventually contains a mechanical trap triggered by a pressure plate requiring a DC20 Perception check to locate.
If the PCs have declared no intentions to search for traps in their travels, do you...
1. All PCs, Any Distance
Immediately give all PCs a chance to roll to spot the pressure plate even though they are potentially all 30ft-45ft away from it at the last bend, simply increasing the difficulty by +3 to +4 depending on where they are at in the marching order?
2. All PCs, Right Upon The Trap
Wait until the lead PC is 5ft away from the trap and stepping into the trap, and then immediately give all PCs a chance to roll to spot the pressure plate (increasing the difficulty by +1 for each 10ft of distance, so the DCs for front two PCs are +0, the next two are at +1 and the final one is +2). Thus, if one PC spots the trap, the lead PC can be warned to avoid stepping in it and avoiding it being triggered?
3. Trap Goes Off, Perception For Flat-Footedness
Barring a trap spotter and any declaration or concern about traps (say, the party is moving quickly to pursue an enemy they are chasing), simply trigger the trap as the lead PC steps into it, granting the reactive Perception check to simply determine whether or not they are flat-footed as you resolve the trap's effect(s)?
4. Just "Front-Line" PCs Can Perceive (and trap-spotters)
As #1 or #2 above, except only the lead PC who is triggering the trap gets a free, reactive Perception check to spot the trap (the question is, at what distance?) - and if they spot it, they can choose not to trigger it. Additionally, a rogue who is second in the party marching order would get a Perception check as well if they possess the Trap Spotter talent.
5. Other?
**
It's interesting - as a GM who gives all PCs a free reactive Perception check (either 1 or 2 above) is effectively diminishing the value of the Trap Spotter talent, as they were already giving a rogue within 10ft a chance to spot the trap (as well as every other PC within 10ft or more) to mitigate it's triggering.
In organized play (where I've seen all sorts of variations), this leads a rogue who has in fact picked the Trap Spotter talent to be hit or miss with regards to the value of the talent they've selected.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I grant a perception check if you are about to set it off to not set it off. I catch yourself before stepping on a pressure plate or whatever.
If you have trapspotter that means you have effectively 2 chances at it, one at 10ft and one when you are about to set it off. It also means the 'spotter' doesnt have to go first which is usually a boon for the party.
We don't allow a roll unless actively looking or there is a trapspotter in the party (or there is some obvious reason for a Perception check). We generally seem to have trapspotters in the party, though. We also houseruled it so that trapspotters "take 10" on their roll so the DM doesn't have to roll and alert players whenever a trap is imminent.
They have to declare the perception check in my game.
In my opinion all perception checks should be reactive unless actively searching. That includes spotting traps. You could actively search for traps in a hallway, or you could reactively spot the tripwire across the corridor as your walking down it.
Reactive checks I rule as take 10. Active search would be rolled, though effectively you wont get less than 10 because you've already seen the area with take 10 results. Active searches are most often performed in conjunction with take 20 in selected areas.
I admit it does devalue trapspotter, but I also don't particularly care for traps either. And I would tell any rogue that trapspotter would not be a recommended talent to pick-up. It would however effectively grant a second roll (instead of just taking 10).
As far as distance, effectively any distance. Though obviously applying distance penalties. In practice, I usually wait until they get close to the trap but are still outside of any "damage radius" of said trap to look at the values. As it is a take 10 on their parts, I just look at their perceptions and note if anyone is able to spot it in advance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like on any other case of "hidden" objects, I assume the PCs are constantly taking 10 on Perception (and Sense Motive), unless that's not possible for some reason.
So if a character can detect something (say, a trap) by taking 10, she detects it. If it isn't enough, she doesn't. Simple as that.
I consider Trap Spotter to be a useless tax for a nonsensical rule ("You can't detect traps unless specifically searching for them"), so I mostly ignore it.
There is no point in forcing players to repeat "I look for traps" every time they enter a new room or corridor. It adds nothing but a "voice tax" to the game, there is no decision making or crativity or any kind, just a random sentence being repeated over and over again.
|
In my home games I give a secret perception roll per player per trap which takes in the DC and Range penalties. It gets easier for the player to see it as they get closer, then I narrate if they see it when they get close enough. But, the player that rolls well on perception may not actually get to see it before the guy in front who rolled poorly steps on it. If I get a player with trap spotter I may change the checks but more likely will give them a bonus to the hidden check.
In PFS play I think I will likely only give a roll if a perception check is requested. They can ask to search an area from where they stand (with range and other penalties) or a specific square (just the trap DC). I have not run PFS yet though so may change how I handle it.
|
|
I think that's why I've settled on running it like Kolokotroni posted earlier (which is like #4 in the original option set).
I read "stimuli" as something is moving. If you are simply gazing into a motionless room, a stimulus would be a rat moving, a tapestry shifting, a drop of blood dripping. I wouldn't consider an immobile pressure plate a form of "stimulus", thus don't figure it to trigger a reactive/free perception check.
The part in the mechanical trap section basically gives someone a check "before a trap is triggered" which seems to mean that in the blink of an eye it will be triggered. You're about to step in dog poo. Not when you move another 15 feet, but once your foot descends another inch. Unfortunately, the rules are vague that "creatures that succeed on the check" get this observation but it doesn't say which creatures. All nearby ones? The one that's triggering it? This is where I feel like it's a grey area where you can go either way. I tend to pick the side that it's just the triggering creature(s) that get to make the check and catch themselves before the axe swings down or the pit opens up.
This seems to preserve the value of the trap spotter talent, which essentially gives a rogue two checks, one when they come within 10 feet, and another when they or the person next to them is about to trigger it. Thus, making it effective to have the rogue moving along with the front-liner.
I think don't let people reactively roll perception, until penalties, etc, would allow them to succeed on a take 10 then roll. obviously if they walk into the room and take ten already works they instantly roll. this allows people to notice it when they walk closer and not fail because it was a large room and thus had a huge penalty even if they could have potentially noticed it. also if for what ever reason a roll of 1 would let them notice, they automatically notice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no such thing as a "perception. check for traps" even though a lot of GM's including myself do it or have done it. If I take 10 I should notice everything that has a lower DC than what I roll.
Note: I am not telling anyone how to GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All PCs. Any distance.
My speech at the beggining of most pfs sessions goes "I assume you are semi competent murder hob..erm.. Adventurer archeologists. If you are in an area where you can reasonably expect traps, you move at half speed using the move action to move and the perception check to search unless you tell me otherwise. . You search doors and listen at them before you open them.
My trap spotter assumes bat form, sits on his velociraptors head, and uses BOTH of his actions to look.
Its amazing how much time it knocks off of sessions.
Sometimes I tell my GM I am taking 10 also in order to avoid all of the rolling, but I do have to declare it at least once per dungeon.
I don't assume anything with my players, if they're not looking for traps, they step on them.
What they describe themselves doing is what I relate to.
has led to funny moments like a warrior knocking himself down by trying to kick open a locked door that opens towards him.
Also a player almost died (and is in the real risk of permanently losing a hand) because of a random trap 2 sessions ago.
Then again, that was the only "dungeon" with "traps" that group has entered in the whole campaign.
I seldom use traps because I have trouble incorporating them logiclly in my game world. How do you guys justify traps in corridors guards walk down reguarly? or poison being used in houses with children? Do you refluff the mechanics of traps to place them in other enviroments? (like forests or caves, using traps-rules but hazards-descriptions?)
The reason I ask is because one of the players is running a warrior2/rogue2 and I feel I should at least let him use his trap-spotting every now and then.
|
|
I seldom use traps because I have trouble incorporating them logiclly in my game world. How do you guys justify traps in corridors guards walk down reguarly? or poison being used in houses with children? Do you refluff the mechanics of traps to place them in other enviroments? (like forests or caves, using traps-rules but hazards-descriptions?)
The guards know where not to step to trigger the trap. If the entire floor is trapped then likely there is a separate way around the area (or hidden tunnels only big enough for the current guards). Or the guards can climb on the walls or ceilings. Or they know to jump over the 10 foot gap. Or they know where the trigger to temporarily disable the trap is located, which when the rogue succeeds on his disable device check he finds and identifies and uses.
The traps in a residence would be behind a locked door (children can't access their dad's study, so the secret wall safe is trapped).
In a forrest pit traps for animals and snares are very likely to be commonplace. I doubt though that a magical fireball trap would be sitting on a game trail unless the game animals in the area are really really nasty.
historically castles had simple traps that the native forces simply were used to. for instance, a flight of stairs has a single step an inch higher than the rest. This would be a DC 30 perception to notice or trip. the normal guards used those stairs all the time and knew the 3rd to last step was weird.
Situational, but in general I work it like #4 above unless someone is actively probing for traps. My players are challenged by prep work in my homebrewed adventures so they generally don't think to ask "what kinds of monsters live in the woods?", "what sorts of traps/snares do hunters use thereabouts?" or "are there any general threats we should be aware of in the Spooky Woods?"
No, usually its
Me: your mission is to go through the Spooky Woods to save Princess Penelope from the dragon's dungeon on the far end.
One of the party members: Ok, we go there.
Me: Umm... do you want to use gather info, stock up on any last minute gear or use any knowledge checks in research or anything?
Another player: (consults gear on their personal character sheet) Nope, we're good. Let's just go.
While the names and mission objectives were changed to protect the innocent, this actually happened recently. As a result the PCs walked into an ambush. Needless to say traps are generally cruel and unusual punishment in my game.
When the players are really on their game though in a dungeon hack they generally elect to move 1/2 speed while declaring they're actively looking for traps. It nets them more random encounters from all their stumbling, probing, and casting of Detect Magic and Detect Poison but it's spared them many gruesome deaths. In that instance I'd probably go with option #1 above, generally rolling 1d6 x10 for encounter distance unless there were situational modifiers like corners, doors etc blocking their way.
Actually this brings up a good point about traps to post in another discussion thread: why do so few of my players think "there couldn't POSSIBLY be a trap outside of a dungeon so let's just blunder through this forest/hillside/plain/alley/inn's common room/etc"?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perception, Action (Core p102): Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus.
Most, not all.
Traps are hidden, so you dont get a perception check unless you are activelly looking for traps, that means moving at half speed and being cautious. They also can tell me they will be searching everything and the group moves slower.Otherwise the group is walking casually and kicking down doors, like they would do in the middle of a town (well, some of them do).
They will roll passive perception checks to spot ambushes or things really out of place, not traps (unless they got the rogue talent).
How do you guys justify traps in corridors guards walk down reguarly?
Lock out lever, just like in an industrial setting. If you're walking/working by dangerous equipment you throw the lever and deactivate the trap. When the patrol is clear it gets thrown back on, trap activates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a good read on how to incorporate traps a little more logically into your game. There is some general theory on how to let your players (not the characters) interact with traps, rather than reducing them to an arbitrary dice roll, as well as ways to incorporate rogue abilities so they do not feel useless.
Also, a great resource for cool, weird, and interesting types of traps!
Hackslashmaster
Now let's take the example of a party of five PCs walking down a 5ft wide forest path for hours, which eventually contains a mechanical trap triggered by a pressure plate requiring a DC20 Perception check to locate.
If the PCs have declared no intentions to search for traps in their travels, do you...
I certainly apply the +5 modifier for making the check while distracted. I've also toyed with the idea of applying unfavorable or terrible conditions depending on the situation, as the trap maker would reasonably make spotting the trigger as difficult as possible. In practice I usually add either nothing for that or just the +2 from unfavorable (i.e. the party is in torchlight for a vision based trigger).
I remove whatever penalties I've applied if the party states that they're searching for traps (I assume that they're taking reasonable steps to reduce those penalties). In addition if a Rogue has that talent, which I presently have one that does, I also remove those penalties for that check only.
Why do people keep mentioning half speed? The game has no connection to movement and perception checks. None nada Zilch.. I notice there is alot of "I assume people are doing things they havent told me they are doing" Why do traps get this assumption where no other aspect of the game does?
Why do people keep mentioning half speed? The game has no connection to movement and perception checks. None nada Zilch..
Its not a mechanical condition, just a roleplay one. A character that is cautious of where he is stepping would get the benefit of a perception check, someone running through the dungeon would not.
There are no rules for this, just common sense.
And there is no necessity for rules here unless he is looking for traps during combate. It simply doesnt matter at all.
notice there is alot of "I assume people are doing things they havent told me they are doing" Why do traps get this assumption where no other aspect of the game does?
No, if they tell me "I will cast Light on my sword everytime we walk into a dark place, ok?" or "i will be searching for traps on every door", or even "i will remove my armor before sleeping and put it on again when i wake up", then their characters will do it.
Otherwise they wont.
The same goes if he tells me "i will be looking for traps" but doesnt take the caution that should be necessary to spot traps, as in, look where you step, look for wires and look for uneven tiles on the ground, etc and just waltz through the place, then i assume he is distracted and roll his Perception with +5 to the DC.
The way I play it is that a character has to declare that she's looking for traps in order to even get a Perception check to avoid, unless she has the Trap Spotter rogue talent.
If they're not looking for traps, and there's noone with Trap Spotter, then the way they notice the trap is when it's sprung, and I say, "Okay-- you step on a pressure plate and stone blocks fall from the ceiling above your head. Make a Reflex save."
Why do people keep mentioning half speed? The game has no connection to movement and perception checks. None nada Zilch..
Here's the connection.
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
How I read the rogues trapfinding is that you can't find traps reactively without it, you have to look for them, so move action to look, move action to move= half speed.
I notice there is alot of "I assume people are doing things they havent told me they are doing" Why do traps get this assumption where no other aspect of the game does?
MANY aspect of the game get this. I assume your brain works so that when you see poison ivy I point it out to the druid, I assume your eyes are open so you can see the assassin sneaking up on you, I assume you eat and sleep so you don't keel over from hunger/sleep deprivation, I assume your character is going to the bathroom.
The same goes if he tells me "i will be looking for traps" but doesnt take the caution that should be necessary to spot traps, as in, look where you step, look for wires and look for uneven tiles on the ground, etc and just waltz through the place, then i assume he is distracted and roll his Perception with +5 to the DC.
What the hell, do you add 5 to ac's if the warrior gives you the wrong description of how to swing a sword or should your rogue have a script to read from to get it exactly the way you want it?
One thing people forget is searching for stuff works differently in pf. You need a distance when looking.
We just did a lvl 9 scenario and the dwarf rogue said he would look for traps. He showed me where he stood and he was taking 10 for a 28. I. Counted out distances in the room and told him what his check was at this distances (-4 at 40 ft) and told him where he saw traps. Itsvhis choice to say "I move 20 ft forward and look again" I'm not playing his character.
As for the poison ivy example. Poison ivy falls under ex 10 knowledge nature. Its a bad example as the vast majority of of actually don't know anything about traps.
Really its.not the job of the dm to play a persons character.
One thing people forget is searching for stuff works differently in pf.
Haven't forgotten it. Its easy to account for.
You need a distance when looking.
When someone is sneaking up on you you make the perception check at the time most favorable to the person looking. Its easy enough to say the same holds true when the trap spotter is moving up on the trap. If for some reason I need to know how far away the party is when it spots the trap I can figure that out from the perception roll.
Itsvhis choice to say "I move 20 ft forward and look again" I'm not playing his character.
You are.
You are forcing his character to be an idiot that's blisteringly incompetent at his job because you're not both on the same page about how looking for traps works. As you can see from this thread and hundreds of others like it, how exactly searching for traps work is NOT something that's discernible from the core rules. The rules are effectively in the DM's head. You for example are keeping the combat paradigm that someone cannot do something and walk at the same time while searching the dungeon.
As for the poison ivy example. Poison ivy falls under ex 10 knowledge nature. Its a bad example as the vast majority of of actually don't know anything about traps.
But people with disable device and perception DO know a lot about traps. Adventurers do know a lot about traps because they deal with them on a regular basis.
Really its.not the job of the dm to play a persons character.
You wind up doing it one way or another you may as well do it well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Niche protection is bad for the game. Niche protection that eats build resources is bad for the game and bad for the "protected" class.Why is niche protection bad? It seems to me that allowing each player character a chance to show off makes the game more fun for everybody.
Player niche, and class niche are not the same thing. Its fine to say the rogue should be good at dealing with traps. Its not good to say ONLY a rogue with the trapsotter talent (a limited resource obligated to be taken early in the characters development) is the only way to not have to search every 5 feet in a dungeon to avoid running into traps.
Thats not niche protection. Thats forcing someone to play a specific class with a specific ability in order to deal with a common problem.
Thats like saying only fighters can use martial weapons and wear armor. Sure it protects the fighters combat niche, but it also means the party almost certainly needs a fighter to have a guy who can stand in the front lines.
Or its like having clerics be the only class that can cast cure spells, so someone HAS to play the 'healer' and be a cleric. Forcing people into a specific class and role to accomplish a basic function of the game is generally a bad thing, particularly if there are people that dont like that particular class/role, and would prefer to be able to handle a general problem in a different fashion.
Player niche means that only a single party member focuses on the disable device skill, possibly having things like the trapfinding abilitiy and a good perception. This makes that player the trap guy. Other players specialize in other tasks. This is part of creating a balanced party.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how not requiring players to say "I walk 10ft and look for traps" every 5 seconds is "playing their characters".
Really, what's the point? What does that add to the game other than a pointless exercise to see how often they are willing say it out loud before getting bored?
Should GMs also assume their players starve to death if they don't specifically say they gather food and then say they cook, before finally saying they eat food and digest it? Should GMs suddenly tell everyone that the whole party collapsed out of exhaustion because players said their characters would take a break for the night, but forgot to specify they would sleep? Should players declare they are activelly breathing in order to not have their characters suffocate to death? Are characters considered to be blinded if the player forgets to say his character opened her eyes when she woke up?
|
|
I don't see how not requiring players to say "I walk 10ft and look for traps" every 5 seconds is "playing their characters".
Really, what's the point? What does that add to the game other than a pointless exercise to see how often they are willing say it out loud before getting bored?
Should GMs also assume their players starve to death if they don't specifically say they gather food and then say they cook, before finally saying they eat food and digest it? Should GMs suddenly tell everyone that the whole party collapsed out of exhaustion because players said their characters would take a break for the night, but forgot to specify they would sleep? Should players declare they are activelly breathing in order to not have their characters suffocate to death? Are characters considered to be blinded if the player forgets to say his character opened her eyes when she woke up?
Well, of course!
Otherwise, they are just filthy "roll-players".
M'right?
Show me where a pathfinder book says it requires an active check to find a trap.
Its implied by the rogue talent trap spotter.
If you want to say trapspotter isn't even that useful, go right ahead. I will wear a sign that says "my character is looking for traps" on my forehead. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Show me where a pathfinder book says it requires an active check to find a trap.Its implied by the rogue talent trap spotter.
If you want to say trapspotter isn't even that useful, go right ahead. I will wear a sign that says "my character is looking for traps" on my forehead. :)
By that logic, only 10th level Rogues can spread rumor... (And no one could do it before the APG).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how not requiring players to say "I walk 10ft and look for traps" every 5 seconds is "playing their characters".
Really, what's the point? What does that add to the game other than a pointless exercise to see how often they are willing say it out loud before getting bored?
Should GMs also assume their players starve to death if they don't specifically say they gather food and then say they cook, before finally saying they eat food and digest it? Should GMs suddenly tell everyone that the whole party collapsed out of exhaustion because players said their characters would take a break for the night, but forgot to specify they would sleep? Should players declare they are activelly breathing in order to not have their characters suffocate to death? Are characters considered to be blinded if the player forgets to say his character opened her eyes when she woke up?
I am in complete agreement. The only reasonable explanation is the gms want the 'gotcha' moment, where they get to stick it to the players and feel superior.
I've played games where the gm required active searches, and we were in a rediculously trap filled dungeon. We actually started searching every 5 feet. After about an hour, he decided a passive perception check of 10+bonus was a good idea.
I mean I can understand not wanting the sure thing of 'taking 10' but then just have the players roll a bunch of d20s at the start of the session and use those roles when you need secret perception or sense motive checks that the players should be unaware of if they fail. Its really that simple.
My characters abilities should dictate how well I do things in game, not my own ability to think 'hey maybe theres a trap there'. My experienced dungeon delving rogue with the trapfinding ability and trap sense, knows WAY better then me (modern software quality assurance analyst) where to look out for trip wires and pressure plates. I mean I totally have the rogue beat on where to look for faults in a piece of software. But not so much on the traps thing. Let his skills sort that out not mine.
By that logic, only 10th level Rogues can spread rumor... (And no one could do it before the APG).Show me where a pathfinder book says it requires an active check to find a trap.Its implied by the rogue talent trap spotter.
If you want to say trapspotter isn't even that useful, go right ahead. I will wear a sign that says "my character is looking for traps" on my forehead. :)
Sometimes that logic works sometimes it doesn't.
Everyone has a passive perception that should be your base skill with no roll.
This isn't a rule. There's no call for denying people 1d20 on a skill check and making their defeat on the check almost certain.
The important thing about moving at half speed is yes, it slows the characters down, but it does NOT slow the players down at all. I get the party in a fighting formation and I'll ask for the rolls when its relevant and go.