| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the response will likely be "Show where it says it doesn't require an active check!"Show me where a pathfinder book says it requires an active check to find a trap.
In the rules for perception, and the rules for traps.
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
Creatures that succeed on a Perception check detect a trap before it is triggered. The DC of this check depends on the trap itself. Success generally indicates that the creature has detected the mechanism that activates the trap, such as a pressure plate, odd gears attached to a door handle, and the like. Beating this check by 5 or more also gives some indication of what the trap is designed to do.
If you are not about to set it off, searching for a trap does not trigger the trap. No trap has [someone looking for it] as the trigger. There for the ONLY rational meaning for the bolded portion of the second quote is that you receive a perception check prior to taking the action that will set off a trap as a reactive perception check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always honestly considered the Trapspotter talent a meta-ability. Basically, if you have an uncooperative GM who doesn't accept the idea that their is a difference between player and character, and that while a player may forget the dangers that abound while hanging out with his friends eating cheetos and drinking a soda, the character is likely aware and vigilant of potential danger. A player should be able to say once in a dungeon, that they are searching for traps as they walk along without needing to repeat it. Or just have an understanding with the GM that you are always looking in any sort of situation where there is a greater potential for danger. (This does open up a situation where it would be valid for a GM to put a trap in the common room of an inn and have players stumble on top of, maybe, if you think it requires actively looking for traps to see them. I don't.)
Trapspotter is the get of jail free card to the GM obsessed with forcing his players to announce everything a character is doing and all the minutiae therein.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
1) Dont be so defensive, nobody is forcing his way of gamemastering down your throat.
2) Its on the perception check modifiers, being distracted is +5 to the DC. If they arent activelly looking for traps, as i said in the rest of the post, and the character is moving carelessly and/or not expecting traps, i consider that he is distracted with something else (trying to reach the other end of the corridor, looking for monsters, trying to run away from some monster), and thus his passive perception check would recieve a +5 to the DC as his character is distracted.
On a table i play lamentations of the flame princess, there are no passive checks for anything, much less searching for traps, and the rogue player does announce every search and disable devices check he wants to perform, otherwise stuff simply blow on his face.
Frankly, people running that it's an active check when it is never stated to be, and that requires constant droning on the same phrase are obnoxious. You said it seven times in the last hour, but you forgot to say it this one last door, gotcha!
My players simply tell me "i will look for traps every new room" and thats fine by me, they are looking for traps and i will roll his perception every time he walks into a new room, whether they have traps or not. That keeps the tension up and nobody is penalized for not announcing their actions.
@Claxon
Trapspotter, to me, is an "out of context trap searching" talent, it would allow the rogue to spot danger when he wasnt expecting danger, like to spot a trap in the middle of a street.
It it a way to prevent dick moves from your GM (or AP writers), as he could literally put traps anywhere he so wished.
|
Ahh but blackbloodtroll we DO have a line that says most are reactive, and in the absence of something stating that traps are an exception, I'm of the opinion that people are either just making stuff up, or importing it from another game.
You realize I only mentioned what someone of an opposing opinion would bring up.
I have not made any notes on my stance on the issue.
I am waiting to view a number of arguments, and rules written, before I can properly come to my own informed opinion.
@Plaidwandering
The rogue talent Trap Spotter does allow a rogue to spot traps passively:
Trap Spotter (Ex)
Benefit: Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap.
So one would only assume that otherwise its not a passive perception check. But thats not entirelly true according to Perception's description.
Now, some traps will allow a passive perception check to spot them, while others wont. See the text about traps on the SRD.
But let me spotlight a few here:
Pits: Covered pits are much more dangerous. They can be detected with a DC 20 Perception check, but only if the character is taking the time to carefully examine the area before walking across it.
Now these dont mention anything, thus they would allow passive checks to be found:
Ranged Attack Traps
Melee Attack Traps
See, a covered pit is a trap that was specifically hidden from sight, so why would you allow passive checks on a trap that the builder took his time to hide the obvious mechanisms? A dart wall shouldnt be passively found if there is something to hide the dart holes.
IMO, it is a case by case analisys for the GM, and shouldnt take anything as rule before checking the details of each trap design.
For example, the water trap in mummy mask 1/6, would you allow a passive check so the group notices that the room will flood?
"Hey guys, dont walk into the center of the room, this room was clearly designed so it would flood with water once someone walks there."
No, it makes absolutely no sense.
So why would that one have to call out it requires time to look for it, if they all require an action to look for?
Because they only give out three examples of traps.
Melee attacks, ranged attacks and pits.PS: Im not saying they all require an action, read my posts again.
SOME kinds of perception checks are actively only.
The rogue has an ability to make looking for traps reactive.
= looking for traps is normally active.
Thats how I read it. I'm very upfront with that being how i read it, so there's no problem.
...Trapspotter is the get of jail free card to the GM obsessed with forcing his players to announce everything a character is doing and all the minutiae therein.Well, even for GMs who assume PCs are usually making Perception checks non-stop, it does have a few other uses. When the trap is part of a room where a fight is breaking out, or the PCs are in a chase or otherwise not able to use the "slow and steady" advance, it does get its opportunity to shine.
What you have mentioned here are actually the only times when I think traps are relevant anyways. But that is a problem with traps.
Unless a greater part of an encounter in a specific way, traps (even if missed) either just cause some minor damage and are healed up before moving on. Eating up a few charges on a wand of CLW and maybe a few rounds of casting. Or they outright kill a character. The first isn't usually particularly relevant, and the second is just downright bad design. Even if you have a rogue to detect and disable a trap in the middle of a hallway, it doesn't really change much as opposed to just tanking the trap anyways.
Now, using the traps during a chase or have a trapped battlefield can be effective and relevant. Unfortunately, I see very few traps/encounters designed this way, and ultimately despite their iconic prescene within the table top role playing game community I would be happy to get rid of them altogether.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Plaidwandering
The rogue talent Trap Spotter does allow a rogue to spot traps passively:
Trap Spotter (Ex)
Benefit: Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap.So one would only assume that otherwise its not a passive perception check. But thats not entirelly true according to Perception's description.
No, trapspotter does 2 things. One it gives a rogue 2 opportunities to notice a trap. One at 10ft and 1 right before setting it off. Also it allows the rogue to not be the guy in front. In general you want your fighter type in front. With trapspotter the rogue can walk behind the fighterand still get a shot at noticing traps before the fighter sets them off. That is still a value add by trap spotter. It just isnt mandatory.
SOME kinds of perception checks are actively only.Book and page number please? Other than covered pit, we've seen that covered pit calls out taking the time to look for it.
Under the perception skill.
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
most perception checks are reactive means that some are not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Trapspotter is the get of jail free card to the GM obsessed with forcing his players to announce everything a character is doing and all the minutiae therein.Well, even for GMs who assume PCs are usually making Perception checks non-stop, it does have a few other uses. When the trap is part of a room where a fight is breaking out, or the PCs are in a chase or otherwise not able to use the "slow and steady" advance, it does get its opportunity to shine.What you have mentioned here are actually the only times when I think traps are relevant anyways. But that is a problem with traps.
Unless a greater part of an encounter in a specific way, traps (even if missed) either just cause some minor damage and are healed up before moving on. Eating up a few charges on a wand of CLW and maybe a few rounds of casting. Or they outright kill a character. The first isn't usually particularly relevant, and the second is just downright bad design. Even if you have a rogue to detect and disable a trap in the middle of a hallway, it doesn't really change much as opposed to just tanking the trap anyways.
Now, using the traps during a chase or have a trapped battlefield can be effective and relevant. Unfortunately, I see very few traps/encounters designed this way, and ultimately despite their iconic prescene within the table top role playing game community I would be happy to get rid of them altogether.
If you can get hold of a copy of dungeonscape from 3.5 do it. It has a whole section on traps as encounters, or part of encounters, which really is the only way they should appear in adventures with any regularity.
Traps as they exist now sever exactly zero purpose in an adventure except to be a minor drain on resources and give some xp. Also to make the rogue think he's not so crappy. Thats it. And that isnt a valid reason to slow down and ultimately make worse a game session.
SOME kinds of perception checks are actively only.Book and page number please? Other than covered pit, we've seen that covered pit calls out taking the time to look for it.
Under the perception skill.
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
most perception checks are reactive means that some are not.
Noticing a piece of paper on the floor of the room is passive is it not? How is that different from noticing a trip wire or pressure plate? There isnt any reason to indicate that traps are not passive except the fact that some dms like it when players get caught in them. There is literally no other reason.
Noticing a piece of paper on the floor of the room is passive is it not? How is that different from noticing a trip wire or pressure plate? There isnt any reason to indicate that traps are not passive except the fact that some dms like it when players get caught in them. There is literally no other reason.
And yet you'll notice I go out of my way to NOT have the players caught in traps: they don't even NEED to say they're looking for traps, so that patently isn't true. I've explained what my reasoning it and that is my reasoning. Its nicer towards the players trying to find traps than 99% of the dms I've seen.
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 have only used them in certain places.
Old crypts(man-made undergroud dwellings, caves in habited by bad guys( in rooms that are only for certain people to enter, if the minions are immune to certain things such as poison, etc..
It also helps if the number of enemies is low enough that everyone can know about the trap, and how to avoid it.
Basically is has to make sense to me also.
hehe ok BBT, didn't mean to seem so defensive
just a hot button for me since in one game I have the gotcha guy as a GM, despite our poor rogue player trying to say it as every other breath.
Is your rogue not allow to say I am constantly taking 10 while in this hallway?
It means he is moving at half speed, but once you get to a certain level in the game the buffs will still last so it won't matter.
I'm asking for book/page for something that calls out exclusively being active. It just says most checks are reactive, folks seem to be making up for themselves what is not possible for a reactive check.
And they have to, because this is a section of the rules that are as clear as mud.
In other words, BNW, if you are running PFS, you are running rules as you infer it to be, rather than as written.
RAW is a myth. Even in PFS. ESPECIALLY in pfs. Every dm HAS to run the rules as they infer them to be because that's the best humanly possible understanding of the rules that its possible to have. The game is simply too complex, varied, and in some cases (like this) mind boggling unclear.
Your argument isn't good enough to try to override a dm. "It doesn't say X explicitely therefore X is wrong" is a horrible argument. Can you show me anywhere that it explicitely says that looking for traps is a reactive check?
I appreciate you run it not as a gotcha guy though!
By and large its academic if I'm running. 10 minute per level spells will still get you through the dungeon, and round per level spells will only last the 1 fight whether you're going at half speed or full. If the party is racing and doesn't have someone with trapspotter, then the perception guy piggy backs on the fighter using both actions to look as he moves.
If all you had to do was announce that you were looking for traps I would hand out table tents with "I am looking for traps" pre written at the bottom.
SOME kinds of perception checks are actively only.
The rogue has an ability to make looking for traps reactive.
= looking for traps is normally active.
Thats how I read it. I'm very upfront with that being how i read it, so there's no problem.
The problem I see is that what I've ruled that way in the past it has always led to the players trying to exhaustively describe the details of what and how they're checking, which I, as GM, find very annoying. I can't blame them for that, since they were, in effect, being punished for not annoying me. When I stopped doing that, the problem went away.
I would just tell them to roll the dice. What they describe to me does not matter, since this is not 1st Edition D&D. Once they realize all that matters is whether or not they meet the DC the problem should go away.
I'm asking for book/page for something that calls out exclusively being active. It just says most checks are reactive, folks seem to be making up for themselves what is not possible for a reactive check.
The number of debates on what is active vs passive means that likely no such rules exist. I even checked the old 3.5 rules, and did not find anything.
For now this is GM territory.
The way I run traps perception is pretty easy, actually. If the "casual hiding" of the trap (that is the DC to notice is below a character's skill roll +10, and that character is the first to come within 10' of the trap, or at least is within 10' before someone else trips it, that character gets the opportunity to at the least halt everyone. If it's above that, and they have a trapspotter in the group that matches the above conditions, I allow the trapspotter a roll. Unless for some reason they're actively searching for traps, in which case I allow them all to roll. In essence, I treat it just like I would any encounter with a stealthed opponent.
Generally, if they're in a situation where they're going to roll, it's because they've got some suspicion that there are traps nearby. So far, since PF came out, this has served me well. Some traps get sprung, because they were too hard to find, and the group didn't have a trapspotter, or the lead character was too far out in front, and tripped it before it could get spotted. Some traps are found because the trapspotter was taking time to search for them, and some were found because they simply weren't hidden well (were lower than check +10).
unfortunately with some of the local GM pool, the party saying we move through <insert X area> cautiously and look as we go results in the traps just going off with no check, we're literally forced to specifically say every single object/place we check, it's hideously obnoxious and no where in the dang books
That is annoying. Some of them are probably from 3.X which I believe made you specify the square you were checking when looking for a trap. In this case they won't care about what the book says since it only calls out the base DC and distance for most checks.
What I would do was ask what it takes for them to not run it that way. If they agree to proof in the books saying they are doing it wrong then start a thread asking for how to handle perception checks.
unfortunately with some of the local GM pool, the party saying we move through <insert X area> cautiously and look as we go results in the traps just going off with no check, we're literally forced to specifically say every single object/place we check, it's hideously obnoxious and no where in the dang booksThat is annoying. Some of them are probably from 3.X which I believe made you specify the square you were checking when looking for a trap. In this case they won't care about what the book says since it only calls out the base DC and distance for most checks.
What I would do was ask what it takes for them to not run it that way. If they agree to proof in the books saying they are doing it wrong then start a thread asking for how to handle perception checks.
I would see about checking with a venture officer. This kind of behavior explicately slows down the game. Something that pfs really doesnt want to do (set time brackets for a given adventure). You should see if the venture officer is sympathetic and offers assistance with your gm pool. If it were a home game, I'd not play. I generally dont play organized play as a rule, mostly because I want to play the game with my friends, not strangers.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Noticing a piece of paper on the floor of the room is passive is it not? How is that different from noticing a trip wire or pressure plate? There isnt any reason to indicate that traps are not passive except the fact that some dms like it when players get caught in them. There is literally no other reason.
Well technically you have to assume Traps are camouflaged so you don't notice them, to that end you have to assume they are using stealth against you, so would you give the players a passive roll to notice a stealth enemy if they are not looking for one, or have no reason too?
Kolokotroni wrote:
Well technically you have to assume Traps are camouflaged so you don't notice them, to that end you have to assume they are using stealth against you, so would you give the players a passive roll to notice a stealth enemy if they are not looking for one, or have no reason too?Noticing a piece of paper on the floor of the room is passive is it not? How is that different from noticing a trip wire or pressure plate? There isnt any reason to indicate that traps are not passive except the fact that some dms like it when players get caught in them. There is literally no other reason.
Yes. If someone is stealthing near my players they get an automatic perception check to notice them. The same way if my players tried to sneak past an npc or monster, their stealth would be opposed by a perception check.
Yes. If someone is stealthing near my players they get an automatic perception check to notice them. The same way if my players tried to sneak past an npc or monster, their stealth would be opposed by a perception check.Kolokotroni wrote:
Well technically you have to assume Traps are camouflaged so you don't notice them, to that end you have to assume they are using stealth against you, so would you give the players a passive roll to notice a stealth enemy if they are not looking for one, or have no reason too?Noticing a piece of paper on the floor of the room is passive is it not? How is that different from noticing a trip wire or pressure plate? There isnt any reason to indicate that traps are not passive except the fact that some dms like it when players get caught in them. There is literally no other reason.
I think he was asking about enemy's that were hidden before the player entered the room, such as one that has chosen his position and is not moving.
I think he was asking about enemy's that were hidden before the player entered the room, such as one that has chosen his position and is not moving.Yes. If someone is stealthing near my players they get an automatic perception check to notice them. The same way if my players tried to sneak past an npc or monster, their stealth would be opposed by a perception check.Kolokotroni wrote:
Well technically you have to assume Traps are camouflaged so you don't notice them, to that end you have to assume they are using stealth against you, so would you give the players a passive roll to notice a stealth enemy if they are not looking for one, or have no reason too?Noticing a piece of paper on the floor of the room is passive is it not? How is that different from noticing a trip wire or pressure plate? There isnt any reason to indicate that traps are not passive except the fact that some dms like it when players get caught in them. There is literally no other reason.
It doesnt matter when they stealthed. Other then potentially the option of 'taking 20' on a stealth check if you are completely unobserved when actually doing the hiding. The players would still have the opportunity to notice you with a perception check they didnt have to call out themselves. Thats how stealth and perception work against eachother.
Some of us remember the old days.
You had to be actively searching for traps to find them and traps could kill characters and not just drain resources. In the S1 Tomb of Horrors the statement 'I am searching for traps' was issued more often than pass me the Cheetos. If kobolds were spotted, we all new to look for traps as they were notorious for setting them.
Now traps pretty much sap resources.
My solution is to fast forward over places where action is not going to happen--especially in PbP. Then, when I am pausing, or describing a room in detail, the players know it is a 'ta da' moment.
There may be a caster buffing, there may be an ambush, there may be a trap, but it does encourage active searching. There are not always traps in 'ta da' moments, but there is enough of a possibility of them that searching happens quite often.
Some of us remember the old days.
You had to be actively searching for traps to find them and traps could kill characters and not just drain resources. In the S1 Tomb of Horrors the statement 'I am searching for traps' was issued more often than pass me the Cheetos. If kobolds were spotted, we all new to look for traps as they were notorious for setting them.
Now traps pretty much sap resources.
My solution is to fast forward over places where action is not going to happen--especially in PbP. Then, when I am pausing, or describing a room in detail, the players know it is a 'ta da' moment.
There may be a caster buffing, there may be an ambush, there may be a trap, but it does encourage active searching. There are not always traps in 'ta da' moments, but there is enough of a possibility of them that searching happens quite often.
The need for explicate statements of how and what to do about traps wasnt exactly a high point in Adnd. My trapfinding rogue with a 30 perception and 35 disable device is better then ME (modern software analyst from new york) at knowing where and how to deal with traps. The same way my 26 strength raging barbarian is better then ME (software analyst) at smashing things with an axe.