Fei-Hung, apparently, we're assuming a 5-foot-wide corridor, so you can't have two characters abreast, both searching. Let's say that my party is missing a roguish sort, but the dwarven monk genially steps up and says, "I'll look for traps." No Trap Spotter, of course, which would have let the party move at the slowest member's pace for one move action/round. Still, why would we need initiative?
Our monk goes in the lead, and may search and take a 5-foot step every round. I suppose everyone behind the monk could chime in and say, "I'm searching for secret openings." They're all moving slowly enough. Me, I'd rather have someone watching for enemies sneaking up...
|
Fei-Hung, apparently, we're assuming a 5-foot-wide corridor, so you can't have two characters abreast, both searching. Let's say that my party is missing a roguish sort, but the dwarven monk genially steps up and says, "I'll look for traps." No Trap Spotter, of course, which would have let the party move at the slowest member's pace for one move action/round. Still, why would we need initiative?
Our monk goes in the lead, and may search and take a 5-foot step every round. I suppose everyone behind the monk could chime in and say, "I'm searching for secret openings." They're all moving slowly enough. Me, I'd rather have someone watching for enemies sneaking up...
Staying in initiative would not matter for this type of searching, but this would only be taking a move action and a 5' step every round. you'd asked about being able to take 2 move actions, or a search and full move type scenario, for that it would need to stay in initiative just to remain in that 'turn based' mode. if everyone acts at the same time you can't search areas further ahead from what you've already cleared, at least not if you're requiring to be next to the spot you're searching.
|
|
One doesn't contradict the other. If I'm suspicious of a certain area, but didn't notice anything with a passive check, I can start making active checks to make sure I didn't miss anything.
There are no rules that say you don't get passive perception checks for traps. Now, if there is actually nothing to notice with a passive check (usually sight), that's another thing entirely. If you don't have line of sight to a trap while standing in the doorway, for example.
Why would it be DC 35?
And maybe the pressure plate doesn't look exactly like the other plates, it might have a slight offset in height, there might be less wear from traffic, all 'barely' stimuli, but noticeable with an insanely high passive perception check.But again, play it your way and just accept the fact that the players will take move action perception checks every 5-10 feet or so. Can't see how that makes the game any better.
Without trap spotter, you don't get a passive check to spot a trap, you may potentially spot the signs that a trap may be present without trap spotter but that's not the same thing. If you're talking about passive perception for someone without trap spotter to see a trap then you're in the realm of homerules and nothing anyone, other than your GM, says has any actual bearing.
Other than Trap Spotter, there are no rules saying you DO get passive perception checks for traps. And even Trap spotter does NOT allow a take 10, it is a roll the GM makes in secret. To allow someone to just pump perception and say I'm passively searching for traps, I take 10 for 37 is all but eliminating any risk of traps, you may as well never put any in place. It would be like adding a monster for the party to fight, make him CR20 with tons of treasure but have him be lying unconscious when the party finds him. Coup De Gras? Grats, Here's your free loot!
As for why spotting the hole across the hall would be dc 35, I'm not saying that IS what the DC would be, merely that the GM would have to figure out what the DC for some random subset of the trap would be under those conditions. 35 was as good of an example as anything.
You're absolutely right, MAYBE the pressure plate doesn't look like all the other floor tiles, MAYBE there's a torch behind the wall where the crossbows are set to shoot from lighting up the hole in the wall, MAYBE you're trying to say that since anything is possible why isn't it easier for me to spot a trap even when I haven't invested in the specific ability that has been added to the game for people to spot traps! For every MAYBE that something can be one way, it can also be the other. MAYBE there's 100 years of dust over everything so any of these faint differences in the environment are hidden away under a thick layer of dust.
Actually when I play it my way, the players choose to take risks and enjoy the game, occasionally they actually HIT a trap and are effected by it, and have to react accordingly. They take the time to actively search for traps where they think a trap would logically be. And quite honestly we have more fun when they encounter a trap, and a LOT more fun when they actually suspect a trap somewhere and find that they were right and it is trapped, than simply being told "As you walk down the hall you noticed a raised piece of floor that looks like it might be a pressure plate." make some rolls, do some checks, Yep, it was a trap, you all take 10 and jump over it, continuing on...
The game should be about working together to defeat the challenges posed against you, not a scorecard tally. "Well guys you did good, but you didn't spot EVERY trap before you triggered it, I'm gonna have to dock your exp/loot."
|
|
Holy crap that sounds tedious.
It absolutely is, that's why no one does it! In the event a party is so paranoid about traps they actually want to take the time to search every square before they move onto it, then that takes an excessive amount of time as the search every square before moving. So moving down a 30' long hallway takes a couple minutes (taking 10), rather than 6 seconds.
The way we play trapfinding:
In my group we always ask for march order, so the first one/two who walk ahead decide if they are searching actively for traps/secrets or not.
If they do, they have a check when needed, but the group speed is halved. You can always hurry up them if needed, like chasing them with periodic patrols, remembering them about that captive the BBG has, etc, or just take note of the time they are investing on the place for later uses.
If they decide to not search actively, well, then they wont free-spot the traps except for the obvious ones, like a bunch of bones over a burned piece of corridor behind a big pipe in the cellar. Usually the will trigger the traps and ignore secrets.
Trap Spotter (or similar talents) prevent them for doing that active search, so they can move at normal speed, and the PJ with the "talent" can check to find traps/secrets at 10' or less (Traps at 15' or more get triggered normally if thats the way it works)
We have never had any problems with this. If players make the game slow because X, DM always have tools to hurry up them. If DM slows the game... well, that should not happen. Dont bore your players with unnecessary rolls.
Its all about make the game something funny for everyone. If a mechanic doesnt work well for your group ignore it, or houserule it to make the game dinamic and fun.
Hope it helps.
To further clarify/muddy the subject:
James Jacobs clarified the trap spotter topic back in 2012, and indirectly clarified on the perception topic.
The trap spotter talent lets a rogue make a perception check to notice ALL traps he comes wihtin range of. Normally, you have to tell the GM that you're looking for traps.Hi James!
Can you clue us GMs in on the intent behind the Trap Spotter rogue talent and normal perception rules? If a non-trap spotting PC gets within line of sight of a trap, do they get a "reactive" perception check? (Per the perception rule "Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus.") Or does a trap not count as a "stimulus" in that sense and any non-trap spotter will have to spend a move action to make an active perception check to search for traps? Would other hidden things (like stealthy creatures) work the same way, or different?
The problem with that is that if you're running a group with no trap spotter in a campaign containing any traps, the entire concept has a massively negative effect on the way sessions play.
You either end up with a situation where:
a) all traps are sprung on the party - boom.
b) the party says the words "i check for traps" every room, or every 5ft square, and you end up having to note how long these extensive searches are taking and throwing additional wandering encounters at them.
c) you house-rule offering players passive perception
Since the house-rule involves a feel of not punishing players for having no rogue, and still allows traps to exist: its a good fit for many people.
I also remember reading a post/discussion somewhere (might have been a paizo dev, might not?) that traps should always present some sort of clue to players to indicate that the perception check should be actively called for: chests are obvious candidates, but signposting "this is a significant gateway/apparatus" in order to gently precipitate checks from your players can be a good way to handle it.
---
But the underlying issue here is thus: the rules feel like they only cater to a certain playstyle (rogue with trap spotter in party) and there's not enough guidance/rules for how to approach the grey area between actively searching for a trap, and setting it off.
There's also the related element that setting DCs for things in pre-written modules is really difficult: as you either need to go "trap heavy" and have scaling DCs, or "all traps are pretty easy" to make them accessible to all comers.
|
I use the 30 x 24 maps for PFS. Most maps fit on 1 some are as big as 2.
30sqr X 24sqr x 6s / 60s/min = 72min
This is the amount of in game to to check a very large map. It would take 24h of in game time to take 20 to search every square. This, I would liken to the first sweep of an archaeological servey.
Based on these times it seems easiest to let people pick there strategy (not checking, checking/taking ten, taking 20) have a few fake rolls between traps (if you don't trust your players to not meta-game) then have have roll at the traps..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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).
Ok, I cannot take credit for this idea - it was posted in a thread ages ago but I will try to pass the concept along...
Reduce the entire situation to this:
Is the lead PC searching for traps (active) or not (passive)?. Then you just say the party is moving along really slowly and carefully (actively looking) or at a walking pace (passively looking).
Here is the fun part. You only need to roll IF there is a trap to be found. Think about it for a sec. If there is no trap, you can roll, but why? There is nothing to find. Rolling every 5 feet, 10 feet, per room, hallway - is silly. No matter how high or low a player would roll (and no matter the passive perception number) there is just nothing to find. No roll needed.
You only need to worry about it when the party comes along a trap ... If the trap DC is over the passive number 'boom'. If it is under 'trap found'. Easy.
If the PC is actively searching - have them roll as they encounter the trap. Check over the DC= trap found. Under it= 'boom'. That's it. Works great.
the only way I've seen it is that active searching is moving at half speed. Move action move, move action search the next 30ft as the idea.
Thus traveling places just takes twice as long for buffs.
Yeah, but where in the rules does it say an active search is good for the next 30'? Does a move action active perception check assume you are standing still and looking, or moving and looking?
If you're standing still and looking, how do you spot a trap that's 20' away and hidden by cover until you get right up to it?
You know that Perception through a closed door is only +5 to the DC ya? So you hope that +7 to the DC (5 + 2 for being 20 ft. away) is still beatable. Or you move next to the cover and search. Or just shrug, soak the trap damage, tap with a CLW wand, and move on. People need to remember that Perception is all five senses, not just sight.
the limit to perception is just how far you trust your penalties. it's just the average movespeed of a party is 30ft, so making a new perception every 30ft gives you 1 check a round.
the assumption of standing still is the fact that it doesn't say you can do it while moving and actions can't be done during other action if they don't say you can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the limit to perception is just how far you trust your penalties. it's just the average movespeed of a party is 30ft, so making a new perception every 30ft gives you 1 check a round.
the assumption of standing still is the fact that it doesn't say you can do it while moving and actions can't be done during other action if they don't say you can.Naturally. I don't question your interpretation of the rules, I just question the verisimilitude of walking 30', stopping to look around, walking 30', stopping to look around...
instead of looking around while you're walking.
It's, frankly, dumb, and therefore should at least be house ruled.
Since it all happens as part of the same round you could choose to describe it as looking around while walking and I would be OK with that. I personally picture 30 ft. Move + Perception Check like trained room clearing, which fits well with my groups preferred SWAT style adventuring.
IIRC, previous editions of D&D had a rule that searching for traps took a full-round action and only applied to a single 5' square.(*) As far as I can tell in Pathfinder, there's no such rule. So, a character can stand at one end of a 50' corridor and search the whole thing for traps, with the caveat that their check is slightly less accurate the further away they are from the trap.
(*) I know to modern players this sounds incredibly tedious, but that's just how we did it--with graph paper, square by square mapping, etc.
Ok, I cannot take credit for this idea - it was posted in a thread ages ago but I will try to pass the concept along...
Reduce the entire situation to this:
Is the lead PC searching for traps (active) or not (passive)?. Then you just say the party is moving along really slowly and carefully (actively looking) or at a walking pace (passively looking).
Here is the fun part. You only need to roll IF there is a trap to be found. Think about it for a sec. If there is no trap, you can roll, but why? There is nothing to find. Rolling every 5 feet, 10 feet, per room, hallway - is silly. No matter how high or low a player would roll (and no matter the passive perception number) there is just nothing to find. No roll needed.
You only need to worry about it when the party comes along a trap ... If the trap DC is over the passive number 'boom'. If it is under 'trap found'. Easy.
If the PC is actively searching - have them roll as they encounter the trap....
While this works, it only works for groups of players who aren't asshats and don't metagame the time saving device into a form of trap detection. Otherwise, you get this:
GM: "OK, roll Perception."
Player: "A natural 1, for a total of 6."
GM: "OK, you see nothing in particular. Continue."
Player: "OK, I have a bad feeling about this door. We all gather round and examine it again. I want to roll Perception."
GM: "You just did. You failed. You see nothing in particular."
Player: "I take 20. If I still find nothing, I send the rest of the party to the end of the corridor, then cautiously poke the door open with a 10 foot pole, after taking a defensive stance, etc..."
Good players will merely open the door and continue on with a boom. Bad players will argue that they didn't open the door, the GM is seizing control of their character, they want rerolls, etc, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is what I do:
If the party isn't in a hurry, or much of one, then I usually just have them notice the trap - or something odd that may lead to them discovering the trap. This leads to the party handling it much like an encounter. It also allows for particularly vicious traps, since they usually won't actually go off on someone, but adds to the drama.
If the party is in combat, or running from something on the clock, then they have a passing chance to see it using perception, most times with a penalty unless they have trapsense or trapfinding of some sort.
I do that, because in the end, doing it any other way just results in ridiculousness.
With that, I either encourage Rogues to take archetypes that trade out the trap abilities, or put more traps in the game that they find. And, I let that bonus onto anything that deals with a trap or potential one.
I've played table-top games for so long, if I have to go through one more dungeon where we do the obligatory "scanning" step every 30 feet and in front of every door, I'm going to lose my mind.
I've gone as far as never really having the group search anything (by way of a perceptions check, I mean). This alleviates the paranoia that sets in after realizing something was missed once. And, it's usually because the party just forgot to say "we search the room". You can say what you want about tough love, that's just a downer on the whole table.
|
Ok, I cannot take credit for this idea - it was posted in a thread ages ago but I will try to pass the concept along...
Reduce the entire situation to this:
Is the lead PC searching for traps (active) or not (passive)?. Then you just say the party is moving along really slowly and carefully (actively looking) or at a walking pace (passively looking).
Here is the fun part. You only need to roll IF there is a trap to be found. Think about it for a sec. If there is no trap, you can roll, but why? There is nothing to find. Rolling every 5 feet, 10 feet, per room, hallway - is silly. No matter how high or low a player would roll (and no matter the passive perception number) there is just nothing to find. No roll needed.
You only need to worry about it when the party comes along a trap ... If the trap DC is over the passive number 'boom'. If it is under 'trap found'. Easy.
If the PC is actively searching - have them roll as they encounter the trap....
I'd do the same, but with the addition of some redundant dice, to muddy the issue, and prevent meta knowledge, i.e. "He rolled in the right passage, but not the left. That means there was definitely nothing in the left passage...".
For rooms where there's several items/areas of interest, I'll throw a handful of dice of differing colours, but will have decided beforehand which one(s) I'm ignoring, and which are for real dangers or phenomena.
The players don't know how many potential things there were to find.
Same for a corridor; if there's enough space to warrant several checks, I'll roll them all together, or in batches, knowing the order they apply (dark die to light, or rainbow ROYGBIV, depending on what dice are to hand), and ignore those for uninteresting squares.
The search takes the same amount of game time, but the real time resolution is a hundred times faster. And that's what we want, since we're all adults with jobs and families, and we'd like to be home before midnight.
|
|
You know that Perception through a closed door is only +5 to the DC ya? So you hope that +7 to the DC (5 + 2 for being 20 ft. away) is still beatable. Or you move next to the cover and search. Or just shrug, soak the trap damage, tap with a CLW wand, and move on. People need to remember that Perception is all five senses, not just sight.Yeah, but where in the rules does it say an active search is good for the next 30'? Does a move action active perception check assume you are standing still and looking, or moving and looking?
If you're standing still and looking, how do you spot a trap that's 20' away and hidden by cover until you get right up to it?
Halt, I smell the blood of past adventures and the sound of a flea walking on a taunt bowstring.