It is popularly accepted that you do not get a passive perception check to search for traps. This has a few problems:
1) Players focused on finding traps and secret doors end up spending table time declaring they are searching for both in every room.
2) Trapfinding is a class feature that is generally made redundant by Players taking table time to declare they are searching twice. (exceptions exist.)
3) Players that want to play a faster paced game and not waste real time searching for traps end up triggering traps and missing secret doors.
4) This system does not have a robust system for handling massive differences between character perception bonuses and trap perception DCs.
So what can we do to resolve the above shortcomings? The solution must be robust enough to apply to almost all circumstances, time efficient to allow for a fast paced game, fair to the characters and to the monsters that made these traps, and has bonus points for staying withing the existing rule system (usable in PFS play).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dotting to see other options people have come up with cause it sometimes bugs me too.
Mostly because I refuse to believe a person does not have a passive perception.
You do not close your eyes and plug your ears as you walk around, especially in a place your expecting trouble/Ambush/or dangers to be. So DMs who do not allow PCs to see/hear anything at all unless they declare perception is really unrealistic. Like DMs who won't even tell you what the room looks like without a perception check...like really...I'm not freaking Blind atm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been running games as characters always get a reactive roll to find traps, in this case trapfinders get to roll twice. The downside to this is that traps never get triggered because in a group of 5 rolling the skill everyone invests ranks in someone always hits the DC. Especially in combat situations where an enemy springs an ambush while hiding behind a trap, free rolls do did not account for the in initiative circumstances, but not giving a roll is unfair to the character with +45 Perception.
But I don't think weighing things so far in the player's favor was the design intent of the traps, some of my most memorable play experiences come from a trap putting the group at a massive disadvantage at the start of a fight.
I think one solution is at include perception checks into the start of dungeon discussion about marching order.
At the start of every session we have the default marching order conversation, a quick run down of the assumed position of the party. It is a little rules heavy but we can teach the group that intentionally using perception is a move action, so that if the party is searching for traps they are moving at half speed. Any time they are clearly rushing, I will assume they are not checking for traps.
Talking about moving at half speed ties into finding traps in combat. Survival already has the precedent to take a -5 penalty to track at full speed. So during initiative apply the -5 penalty for being distracting as people are shooting arrows at you and a -5 penalty for terrible circumstances as trying to make a normally move action as a free action. Adjust these penalties to match the theme of the game and I think we have a rules consistent, robust way to handle traps.
So during initiative apply the -5 penalty for being distracting as people are shooting arrows at you and a -5 penalty for terrible circumstances as trying to make a normally move action as a free action. Adjust these penalties to match the theme of the game and I think we have a rules consistent, robust way to handle traps.
So while your at a higher level of Perception by carefully looking around you...you failed to see the Archer Knocking his arrow and firing at you cause you were busy looking for a trap instead of the 5'10, 180lbs of muscle standing out in front of your group...so your penalized for heightening your Perceptions?
So during initiative apply the -5 penalty for being distracting as people are shooting arrows at you and a -5 penalty for terrible circumstances as trying to make a normally move action as a free action. Adjust these penalties to match the theme of the game and I think we have a rules consistent, robust way to handle traps.So while your at a higher level of Perception by carefully looking around you...you failed to see the Archer Knocking his arrow and firing at you cause you were busy looking for a trap instead of the 5'10, 180lbs of muscle standing out in front of your group...so your penalized for heightening your Perceptions?
This is probably my failure to communicate clearly. I'm not trying to include perception versus stealth here or what those penalties are, that is a conversation for elsewhere.
I'm just trying to imagine how to fairly run the classic tactic of an archer standing behind concealed a pit trap and what is the best way to give the cavalier charging the spotted archer a chance to spot the trap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue talent available to many classes.
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.
2) Trapfinding is a class feature that is generally made redundant by Players taking table time to declare they are searching twice. (exceptions exist.)So what can we do to resolve the above shortcomings? The solution must be robust enough to apply to almost all circumstances, time efficient to allow for a fast paced game, fair to the characters and to the monsters that made these traps, and has bonus points for staying withing the existing rule system (usable in PFS play).
Trapfinding does not do that.
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.
it is very simple, all a rogue or similar class has to do it take:
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.
Then spotting traps is 100% passive.
Of course, when there's a chest or something that looks suspicious, a couple attempts may be made.
Thus, there really is no issue here.
In any case, I know of no DM that requires active checks for secret doors.
I'm just trying to imagine how to fairly run the classic tactic of an archer standing behind concealed a pit trap and what is the best way to give the cavalier charging the spotted archer a chance to spot the trap.
I'd give him a large minus. He's gonna fall in that trap, that's why you have rogues and such.
My solution would be:
The players say, "We're checking for traps any time we're in an unchecked room or corridor and not in combat."
As GM, I remember that they're doing this and assume they're doing everything roughly half the speed they would otherwise. This means buffs wearing off after fewer rooms. If there's ever a trap, I have them roll a perception check, or I could roll in secret if I didn't trust them not to metagame a failed perception check.
I have played with GMs that required active searching for secret doors.
A point of this discussion is to come up with reasonable penalties for a charging cavalier, so that the character's world operates in a consistent manner that the players can anticipate instead of operating off inconsistent rulings pulled out of a hat. Is the net -10 a large minus in your opinion? If that Cavalier has trapfinding, is it unfair to give him a -5 penalty for being distracted by his charge?
(exceptions exist.)
Yes, trapfinding has more to it than the one line I give it. But to keep the conversation on topic. Should the game be ran that parties without trapfinding have a significantly harder time (no chance to spot the falling log trap beside the road)?
Dotted.
My typical setup is that the party has a typical formation. Everyone has to have a basic I am generally looking in X direction or looking for X. IE: person in back might declare hes watching for anyone sneaking up behind. Anyone who wants to be specifically looking for traps declares so. From there whenever they would be able to perceive an incoming encounter, trap, etc. they get a penalty or bonus based on how they were declared to be looking. IE: if the person in front is checking for traps they get a penalty for noticing further away things because they are focusing on detail directly in front of them. After applying bonuses I then mark off anybody who has a 10% or less chance of success and have everybody remaining roll perception. In parties of 6 or less this typically means only about 2 of the parties perception checks really matter. Also this gives a pretty nice distribution of player spotlight so long as I give reasonable encounter variation. Also I consider a party that doesn't notice a trap until its sprung flat footed for the initial effects then they get a perception to notice the flamethrowers. After all their first perception was to notice the trap before it went off
So while your at a higher level of Perception by carefully looking around you...you failed to see the Archer Knocking his arrow and firing at you cause you were busy looking for a trap instead of the 5'10, 180lbs of muscle standing out in front of your group.
Yes, that happens. Happens IRL
The DM can either assume my highly trained character is on the lookout for danger in this stupid f!~%ing damage hallway without stating I'm looking for traps every 5 ft or I can take 20 on multiple perception checks(wording what I'm looking for differently) and poke everything with a 10 ft poll every time we move 5ft. Both work, so it's up to preference.
I just played in a party exploring a dungeon where the GM made the (two!) rogues in the lead roll every ten feet for traps. (Hey, it wasn't five!) With two 11th-level rogues who had maxed Perception, they never missed a one. Not one. But oh, did it slow down play. Hideously. Honestly, I'd as soon he had said, "Ok, the party is moving slowly. But at least one of you or the other will spot any traps you encounter." But he wanted to be sure.
So we later suggested to the GM that he have the players roll quickly and record 20 or so d20 rolls, and that he simply scan the list as the party moved about to see if something went "boom!" or "crash!" (He'd cross rolls off as they were used.) As we encounter traps, the GM would place our figures on the map in the appropriate spot and describe the situation. ("You see the outlines of a pressure plate on the floor ahead of you here" OR "You stepped on a pressure plate on the floor here," depending.) The same thing would work for secret doors -- the only diff is that I don't believe the rogue half-level bonus applies to anything but traps. So players would have to supply their list with all the permanent bonuses figured in & then make notes at the top about their traps bonus, stonework bonus, and so on.
The issue at hand, admittedly, is whether PCs without trapfinding should get to hand in a list of Perception rolls, too.
|
This is how I do it.
1) based on RP each character is tagged with careful or brazen play style.
2) circumstancial bonuses are give for good rp. I search the room gets nothing. I check the floor for traps gets a bonuse. Likewise I I look for faulse bottoms in the desk > I search the desk > I search the room.
3) use subtile prompts not free checks. I always ask "are we done with this room, are you doing anything else, are you flipping the room or leaving it how it is, what does it look like when a 6ft full plate barbarian walks down the hall way etc. This should be done for flavour and for chances to make checks.
If they don't pick up on the subtile prompt as a referee I make a call. Were they being careful up to this point, do they have a bonus based on how they are looking, (the trap is attached to treasure they are examining), would any character behaviour descriptions lead them to see the trap or secret door. If you have a satisfying combination of factors they get asked for a check.
Things that have happened with my system. Dwarf barbarian says this is boring walks over to a wall and leans right on a door. This counts as a character description qualification. Ask for a check.
Walking down a hallway I ask "just heading straight for the door?" I have had yeses, or "yes but I'm still burned from the fire ball so I look carefully. The latter gets a check. Half the time I'm lying and there is no trap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
probably because of things like Trap Spotter that are options letting you get a check without calling it out every six seconds.
Not that this actually helps the OP, but for me, it is not that big an issue because I run my games online (Roll20). Thanks to that I can use macros to secretly roll Perception checks for all of the player characters whenever they enter a new area or if I don't want them to know the results of their Perception checks (for example, determining if they are ambushed or not) without the players noticing the rolls.
I do this because some of my players are notoriously bad in roleplaying their characters without being heavily influenced by metagame knowledge. They are happy with that so long as I am not doing every single Perception checks for them (which I don't want to do anyways).
Huh, now that I think about it, this method can be used by any GM/DM without needing to run the entire game online. He/she can use it just for secret rolls - that way he/she do not have to constantly ask the players to roll for every single Perception checks or other skill checks like Sense Motive.
CB
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Passive Perception" is just shorthand for the player saying "literally every 5 feet I take 10 on looking at stuff" so that the game doesn't crawl to boring, pointless tedium.
That's not what Passive Perception means to me. Let's say someone broke into your house in the night and placed a trap in your kitchen. You have no idea there's a trap there and you have no reason to suspect a trap, so you won't make any effort to check. Would you still get a perception check? With 'Trap Spotter' the answer is an unambiguous yes.
"Passive Perception" is just shorthand for the player saying "literally every 5 feet I take 10 on looking at stuff" so that the game doesn't crawl to boring, pointless tedium.That's not what Passive Perception means to me. Let's say someone broke into your house in the night and placed a trap in your kitchen. You have no idea there's a trap there and you have no reason to suspect a trap, so you won't make any effort to check. Would you still get a perception check? With 'Trap Spotter' the answer is an unambiguous yes.
yeah... you would passively notice the couch and the chair... but not the tripwire between them. To my knowledge Pathfinder has nothing about 'passive checks' in the rules. the rules state; Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
That takes time... and time eats away spell buffs... As a player I search when I think there's something there, but if there's nothing suspicious then I move along to the next room. I can't imagine searching every 5' square for traps
I see 'passive' and 'reactive' as the same thing.
There's no Pathfinder rule specifying that a perception check is made on a 5' square.
According to Pathfinder Unchained (which admittedly isn't the most official of official rules sources) "Each move action spent allows you to search a 10-foot-by-10-foot area."
If someone breaks in and places a trap in your house, I believe you should get a perception check as they break in (we will assume for the moment you fail) and a reactive check to notice something is slightly different than you left it last night.
Something has changed. The perception check is for if you noticed it while stumbling out of bed and moving around the house.
To my knowledge, there has been no FAQ or even agreement as to if the normal perception check for traps should be reactive (a free action) or active (requiring a move action). Only the check with Trapspotter (which has a chance of going off when some else might be at the trigger point) is defined.
A dwarf with Stonecunning also gets an automatic attempt to notice "unusual stonework," which explicitly includes traps and hidden doors, within 10 ft.
Personally, I'd have the character make the "free" check by "taking 10." This gives the GM a single "roll" to compare to the DCs to notice the traps when preparing for the session, instead of taking up time during play.
(exceptions exist.)Yes, trapfinding has more to it than the one line I give it. But to keep the conversation on topic. Should the game be ran that parties without trapfinding have a significantly harder time (no chance to spot the falling log trap beside the road)?
Again, trapfinding does not mean a auto check for traps. It gives a bonus.
Trap Spotter gives a auto check for traps.
I just played in a party exploring a dungeon where the GM made the (two!) rogues in the lead roll every ten feet for traps. (Hey, it wasn't five!) With two 11th-level rogues who had maxed Perception, they never missed a one. Not one. But oh, did it slow down play. Hideously. Honestly, I'd as soon he had said, "Ok, the party is moving slowly. But at least one of you or the other will spot any traps you encounter." But he wanted to be sure.....The issue at hand, admittedly, is whether PCs without trapfinding should get to hand in a list of Perception rolls, too.
Neither rogue had the Trap Spotter talent?
again, PCs without trapfinding can find traps just as well as PCs with trapfinding, given equal perception rolls.
I do not allow free action perception checks to spot traps without something granting that ability.
I just ask what speed the players are going at. Normal speed you get your buffs for longer, but without trap spotter you will run into traps. Half speed means you get to make perception checks for things like that, but your buffs run out quicker.
I only call for checks when there is something to check for.
I use traps to give the players a tactical decision - take damage/some negative effect or lose time on active buffs, or to give the bad guys advanced warning.
There are exceptions, some traps are so obvious you almost shouldn't be asking for a check at all. If a player 'taking 0' will spot a trap then they will auto spot it.
Outside of round-by-round combat/activity I assume the characters are moving at a rate of one move action per turn and making a perception check. Assuming a base movement of 30'. That equates to 5' per second, which is ~3.5 mph. The movement table in the PRD also makes the same assumptions.
So outside of round-by-round combat/activity perception checks are occurring all the time by default. The difficult part is making those roles at the appropriate time without alerting the players, slowing the game down or having the GM metagame.
Passively taking 10 doesn't work as it is effectively an auto-succeed or auto-fail that is determined ahead of time - leading to GM metagaming. Rolling every round slows the game down and still doesn't work when multiple checks are required in one round (you noticed the pit but not the observer). I have previously tried rolling ahead of time and crossing off the numbers as used, but I found that I couldn't help but notice what the next rolls were going to be and found myself adjusting my actions to compensate - back to GM metagaming.
Now what I do is have a little Excel script running on a laptop that rolls perception checks for the party and I press it when required (and randomly at other times). I also highlight any times the party will need to make a perception check on the map and module so I don't miss an event. This way I've found I don't slow the game down, don't alert the players and don't know the result myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do agree that hidden traps are generally just bad game design. However that only applies to when they are stand alone traps or just oh you triggered it take X stats effect/damage. I like to add hidden traps to combat encounters. IE: had a kobold with a quarterstaff of vaulting in a miniature maze filled with traps he knew the trigger conditions of. He vaulted over a few trapless spaces even just to screw with the players. Also you can make traps that while they have hidden triggers are puzzles or interactive afterwards. IE: Indiana Jones boulder or sealed room filling with water.
I just played in a party exploring a dungeon where the GM made the (two!) rogues in the lead roll every ten feet for traps. (Hey, it wasn't five!) With two 11th-level rogues who had maxed Perception, they never missed a one. Not one. But oh, did it slow down play. Hideously. Honestly, I'd as soon he had said, "Ok, the party is moving slowly. But at least one of you or the other will spot any traps you encounter." But he wanted to be sure.....The issue at hand, admittedly, is whether PCs without trapfinding should get to hand in a list of Perception rolls, too.Neither rogue had the Trap Spotter talent?
again, PCs without trapfinding can find traps just as well as PCs with trapfinding, given equal perception rolls.
Sorry to have been away on this... Correct on Trap Spotter. I asked after an hour. Feh!
Situation on PCs without trapfinding noted. Apparently, what they can't spot are magical traps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Situation on PCs without trapfinding noted. Apparently, what they can't spot are magical traps.
No, they can't disarm magical traps. It is a badly named ability.
Situation on PCs without trapfinding noted. Apparently, what they can't spot are magical traps.No, they can't disarm magical traps. It is a badly named ability.
Oh. Thanks!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How I run it, without trap Spotter, you get no passive check. After all if you do anything else, you're giving out for free what you are requiring your rogue-like to take for them to have it.
Also I do not allow a take 10 to search for traps, again why should a player be able to take a base value to search for something that a rogue-like does not get even if they have paid the feat (talent) tax. If you allow Trap-spotter to take 10 instead of rolling, then you could allow the Take 10 looking for traps.
Take 20 is an option, but you're taking 2 minutes for every 5' square you're searching.
If players wish to say they check every square twice for traps it takes 2 rounds to move 5' if they want to have multiple people searching, it takes additional time (unless they can search different squares) as they are in each others way trying to search the same 5' square. I may only roll the appropriate number of checks for the specific traps they are going to face, but I might do it 2 rooms ahead of time just to watch them all start rolling their own individual checks or saying they are taking 20 here.
I feel this is justified because (well outside of the rules not being in place for you to get these massive hand waves of auto checking EVERYTHING) I find it hard to imagine people exploring an ancient ruin or cavernous dungeon and crawling around carefully inspecting everywhere they put their foot, or touch anything. If you want to check a door 5 times before you try to open it, because you don't want to miss a trap but don't want to spend 2 minutes searching with a take 10, I'm fine with that. Just don't say you're going to check once, see that you rolled a 2, and then say well I'm going to look again, roll a 6, and decide maybe you need to triple check the door...
When I have characters searching suspicious areas for traps if I'm the only one that can search my characters quickly learn to search ~3 times, that's much faster than a take 10, yet still has very good odds to beat out a take 10. But I never bother searching an entire dungeon as I go. If I hit the pit trap in the middle of nowhere, heck you can't find them all!
How I run it, without trap Spotter, you get no passive check. After all if you do anything else, you're giving out for free what you are requiring your rogue-like to take for them to have it.
I like Glorf Fei-Hung's way of doing it. Part of the point of "spotting" a trap is recognizing that the slight discoloration of a 10-foot square of floor might well mean that it's less worn -- for good reason. Or that you have to look for very faint cracks in the floor outlining a 10-foot square. Or that you missed all that, but as you just start to step onto the square, it gives ever so slightly, and you step back. (Not triggering a Reflex save, I mean -- just recognizing the trap ahead.) And all of that without especially scrutinizing the square!
If you don't have "Trap Spotter," you simply don't pay attention to those things naturally as you walk along. You can say that "I'm an experienced adventurer; I know to look for all that as I walk along, too." But your class description says different. You're an experienced fighter, let's say; you've been spending your adventuring career paying attention to factors that let you fight more effectively without thinking about it. Or even, you're a rogue who's been paying attention to anatomy, so you can make nasty sneak attacks, rather than to what traps look like. Our brains don't pay attention to everything alike, be they human brains, dwarven brains, or any other kind.
But it would still be true that anyone can say, "I'm making a Perception check." Fei-hung, what happens if your party moves at the typical "dungeon" pace of 1 move action/round? Can they say that they're all spending their other move action on Perception? Or are they then hustling, because they're taking two move actions in a round?
|
|
How I run it, without trap Spotter, you get no passive check. After all if you do anything else, you're giving out for free what you are requiring your rogue-like to take for them to have it.I like Glorf Fei-Hung's way of doing it. Part of the point of "spotting" a trap is recognizing that the slight discoloration of a 10-foot square of floor might well mean that it's less worn -- for good reason. Or that you have to look for very faint cracks in the floor outlining a 10-foot square. Or that you missed all that, but as you just start to step onto the square, it gives ever so slightly, and you step back. (Not triggering a Reflex save, I mean -- just recognizing the trap ahead.) And all of that without especially scrutinizing the square!
If you don't have "Trap Spotter," you simply don't pay attention to those things naturally as you walk along. You can say that "I'm an experienced adventurer; I know to look for all that as I walk along, too." But your class description says different. You're an experienced fighter, let's say; you've been spending your adventuring career paying attention to factors that let you fight more effectively without thinking about it. Or even, you're a rogue who's been paying attention to anatomy, so you can make nasty sneak attacks, rather than to what traps look like. Our brains don't pay attention to everything alike, be they human brains, dwarven brains, or any other kind.
But it would still be true that anyone can say, "I'm making a Perception check." Fei-hung, what happens if your party moves at the typical "dungeon" pace of 1 move action/round? Can they say that they're all spending their other move action on Perception? Or are they then hustling, because they're taking two move actions in a round?
They would essentially be hustling, or more importantly they would be staying 'in initiative' because initiative is the only way that it works, as that allows you to rotate through who's performing an action. If you move out of initiative everyone is acting at the same time, so you still only ever get 5' checked for traps at a time then you have to move up to check the next 5'. (Detailed below)
Outside of the 10' range for trap spotter, I've never seen a distance that you can be from a trap to do a perception check for the trap. All my GM's have always done it as you have to be next to the trap to search for it, thus that's been the way I've done it as well. So if you're walking down a 5' hallway you can spend a move action to search 5' ahead, you clear that then a person at the back moves up and searches 5' ahead of you, once that's clear the next person at the back moves up... continue leap frogging until you get somewhere... Sure doing this method keeps you running a move action to move up, followed by a move action to search for traps. But doing that requires you stay in initiative all the time. Which isn't practical to explore a dungeon that way, and you would actually have to keep up with who is where because by the time the party finally does reach the trap it's a big difference in the wizard/fighter searching that spot with ~0 perception, and the Rogue/Ranger/Monk searching that spot with ~+15. Even if you extend this range to 10' it still only really changes how many people it takes to check and still move 30', it doesn't really change the mechanics or the distance you can clear in a single round if you have 6 people in the party. It would only change the time it takes outside of turn based initiative.
If you are having to stay in initiative that means combat rules apply (sorta), so no taking 10. While you are not being 'rushed' because you're not in combat, taking 10 does require that you spend a moment to either think carefully or really focus on what you are about to do, so you dont fail. This can't be readily done in the strict timeline of a 6 second rount. You could technically still take 20, but then you're having to count rounds until the person finally reaches the appropriate DC to have identified the trap (or hit 20 and accepted that they can't find any traps.)
On a side note, I do like your explanation for why just being an 'adventurer' does not automatically give you the default ability to be able to notice where a trap is. It will give you knowledge on where you might expect to see a trap, so you may desire to stop there and specifically look for one. But not to innately be able to see a trap just because you've seen them before.
|
|
How I run it, without trap Spotter, you get no passive check. After all if you do anything else, you're giving out for free what you are requiring your rogue-like to take for them to have it.Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus.Do you really think spotting traps is not included under 'most perception checks'? Just because there appears to be a redundant feat/ability doesn't mean the rules don't provide for passive perception checks to spot traps.
Also, you don't necessarily have to search every 5' square unless you want to minimize distance penalties. Perception checks have the potential to notice anything in your field of view, with appropriate distance and circumstance modifiers.
Picking and choosing what you want to quote doesn't change the rules.
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
And honestly, a small hole in a wall, or a thin piece of wire across a jungle floor are barely even what I would call stimuli. Generally Stimulus is something that changes or has an active quality. A sound, a flashing light, something moving. Otherwise you would never have to search for anything because you are always being stimulated by it's passive presence.
Ok, so you make your GM decide that if it's a DC 25 check to find a trap then spotting the hole in the wall 20' away that is going to have an arrow shot through it is a DC 35 perception check. So now you've spotted the hole.. You still don't get to automatically make a perception check to see the tile on the floor that looks exactly like every other tile, but has a pressure plate buried beneath it. That takes trapspotter or actively searching to notice that the grout around that tile while there, isn't actually connected to the tile itself, 'so this tile must be free moving.. maybe I shouldn't step there.'
Outside of the 10' range for trap spotter, I've never seen a distance that you can be from a trap to do a perception check for the trap.
When actively searching it is whatever range you want to, just remember there is a -1 to perception per 10' distance in most cases.
I give a reactive check as well, when they are at the trap. A rogue with Trap Spotter would be able to warn someone since they get that check when within 10' of the trap rather than right at it. If you have a +15 to Perception, you are likely to notice that arrow trap (CR1, CRB pg. 420) almost every time.
If you don't give the perception check, doesn't that make a CR1 trap a greater danger to a 5th level adventurer than a CR1 creature?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player: "I take 10 on every corridor, room and doors."
GM: "How high is your perception?"
Player: "+8"
GM: "Alright" *checks if there are any traps or secret doors with DC 19 or higher, and take note of those*.
GM "You spotted a trap right before that door!" or "the floor disapeared, roll reflex"