| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I don't know how this is being contested.
We're in the rules forum, the rules are clear, you must actively search for traps unless you have a special talent or an active spell that says otherwise. All this other nonsense about high perception scores should go to the home brew section.
Yeah I don't know how this is being contested.
We're in the rules forum, the rules are clear, you must actively search for traps unless you have a special talent or an active spell that says otherwise. All this other nonsense about high perception scores should go to the home brew section.
Please show where in the rules it says that. Otherwise you are the one with the house rule.
Ozy, you're conflating two things. Seeing better over great distances doesn't necessarily mean you're better at spotting things up close. They're consolidated into the same skill, but they don't do the same thing. Say I have a Perception so high I can look 200 feet ahead. That just means I have very sharp eyes, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm very aware of my immediate surroundings, just that your eyesight doesn't drop as sharply. If you can look at that distance with binoculars, you might still miss something that's important, simply because you don't know what you're looking for.
And for what it's worth, I'd say a bear trap openly displayed in a corridor isn't worth a Perception check because it's just as easily perceived as other furniture in the room. Sure, it's hazardous, but I wouldn't award XP for defeating it, because it's easily spotted and avoided. A tripwire is an effective trap simply because it's so small to notice and it's easily concealed/blurs into the background. A tripwire is at least a Fine object. According to the Stealth rules, they get a +16 on Stealth (based on creatures, but you can say the same for objects). Assuming a DEX of 0 and taking 10, a small rope on the ground has a +21 on being spotted. And that's before you factor in actual attempts to hide it. A pressure plate would have about the same modifiers, and so on, and that's only because Pathfinder doesn't go smaller than that.
Simply put, you can't assume an object of a few millimitres in diameter is casually observable in a room that has more features in it.
Please show where in the rules it says that. Otherwise you are the one with the house rule.Yeah I don't know how this is being contested.
We're in the rules forum, the rules are clear, you must actively search for traps unless you have a special talent or an active spell that says otherwise. All this other nonsense about high perception scores should go to the home brew section.
I'll show the supporting text when I get home. If I don't do it within 12 hours feel free to inbox me and remind me.
There is nothing 'magical' about labeling some piece of equipment 'a trap' that makes it invisible to normal perception.
Except that's exactly what happens. You're just ignoring the rules because you believe a high modifier should change them.
If someone has a +20 to initiative they still don't get to automatically act in the surprise round.
|
Seriously, it's rather easy to pump up your perception mods with spells and such to be rocking a +40 or +50 perception modifier. This means you have the ability to notice at 400-500' what most people can notice right in front of their nose. And yet you can't notice the difference between a pressure plate and a normal cobblestone?
Why not?
People don't notice things right in front of their faces all the time. If you aren't looking for a trap, you may still notice an odd-looking cobblestone, but your brain doesn't care. It's just a cobblestone.
It's like an 'Eye Spy' book. You are perfectly capable of seeing all of the objects on the page, but you still have to take the time to look to find the needle, the thimble, and the button.
Taking onboard the text in Pathfinder Unchained, which does split noticing from searching, there still doesn't seem to be a big difference in actual gameplay.
One could play the entire game round-by-round but that would be slow and boring. So to speed up the game some assumptions are made. One of these is the movement rate, which outside of combat equates to 1 move action per round. The other assumption is that the character's are passively using the perception skill. Putting those assumptions to speed gameplay back into round-by-round activity we have a round consisting of:
Move Action 1 - Move the standard speed
Move Action 2 - Use the Perception skill
Why can't that 'Use the Perception skill' be used to search for traps without going to the tedium of playing the game round-by-round?
Personally I prefer to have a spot DC and a search DC, because I consider them different actions; but that is a houserule. Maybe adding +10 DC for spotting (+5 for terrible conditions and +5 for distracted) something that could be searched for would fit.
As a side note, I don't consider taking 1/2 a round (3 seconds) to examine a 10 foot square to be a search. It's little more than a glance.
Taking onboard the text in Pathfinder Unchained, which does split noticing from searching, there still doesn't seem to be a big difference in actual gameplay.
One could play the entire game round-by-round but that would be slow and boring. So to speed up the game some assumptions are made. One of these is the movement rate, which outside of combat equates to 1 move action per round. The other assumption is that the character's are passively using the perception skill. Putting those assumptions to speed gameplay back into round-by-round activity we have a round consisting of:
Move Action 1 - Move the standard speed
Move Action 2 - Use the Perception skillWhy can't that 'Use the Perception skill' be used to search for traps without going to the tedium of playing the game round-by-round?
Personally I prefer to have a spot DC and a search DC, because I consider them different actions; but that is a houserule. Maybe adding +10 DC for spotting (+5 for terrible conditions and +5 for distracted) something that could be searched for would fit.
As a side note, I don't consider taking 1/2 a round (3 seconds) to examine a 10 foot square to be a search. It's little more than a glance.
Because if you're taking an action every round for each 10' square you cover, you can't move your normal 30' per round.
Well, you could, but you'd only be checking one of the 3 10' squares for traps, so the others could still blow you up.
Well with a party of 4, they could cover all the squares and we're starting to get into the turn based mechanics breaking the simulation.
Alternatively, with a 20' move rate you could cover 2 10' squares. Except that the next rebuttal will be that you have to move into the square first. That of course raises the question about how you search for the trap before triggering it if you have to move into the square before searching it.
The unchained book replaces the normal action types with a new system.
"Search: You use Perception to search a room for salient hidden creatures or clues, or you make a detailed search of a 10-foot-square area to detect traps, triggers, hidden objects, or footprints. When you search an area, this action has the complex subtype."
Now one could argue that perception alone got modified by forcing it to not allow a free action for trap checks.
However there is this:
If Paizo wants us to choose a certain area such as a 90 degree section of our vision* then they need to specifically state it.
While the other designers have told me it was an omission, we certainly need to state it and rectify the omission, to prevent the confusion that has led to the current state of affairs. In my mind, Unchained is a good start. I'll try to get it up on the FAQ for a wider audience as well!
Now you see intent, but officially it has still has not had an FAQ.
From here people will have to decide to follow the spoken intent or ignore it.
The above post was on a too about whether the unchained book rules were correct about only covering a 10 ft area. Mark was saying they were completely correct.
Seriously, it's rather easy to pump up your perception mods with spells and such to be rocking a +40 or +50 perception modifier. This means you have the ability to notice at 400-500' what most people can notice right in front of their nose. And yet you can't notice the difference between a pressure plate and a normal cobblestone?
Why not?
People don't notice things right in front of their faces all the time. If you aren't looking for a trap, you may still notice an odd-looking cobblestone, but your brain doesn't care. It's just a cobblestone.
It's like an 'Eye Spy' book. You are perfectly capable of seeing all of the objects on the page, but you still have to take the time to look to find the needle, the thimble, and the button.
You don't know anyone with a +25 perception, so when you say 'people don't notice things right in front of their faces all the time', I respond with 'people don't cast fireballs either'.
High perception mods, in the +25-+35 range, are basically super-human abilities. Like Sherlock Holmes on cocaine with cybernetic eyes, or something.
You keep using that argument, but it has as little evidence as our arguments. Let's reverse it: We don't have proof it works like that, that's right, but you don't have proof it doesn't work like that, either. A hole in the rules can't be solved with a simple "it doesn't say it works like that, so it doesn't," because the inverse is true as well.
|
|
Seriously, it's rather easy to pump up your perception mods with spells and such to be rocking a +40 or +50 perception modifier. This means you have the ability to notice at 400-500' what most people can notice right in front of their nose. And yet you can't notice the difference between a pressure plate and a normal cobblestone?
Why not?
People don't notice things right in front of their faces all the time. If you aren't looking for a trap, you may still notice an odd-looking cobblestone, but your brain doesn't care. It's just a cobblestone.
It's like an 'Eye Spy' book. You are perfectly capable of seeing all of the objects on the page, but you still have to take the time to look to find the needle, the thimble, and the button.
You don't know anyone with a +25 perception, so when you say 'people don't notice things right in front of their faces all the time', I respond with 'people don't cast fireballs either'.
High perception mods, in the +25-+35 range, are basically super-human abilities. Like Sherlock Holmes on cocaine with cybernetic eyes, or something.
Way to respond only to my first sentence and totally miss the point.
Sadly, I've met GMs who were totally convinced that you could not make a Perception check to search unless you were either moving through the area in question, or else interacting with the object--either of which usually set off the trap if it was of the appropriate kind.
For example, a section of floor that electrocutes you as per shocking grasp? You don't get the check until you move into the area. Congrats you found the trap. You also just got electrocuted.
You don't see the poison needle in the trapped drawer because it was on the inside of the drawer (no line of sight, no line of effect). You need to open the drawer or otherwise manipulate it to reveal the poisoned needle, which generally means you risk getting poked.
I had one GM withold critical campaign information from the players because it was behind a door we had opened. Even though we searched the room, no one said they looked behind the door, or that they closed it again, so we never got a check to "see" the critical clue. By the end of that game, we were all so thoroughly confused and lost that the GM confessed to withholding the information (which he claimed was our own fault).
Whether you have to move into a 10' square to search it is a different question and a tricky one.
And when GMing, your ruling is?
As I've said previously my ruling, which may not be RAW but I believe to be consistent and fair is that:
Each character gets a perception check just before the trap goes off / just as they pass the secret door / etc depending on the situation. If a character states they are searching an area then I often have a separate DC to take into account they are actively looking. I also encourage the players to say where they are looking, e.g. in the wardrobe, under the bed etc - I would hate it (and it doesn't happen in my campaign) if a player were to say I walk into the room and take 20 on search, what do I find.
It may well be that in making my ruling I have made some feats or abilities worthless, but the group is having fun and that is the main thing.
_Oyz_: I agree with you.
wraithstrike: Yep, it seems that from what Mark said, it's not currently a rule. So passive trapfinding is the current RAW but they are thinking of FAQing it.
I don't think much more than that needs said.
Passive trap finding isn't the current raw.
Otherwise racial abilities like stone cunning, rogue talent trap spotting, and the spell find traps are all nonsense.
Passive trap finding isn't the current raw.
Otherwise racial abilities like stone cunning, rogue talent trap spotting, and the spell find traps are all nonsense.
Not even close to true. Those abilities give a second check, essentially a re-roll. Are you saying re-roll abilities are useless?
Not even close to true. Those abilities give a second check, essentially a re-roll. Are you saying re-roll abilities are useless?Passive trap finding isn't the current raw.
Otherwise racial abilities like stone cunning, rogue talent trap spotting, and the spell find traps are all nonsense.
That's not what they say they do. It would be a second check if you're not actively looking, and a third check if you are (1 for walking within 10 feet, one for the passive perception and 1 for looking)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The phase searching for traps is keyed throughout the Pathfinder rule set. Take a look at the deathteap ooze whose ability makes no sense with your interpretation, or look at the sift spell, or the before mentioned rogue talent, or read this post from the creative director . The mountain of evidence and text all point to requiring a search action to find traps.
You're not understanding the historical context that Pathfinder was built out of 3.5 and includes several differences, omissions and distinctions. If memory serves 3.X had a separate search skill check as opposed to Pathfinder's consolidated spot check.
Ozy, you're conflating two things. Seeing better over great distances doesn't necessarily mean you're better at spotting things up close. They're consolidated into the same skill, but they don't do the same thing.In fact it does exactly necessarily mean that because, as you note, they are consolidated into the same skill. If you ask a Pathfinder to roll a skill to see how well they pick out close-up detail, guess what skill they roll? Perception. And guess how well someone with a +25 perception can pick out such detail? You can't, because you have absolutely no reference point.
Again, shouting that I'm wrong doesn't necessarily mean you're right. I was just saying that "far-sight" and attentiveness to details don't fall under the same skill, but do in Pathfinder. Yes, bringing in real life might have been a mistake, but that also means your "you don't know what it is to have a +25 to Perception" also doesn't fly. I'm willing to concede that I may not have been right, but that doesn't automatically mean you are.
And for what it's worth, I'd say a bear trap openly displayed in a corridor isn't worth a Perception check because it's just as easily perceived as other furniture in the room. Sure, it's hazardous, but I wouldn't award XP for defeating it, because it's easily spotted and avoided.Ok, now what if the bear trap had a custom paint job to try and blend in? Say a DC 5? Still can't 'perceive' it without an active search? And so on... There has to be some level of 'hidden' where you say an object, trap or not, can't be passively perceived. And in my view, that threshold is whether it is in your line of sight, or it is not.
There is nothing else that makes sense from a self-consistency standpoint.
I'm going to stop splitting hairs over this. We're not going to convince each other to adopt our own point of view. I find "passive" Perceptions a stupid thing, you don't. Here's my take: if anything's not in direct line of sight, however badly it is covered up, you can't see it "for free," unless it's really obviously concealed. However, if a player says "I'm going to search the room," I'll give them whatever information I think they can easily find without them having to roll a d20.
Wait, so you don't let people make passive perception checks for anything with a DC of 20 or higher?A tripwire is an effective trap simply because it's so small to notice and it's easily concealed/blurs into the background. A tripwire is at least a Fine object. According to the Stealth rules, they get a +16 on Stealth (based on creatures, but you can say the same for objects). Assuming a DEX of 0 and taking 10, a small rope on the ground has a +21 on being spotted. And that's before you factor in actual attempts to hide it. A pressure plate would have about the same modifiers, and so on, and that's only because Pathfinder doesn't go smaller than that.
Simply put, you can't assume an object of a few millimitres in diameter is casually observable in a room that has more features in it.
No, that was just an example of why things might be more difficult to spot than you'd think.
You keep using that argument, but it has as little evidence as our arguments. Let's reverse it: We don't have proof it works like that, that's right, but you don't have proof it doesn't work like that, either. A hole in the rules can't be solved with a simple "it doesn't say it works like that, so it doesn't," because the inverse is true as well.Seriously, it's rather easy to pump up your perception mods with spells and such to be rocking a +40 or +50 perception modifier. This means you have the ability to notice at 400-500' what most people can notice right in front of their nose. And yet you can't notice the difference between a pressure plate and a normal cobblestone?
Why not?
People don't notice things right in front of their faces all the time. If you aren't looking for a trap, you may still notice an odd-looking cobblestone, but your brain doesn't care. It's just a cobblestone.
It's like an 'Eye Spy' book. You are perfectly capable of seeing all of the objects on the page, but you still have to take the time to look to find the needle, the thimble, and the button.
You don't know anyone with a +25 perception, so when you say 'people don't notice things right in front of their faces all the time', I respond with 'people don't cast fireballs either'.
High perception mods, in the +25-+35 range, are basically super-human abilities. Like Sherlock Holmes on cocaine with cybernetic eyes, or something.
? I'm using the rules. The rules give a perception DC. If my passive perception beats that DC, I notice it.
That's the rule.
You're the one trying to sidestep that rule by trying to bring in 'real world' arguments about how people can see but not 'notice' things.
If my character has a +100 perception modifier, he notices things, passively, that have a DC30 check. Even if he's distracted (+5), even if it's 50' away (+5) even if it's raining (terrible...
There is no "passive perception" rule, just what you make of it. All we have to go on here are our own interpretations, and they might vary from person to person. I believe we've already demonstrated we won't be able to convince each other of our own point of view, but I'll just clarify myself:
"Passive perception" for me entails what you'd notice without putting in any effort. Room features, scent, all those sort of things. Is something immediately dangerous to you when you're surveying an area. Is there a troll swinging a club at my face? This is all without any dice rolls or modifiers."Active perception" involves dice rolls. This is a state of conscious awareness. Here, that "Sherlock-vision" might apply, assessing every single element in a certain space for its possible use.
As you said, I have no idea how an insanely perceptive person works, but as I said, I also don't have proof he doesn't work like that, so here we go anyway: you're not going to tell me that a person with high Perception is at the peak of his awareness at all times, that's why it's called "passive." He might notice more things, but not everything within that two-second moment. He can't solve a "Where's Wally?" puzzle from across a 20-foot room, see three people hiding behind objects, the hidden treasure pile in the corner, and the tripwire right in front of him all in the same two seconds.
Again, this is my interpretation and you have yours. Neither of us is actually supported by the rules, so I'm going to leave it at that and stop this argument.
The only difference might be that someone is always looking out for stuff (and really, why wouldn't he?), which is a reasonable explanation, but mentally exhausting. If your player says "I'm going to watch out for traps all throughout this dungeon," I'll expect they'll go a lot slower, and fatigue creeping in. Hyperawareness is tough to keep up for a long time, but in return I'll let them automatically spot things I think they'll either find important or think they have a good shot at of noticing automatically. There, you have your compromise, you happy?
The phase searching for traps is keyed throughout the Pathfinder rule set. Take a look at the deathteap ooze whose ability makes no sense with your interpretation, or look at the sift spell, or the before mentioned rogue talent, or read this post from the creative director . The mountain of evidence and text all point to requiring a search action to find traps.
You're not understanding the historical context that Pathfinder was built out of 3.5 and includes several differences, omissions and distinctions. If memory serves 3.X had a separate search skill check as opposed to Pathfinder's consolidated spot check.
If you look through trap abilities, you'll see :find, locate, search, spotting, and locate. So searching isn't the 'go to' term for traps abilities.
|
Explain this:
Creatures that succeed on a Perception check detect a trap before it is triggered.Does that sound like something you need an action to use to 'search' for a trap?
Yes, since it doesn't say "creatures receive a Perception check to detect the trap before it is triggered". Since there is no rule saying a free check is granted, an action must be used.