thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't open the door without setting off the trap, and you can't find the trap without opening the door. Catch 22s make for bad roleplaying, and worse GMs.
You're good enough at this, to know that you should crack this door just enough to find and disarm the string.
I don't know how you know that or how you disarm the trap through the cracked door anymore than I know how the trapfinder disarms the magic trap or how his thief's tools help him do it. But he can.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is what leads to
1. Drill hole in door slowly.
2. stick mirror on a stick through and look around.
3. Make check at a penalty.
4. If trap is found attempt to disarm or circumvent.
5. Move to next door repeat.
Along with:
Try to outsmart your GM's ability to come up with hard to detect/disarm traps. When you fail, add the new one to the list of things you check for regularly.Since this is player level, apply the knowledge to all your new characters, telling the trapspotter in the group what to do.
If you want to play this way, I suggest that PF might not be the kind of game for you. Or you should house rule some of the trap mechanics out of the way, so you can play out all the trap interactions.
Ckorik |
Ckorik wrote:
Does the ability to disable a trap let the rogue disable at range?
I say no - because doing so is a class feature of Arcane Trickster - without a way to mask his alignment (unless he's evil) the rogue can't disable the trap in the spoiler without setting it off.
Of course you could make the same assumption about that as about Trapspotter. The Trickster could disarm it from 30' from the detection area, not just 30' from the sensor/trap source.
A normal trapfinder using Disable would have to be at the detection area to do so. That's part of whatever the trapfinding gives you that lets you disable magic traps. Remember that without that class feature, you can't do it, regardless of how high your Disable Device is.
See that is where I disagree - the class feature of the arcane trickster is the ability to disable a trap at range - While I am on board with the ability to know there is a trap at the 'trigger' range - I don't think I am willing to make a class feature worthless for one class just because another one has it.
There are ways to get past the trigger (nondetection, change aura type spells etc.) and without a ranged disable option I think that the rogue would need to rely on other methods to get past without activation to disarm.
I'm just not on board with a disarm from the trigger location for a magical trap - I was leaning that way from the previous discussion until it dawned on me that it was a class feature in the CRB for another class (prestige mind you but still). Honestly I can see both sides of the coin ... and... no I'm going to have to mull it over and see what my group thinks about the entire thing. This may be in fact a good FAQ question honestly.
Talonhawke |
See that is where I disagree - the class feature of the arcane trickster is the ability to disable a trap at range - While I am on board with the ability to know there is a trap at the 'trigger' range - I don't think I am willing to make a class feature worthless for one class just because another one has it.
There are ways to get past the trigger (nondetection, change aura type spells etc.) and without a ranged disable option I think that the rogue would need to rely on other methods to get past without activation to disarm.
I'm just not on board with a disarm from the trigger location for a magical trap - I was leaning that way from the previous discussion until it dawned on me that it was a class feature in the CRB for another class (prestige mind you but still). Honestly I can see both sides of the coin ... and... no I'm going to have to mull it over and see what my group thinks about the entire thing. This may be in fact a good FAQ question honestly.
You can look at it like this though. Both can disable from trigger location. However one of them has to be right on it and could suffer from a failure far easier than the other who is 30ft away.
thejeff |
thejeff wrote:Ckorik wrote:
Does the ability to disable a trap let the rogue disable at range?
I say no - because doing so is a class feature of Arcane Trickster - without a way to mask his alignment (unless he's evil) the rogue can't disable the trap in the spoiler without setting it off.
Of course you could make the same assumption about that as about Trapspotter. The Trickster could disarm it from 30' from the detection area, not just 30' from the sensor/trap source.
A normal trapfinder using Disable would have to be at the detection area to do so. That's part of whatever the trapfinding gives you that lets you disable magic traps. Remember that without that class feature, you can't do it, regardless of how high your Disable Device is.See that is where I disagree - the class feature of the arcane trickster is the ability to disable a trap at range - While I am on board with the ability to know there is a trap at the 'trigger' range - I don't think I am willing to make a class feature worthless for one class just because another one has it.
There are ways to get past the trigger (nondetection, change aura type spells etc.) and without a ranged disable option I think that the rogue would need to rely on other methods to get past without activation to disarm.
I'm just not on board with a disarm from the trigger location for a magical trap - I was leaning that way from the previous discussion until it dawned on me that it was a class feature in the CRB for another class (prestige mind you but still). Honestly I can see both sides of the coin ... and... no I'm going to have to mull it over and see what my group thinks about the entire thing. This may be in fact a good FAQ question honestly.
Note that there may be other reasons to work 30' away. Disarm the trap before entering the room and alerting everyone, for example.
Mark Hoover |
One easy way to stop all these shenanigans: have the "trigger" be a kobold with a giant lever. PC rogue with Trapspotter has no trap w/in 10' to spot but their passive perception tells them there's lightning scorches all over the walls. When they start searching for the trigger they hear a muffled giggle from the concealed murder hole at the and of the corridor and a bolt of lightning comes flying down the hall.
thorin001 |
Talonhawke wrote:That is what leads to
1. Drill hole in door slowly.
2. stick mirror on a stick through and look around.
3. Make check at a penalty.
4. If trap is found attempt to disarm or circumvent.
5. Move to next door repeat.Along with:
Try to outsmart your GM's ability to come up with hard to detect/disarm traps. When you fail, add the new one to the list of things you check for regularly.Since this is player level, apply the knowledge to all your new characters, telling the trapspotter in the group what to do.
If you want to play this way, I suggest that PF might not be the kind of game for you. Or you should house rule some of the trap mechanics out of the way, so you can play out all the trap interactions.
Ah, the good old days of 1st edition with Gygax designed traps.
kinevon |
thejeff wrote:Ckorik wrote:
Does the ability to disable a trap let the rogue disable at range?
I say no - because doing so is a class feature of Arcane Trickster - without a way to mask his alignment (unless he's evil) the rogue can't disable the trap in the spoiler without setting it off.
Of course you could make the same assumption about that as about Trapspotter. The Trickster could disarm it from 30' from the detection area, not just 30' from the sensor/trap source.
A normal trapfinder using Disable would have to be at the detection area to do so. That's part of whatever the trapfinding gives you that lets you disable magic traps. Remember that without that class feature, you can't do it, regardless of how high your Disable Device is.See that is where I disagree - the class feature of the arcane trickster is the ability to disable a trap at range - While I am on board with the ability to know there is a trap at the 'trigger' range - I don't think I am willing to make a class feature worthless for one class just because another one has it.
There are ways to get past the trigger (nondetection, change aura type spells etc.) and without a ranged disable option I think that the rogue would need to rely on other methods to get past without activation to disarm.
I'm just not on board with a disarm from the trigger location for a magical trap - I was leaning that way from the previous discussion until it dawned on me that it was a class feature in the CRB for another class (prestige mind you but still). Honestly I can see both sides of the coin ... and... no I'm going to have to mull it over and see what my group thinks about the entire thing. This may be in fact a good FAQ question honestly.
But aren't you saying exactly the same thing in reverse, though? You are neutering the ability of a Core class in favor of a variant on that ability held by a Prestige Class.
The difference is that the Core class has to be by the trigger, and suffer the effects if he fails to disarm by a significant amount. The PrC can be far enough away that even a failure might not involve them.
PossibleCabbage |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For decades I've always considered "the thing that triggers the effect that the trap has" to be the trap, not "the thing that generates the effect that the trap has".
Like if there's a pressure plate on the floor that makes rocks fall out of the ceiling the "trap" is in the floor not the ceiling.
Interpret "line of sight" traps to be the magical equivalent of security lasers- people who know what to look for can spot them without triggering them. You're not going to design your magic arrow trap to get triggered by blowing leaves, or vermin, or motes of dust, but instead by "humanoid shaped things" so should be able to peek at it before triggering it as your head is not humanoid shaped, it's head shaped.
BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is absolutely NO, none, nadda, zip, zero, zilch reason to exclude the trigger from the rest of the trap for either detection or disabling. The only purpose it can possibly serve is to be a gotcha dm obliviating players class,skill, talent, and abilities to say "oo look how clever i am I made traps no one can disable unlike all those other idiots, i'm smrt."
Ravingdork |
I personally believe that, in my example, the entire hallway would be considered the trap, and thus the rogue sense would go off as he approached the corner.
Perhaps he noticed the scorch marks of previous acid arrows on the far wall?
A trickier example to adjudicate, I think, would be one posited by deusvult earlier in the thread:
an "alarm" trap that consists of a bell tied to a string that goes up through a hook in the ceiling and then is nailed to a nearby door. The door opens, the bell rings, and the trap is sprung. Basically, something like virtually every shop has to announce customer traffic, only on a solid door with no windows in it.
When the PCs come from the other side of the door, is there zero chance of detecting the trap via perception or trap-spotting? If not, why not?
Many GMs would not allow PCs to check for such a trap without opening the door first. After all, they don't have line of effect or line of sight to the trap.
That's the kind of trap that leads to PCs slowly drilling holes in doorways and sticking a small mirror through to have a look around (as described by Talonhawke above).
Ascalaphus |
All traps—mechanical or magical—have the following elements: CR, type, Perception DC, Disable Device DC, trigger, reset, and effect.
Trigger is an element of the trap.
Trap Spotter (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should be made in secret by the GM.
Since the trigger is part of the trap, a rogue passing within 10ft of the trigger gets a chance to notice. This means it works for Alarm-triggered traps.
Some questions remain though:
- Suppose a trigger is attached to the other side of a door, so that it'll go off if the door is opened. Can you detect this trigger, either with regular inspection or with Trap Spotter?
- What if the trigger is something like a camera that looks at a big area without interfering with it? You could say there are traces of previous activations in the area of effect, but what if it's brand-new or there's a competent concierge that cleans up afterwards?
Isonaroc |
Personally, and this is just me, I would give them a chance to detect it even without line of sight, though maybe not as detailed. Por ejemplo, the alarm on the other side of the door thing I might say "something about the door doesn't sit right with you," or maybe even just "you have a bad feeling about this." Make it an instinct thing that they can't really put their finger on.
Ferious Thune |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trigger is part of the trap and should be detectable with Trapspotter.
Think about this... In published adventures, what is usually marked in the map? It's the area that triggers the trap, not where the arrow/axe/spell/whatever actually originates. Sometimes they're the same, but the trigger is always included in the area marked with a T.
Ascalaphus |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a game where first-level characters can blast other people into unconsciousness with multicolored sand or grow claws when they get angry, I don't find it "too fantastical" that a rogue can sense there's something nasty on the other side of the door and even manage to finagle it open without triggering it.
Ferious Thune |
And given that you can use perception to see that there is a magical trap there or to see the trap on the other side of the door even if you don't have Trapspotter, Trapfinding, or detect magic, there really shouldn't be an issue letting Trapspotter work. Basically if the rogue is able to make a perception check to notice a trap if they are actively looking, then they should get a perception check from Trapspotter if they are within 10 feet even if they aren't actively looking. If it is not possible to see the trap, like a trap on the floor of a square behind the door, then no, even if Trapspotter triggered, it's impossible to make a Perception roll. But if the trap is on the door and going to trigger if they touch/open the door, it should be possible to see it from either side. That kind of thing is usually taken into account in the DC to see it.
The Rogue has one nice thing. Please just let that one thing work like it's meant to.
Garbage-Tier Waifu |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what a lot of the convoluted ways that were suggested to cheat out preventing trap spotter boil down to attempts to utterly deny any means of a trap being detected at all outside of wizardry business. And that reeks of DM maliciousness and is reminding me of that thread of a DM talking about making his traps undetectable and everyone suggesting a thin lead sheet over his traps.
Turns out he was just a really bad DM putting fireball and delayed fireball traps (sometimes several at once) throughout his game and his players had been forced to detect magic everything. One of the players later turned up and explained how terrible it was and how they had no choice or they would just die from stepping 5ft. It was almost Tomb of Horrors level of absurd trap placement (though not as annoyingly inconvient and more jus straight death) Then suddenly every trap suddenly had a lead sheet over it. And that was people suggesting solutions, And the group just...either left or something, I forget.
Anyway, please don't look for ways of cheating out rogues their thing. It doesn't HAVE to make much sense. A rogue is entitled to spotting, to determining what a trap does, and presumably since a trigger extends beyond the actual trap mechanism, the ability to disable it with just the trigger. If something like a door blocks access to the trigger, but should it be opened the trigger activates, then the door is a part of the trap. So you can disable it at the door. How is unimportant and fluff, and something the rogue can figure out as he goes along.
PossibleCabbage |
There actually is a PFS scenario that takes place in Numeria with camera traps.
I think the reasonable way to adjudicate camera traps is "there's a lag time between when you appear on camera and the software it's linked to recognizes that the adventurer-shaped blob is something significant and not a leaf or a weird shadow." Things that aren't people don't have a very good time identifying images, historically. If it's an intelligent being who is watching security feeds, that probably introduces even more lag to the process.
You don't need to make the software really inefficient, you can just give the PC a second or two to go "oops" and duck back behind the corner.
BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a game where first-level characters can blast other people into unconsciousness with multicolored sand or grow claws when they get angry, I don't find it "too fantastical" that a rogue can sense there's something nasty on the other side of the door and even manage to finagle it open without triggering it.
yes. Because we can't have people looking under the jams of doors or through keyholes in fantasy games. That would be unrealistic..
Ascalaphus |
I just assume that there are techniques of looking for traps on other sides of doors that I don't know about, but that an adventurer would.
Take any real-world craft and spend some time with an expert, and you'll see them do "impossible" things, like maneuver piping behind a wall when logically the pipe shouldn't be able to go around that curve - but the expert knows how to do it.
thejeff |
Which is one of the reasons I hate playing a lot of things out, rather than abstracting them into dice rolls. It's even worse in modern games and even worse when you actually know more about the subject than the GM - you're trying to guess what he thinks will work.
As for the more general "how can our PF trap experts do that?": Who knows, but they can. Just like they can spot and disarm magical traps despite having no other abilities to see or use magic.
ryric RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't make characters rolling Craft describe the exact steps to forge something, I don't make characters using Swim tell me what stroke they are using, and I don't make a character rolling Knowledge list which books they've read, so why would I make a character using Disable Device or Perception describe exactly what they are doing?
If a player wants to narrate their actions, that's great and adds to the experience of all. But they shouldn't have to. Just like a shy player can play someone with a high Diplomacy and just say "I try to make them friendlier."
claudekennilol |
I don't make characters rolling Craft describe the exact steps to forge something, I don't make characters using Swim tell me what stroke they are using, and I don't make a character rolling Knowledge list which books they've read, so why would I make a character using Disable Device or Perception describe exactly what they are doing?
If a player wants to narrate their actions, that's great and adds to the experience of all. But they shouldn't have to. Just like a shy player can play someone with a high Diplomacy and just say "I try to make them friendlier."
Oh my gosh. This. A thousand times this. I was so pissed at my GM once when he made me tell him exactly how I was disabling his ill-described trap.
Ravingdork |
ryric wrote:Oh my gosh. This. A thousand times this. I was so pissed at my GM once when he made me tell him exactly how I was disabling his ill-described trap.I don't make characters rolling Craft describe the exact steps to forge something, I don't make characters using Swim tell me what stroke they are using, and I don't make a character rolling Knowledge list which books they've read, so why would I make a character using Disable Device or Perception describe exactly what they are doing?
If a player wants to narrate their actions, that's great and adds to the experience of all. But they shouldn't have to. Just like a shy player can play someone with a high Diplomacy and just say "I try to make them friendlier."
Totally agree.
thejeff |
ryric wrote:Oh my gosh. This. A thousand times this. I was so pissed at my GM once when he made me tell him exactly how I was disabling his ill-described trap.I don't make characters rolling Craft describe the exact steps to forge something, I don't make characters using Swim tell me what stroke they are using, and I don't make a character rolling Knowledge list which books they've read, so why would I make a character using Disable Device or Perception describe exactly what they are doing?
If a player wants to narrate their actions, that's great and adds to the experience of all. But they shouldn't have to. Just like a shy player can play someone with a high Diplomacy and just say "I try to make them friendlier."
Old School, baby.
If you can't figure out from the GM's lousy description how to disarm it, you deserve to die.
Which is why the player also needed to buy Grimtooth's traps and research how to beat them. :)
Gets even crazier with the magic ones where you're making up even the basic mechanism of how it works.