A DC doesn't mean hidden. "Notice a visible creature" has a DC 0 meaning someone with a wisdom of 7 and no ranks can literally not see a person in front of them: That, however doesn't mean that person is hidden in any way.
You are forgetting the d20 roll. There is a 1 in 20 chance that the wisdom 7 person won't see the person standing in front of them.
Ever get surprised by someone just standing there?
A DC of 20 is, like a secret door, "disguised" or hidden from normal perception. Requires an active search.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like as a writing concern, you should really only put traps (and secret doors, and other things you need active perception to find) in contexts where there's something else interesting going on that the PCs would want to look at.
The FAQ absolutely puts you in a bind (unless you just ignore it) in the context where the PCs are traveling a long ways overland and there's a cleverly hidden trap (and nothing else of interest) in the road somewhere along the way. After all, most GMs are going to only stop "you travel for n hours..." to narrate some point of interest. If the only point of interest is the trap, then stopping in the middle of nowhere to ask the players what they do is going to make anybody with any genre savviness that they need to start looking around.
So absolutely you can screw over the PCs with poorly written trap scenarios taking the FAQ to its literal extreme, but as a matter of good GMing I think this puts the onus on the GM to write better trap scenarios. After all, if you tell the party there's a rug in the room, they might decide to look underneath it, and if you affix a note and something shiny to a tree, someone in the party might think "well, that's suspicious..." Giving them the opportunity to decide to look under the rug or askance at the suspicious thing as a precursor to rolling perception seems like a sensible way to adjudicate this in practice.
A DC doesn't mean hidden. "Notice a visible creature" has a DC 0 meaning someone with a wisdom of 7 and no ranks can literally not see a person in front of them: That, however doesn't mean that person is hidden in any way.
You are forgetting the d20 roll. There is a 1 in 20 chance that the wisdom 7 person won't see the person standing in front of them.
Ever get surprised by someone just standing there?
A DC of 20 is, like a secret door, "disguised" or hidden from normal perception. Requires an active search.
By YOUR definition of hidden, it's having a DC assigned. That means a DC 0 qualifies. A DC 20 is in no way different than a 0 is it's inherent ability to be 'hidden'. If I'm asleep and someone walks by, that's a DC 20 and nothing is hidden. Hear a bow being drawn is DC 25 and that can be right in front of you. DC if how hard it is to notice but by itself gives no information on WHY it's hard. This also ignores the fact that PC are inhuman in this game. How 'hidden/concealed' is a DC 15/20 to someone that has a +50 perception? Where is the cut off between hidden and not and does level of perception factor in?
So absolutely you can screw over the PCs with poorly written trap scenarios taking the FAQ to its literal extreme, but as a matter of good GMing I think this puts the onus on the GM to write better trap scenarios.
My worry is more the inexperienced DM, not the Dm that's out to get you.
I actually think there are intended to be no modifiers for trap perception. In the Ultimate Intrigue rules all the modifiers are attached to the "Notice" section of the rules. Search has none. Strongly implying that (as in 3.5) you can't search at a distance.A "concealed" door is a DC of 15 -- which in it's name means it's hidden in some manner.
A DC of 20 presumes effort to hide. There are always circumstance modifiers available to modify a DC of anything.
Are you implying that everything that requires a Perception check with DC 15 or higher is "concealed"?
Because that is absurd.
Nope. Sometimes it's just a matter of size, distance, lighting, color etc...
I'm not talking modifiers to perception, which incidentally contradicts your "there are no rules for modifiers to the trap perception DC, btw.
If there are no modifiers that that means nothing for distracted, Favorable and unfavorable conditions [bright light, torchlight or moonlight, candlelight], distracted, invisible, dazzled, shaken, panicked and sickened. Somehow it doesn't make sense not to add those modifiers, like looking for traps with a candle.
You mean like someone using stealth...which you get a passive perception check to detect?
No. The one using stealth is a creature with a certain skill value in stealth vs your skill in perception.
The other is an object that has been deliberately hidden/disguised that has a static DC to find based on how it's built.
Not the same, not comparable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, are you trying to tell me that someone using stealth to hide themselves for an ambush is not considered 'hidden'?O.o
No, someone using stealth to hide is different than a trap. Both are hidden, one is using his own skill to hide, the other is deliberately disguised by their maker so as to go unnoticed.
One is a variable DC, the other is static. One allows passive perception, the other, active.
Not the same.
You mean like someone using stealth...which you get a passive perception check to detect?No. The one using stealth is a creature with a certain skill value in stealth vs your skill in perception.
The other is an object that has been deliberately hidden/disguised that has a static DC to find based on how it's built.
Not the same, not comparable.
Um, are you trying to tell me that someone using stealth to hide themselves for an ambush is not considered 'hidden'?
O.o
Wait, did we get Hidden as a new status for hiding in one of the FAQs. I remember they were going to change stealth rules.
Because on is using Stealth to hide but his intrinsic state is normally detectable/visible, the other is hidden by design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, did we get Hidden as a new status for hiding in one of the FAQs. I remember they were going to change stealth rules.
You mean like someone using stealth...which you get a passive perception check to detect?No. The one using stealth is a creature with a certain skill value in stealth vs your skill in perception.
The other is an object that has been deliberately hidden/disguised that has a static DC to find based on how it's built.
Not the same, not comparable.
Um, are you trying to tell me that someone using stealth to hide themselves for an ambush is not considered 'hidden'?
O.o
Some have claimed, with NO proof, that having a DC to perception means that something is hidden and being hidden means that you MUST search for it. This is in an attempt to claim that an obvious uncovered pit trap isn't a trap even though it's listed as a trap in the trap section of the PRD.
I think what most of them were saying was that a Bear-trap with a Perception DC20 was obviously a hidden bear trap, not just a bear trap lying in the middle of a corridor. Things that are not hidden, like that DC 0 uncovered pit, should not be considered Traps, even if erroneously listed as a Trap in a module. A thing only earns Trap status if it's sufficiently well hidden that you wouldn't spot it if you weren't actively looking for it.
Matthew Downie: The bear trap has a DC of 15 and not 20. Now that comes as a base when you buy the trap. No place does the item require any kind of roll to hide it/use it. No other materials are listed as required. it's a trap no matter where it's placed.
Secondly, uncovered pit traps are listed under traps in the PRD.
third, hidden is in fact NOT a requirement for a trap. The games lists traps with a DC of 15 OR LOWER for a reason. In fact, the trap section explains the use of unhidden pits: "Uncovered pits and natural chasms serve mainly to discourage intruders from going a certain way, although they cause much grief to characters who stumble into them in the dark, and they can greatly complicate nearby melee." Sadly, with the FAQ those uncovered holes no longer "discourage intruders from going a certain way" as they'll never see them. The Perception DC is "how hard it is to spot before it goes off" and not "how well hidden it is".
My question to you is this: What is the DC cutoff for something being hidden? DC 10? DC 12? DC 8? DC 5? When does the DC drop to where it's not "obviously a hidden bear trap"? And where does it describe what's obvious and what is not? Then think of this: you say DC20 is obviously hidden but does that hold true to the person that has more than a 20 bonus to perception? To a +25 perception it's an automatic roll for the 'visible creature' of DC 0 or to "Sense a burrowing creature underneath you" of DC 25. If you don't have to roll to make the check is it really hidden?
Low DC traps exist in theory but they're certainly not common.
DC 20 bear trap was from this source.
Presumably it's not the DC that is a cut off. It's the lack of an observable stimulus that you can see without looking for it, if you're not a trap spotter. A poison needle in a lock that's DC20 to find even if you're specifically searching for it wouldn't realistically be DC20 to spot merely by standing in the same room.
So, are there things that are DC5 to find if you're looking for them, but impossible to find if you aren't? Actually, now that I think about it, if you're specifically looking for traps in a 10 by 10 area, then finding a trap hidden beneath a rug ought to be trivial. If I searched for traps in the floor with a perception skill of +8 and missed the enormous pit I'd be pretty annoyed...
OK, I'm still not sure what the best house rule is here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are WAY overthinking the issue.
|
Quote from a post of mine on another Traps/Perception thread...
The players (and the GM is a player of the game too) need to sit down together and determine a procedure for how traps are dealt with in the game. There is enough YMMV in the Perception rules as it is, enough differences in the perception of rules on Perception, that the best way to reduce "hard feelings" would be to work out how the rules work - and stick with that.
The players perceive the game thru the GM - the GM provides the players with what they see/hear/feel/etc. and they need to be "talking the same language"... or problems will occur.
Clearly, many of the posters on this tread are not "talking the same language"...
Matthew Downie:
I looked on the actual PRD [in multiple sections]: bear trap bear trap 2
Low DC traps: DC 15 and 12 are in listed in official sources. I'm sure there's more in modules and such. And why does how common low DC trap matter? They exist and function under the rules. If no trap was expected to be under DC 15, because it would be 'hidden with low DC, that why put 15 and lower on the chart?
As to "things that are DC5 to find if you're looking for them, but impossible to find if you aren't?", well traps can rely on environmental factors to 'hide' it. For instance, a pit in a fog covered room is hard to find for some but when you have the ability to see through fog it's just a pit. Same with a dark room and bringing a bright light. I see NO reason the trap has to become immune to non-searching perception.
"OK, I'm still not sure what the best house rule is here": It's nice to hear you say as much. It's not as clear cut as some seem to be making it. For my 2 cents, I think allowing passive checks works fine with active searching and trap spotter adding another layer of trap finding.
Passive = normal rolls
Active = brings in favorable conditions
Trap spotter = extra chance on missed trap.
It's always worked well for me and I've never automatically fell into a wilderness trap while traveling overland [but HAVE encountered traps outside].
thejeff: You sell bear traps inside a box so the staff can find it easily. Of course they aren't responsible for any lost traps after you remove the trap from the packaging! ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's always worked well for me and I've never automatically fell into a wilderness trap while traveling overland [but HAVE encountered traps outside].
Your rules basically hand-wave traps outside the dungeon into irrelevancy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's always worked well for me and I've never automatically fell into a wilderness trap while traveling overland [but HAVE encountered traps outside].Your rules basically hand-wave traps outside the dungeon into irrelevancy.
I think there's several reasons why that's a good thing.
1) Traps outside the dungeon are a waste of time, just as are wandering monsters. There's a reason that few if any modern modules incorporate wandering monster tables despite their omnipresence in the 1970s. I'd like to see wilderness traps on that same heap of disused tropes.
2) Realistically, traps outside the dungeon are no more than a nuisance to a competent party. Fighter falls into a hole, fighter takes a few hit points of damage, which the cleric channels away, and the party proceeds. This is more or less modern real-world army doctrine with regard to traps such as minefields and so on; by themselves, they will do little more than delay the opposition. For example, Army Doctrine (2007) lists four uses for minefields, but they all amount to "delay or distract the bad guys" --- none of them involve significant casualties. (E.g., "to cause the enemy to break up its formation and tempo, interrupt its timetable, commit reduction assets prematurely, and piecemeal the attack.")
3) In order to make a trap more than a speed bump, you need to work a trap into a more complex operation involving other elements, such as a fire team to work the party over while it's dealing with the trap. (The army again: "A block-effect minefield integrates fire planning and obstacle effort to stop an attacker along a specific AA or prevent it from passing through an EA. Block obstacles are complex and are integrated with intense fires; block obstacles do not stop an attacker by themselves.") But at this point, we're talking about a significant encounter (including a lot of baddies a long way from home), not just a trap.
It's always worked well for me and I've never automatically fell into a wilderness trap while traveling overland [but HAVE encountered traps outside].Your rules basically hand-wave traps outside the dungeon into irrelevancy.
Woot! You got it! Unless it's part of an encounter, it's a distraction at best. If it's part of an encounter, the best use of a trap is to "serve mainly to discourage intruders from going a certain way" as is given as an example of uncovered pit uses. They hardly do that if no one can SEE them unless they move 10' and then search, something you aren't going to see in an actual encounter.
SO in a way, it actually preserves the use of outdoor traps in encounters by allowing them to do what they are meant to do.
And as a sidenote, outdoor traps still require perception checks and at outdoor move rates it's only going to be one before a trap is triggered in most cases. Seems a much better solution than either having everyone falling into a trap without a chance to notice it or moving 10'/round. If it's an option between outdoor trap irrelevancy and outdoor trap unavoidability, it's an easy choice IMO.
Lucky for us grognards from the '70s and '80s, RAW prevents you from doing that except at your own table.
Wilderness bandits everywhere, rejoice!
Why isn't "Tries to move in a certain way, but falls in a pit" at least as useful as "Doesn't move in that direction because of the pit"?
Because after they've dragged themselves out of the pit, they're still moving towards the location you didn't want them to go.
I already cited army doctrine above -- but, basically, the most effective use of traps is that it concentrates the bad guys somewhere where you've already concentrated the good guys.
For example, there are three ways across the river that I'm supposed to hold, and I have a 30-strength platoon. I could put ten guys at each crossing, but this more or less guarantees that the bad guys will have numerical superiority wherever they try to cross. A better idea, if I can pull it off, is to put traps in front of two of the crossings, so they decided instead to cross at the un-trapped crossing, where, by astonishing happenstance, I have placed all thirty of my people. With prepared firing positions, behind cover, et cetera. Of course, it never works out quite that cleanly in the real world, but it's a nice ideal to shoot at.
Because after they've dragged themselves out of the pit, they're still moving towards the location you didn't want them to go.
And you know just where the "bad guys" have been, and have a pretty good idea when as well. Then the tracking can begin.
Triggered traps give away location better than scrying.
I'm willing to bet that those who want to hand-wave the rules for finding traps have never used traps to their own advantage in a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you know just where the "bad guys" have been, and have a pretty good idea when as well. Then the tracking can begin.
Or random animal/peasent number 305,096,086. Assuming the party doesn't reset the track and cover their tracks.
Triggered traps give away location better than scrying.
A scout/spotter/lookout is FAR superior to those. Heck, billy the hedgehog familiar is better at that.
I'm willing to bet that those who want to hand-wave the rules for finding traps have never used traps to their own advantage in a game.
You seem to be mixing some things here. Requiring a dedicated search action for traps doesn't suddenly make traps relevant. It just causes people to either waste time or set aside resources to repair their damage while removing most of their strategic uses.
"handwaving" is JUST what the FAQ suggests. And all that "handwaving" I'm suggesting does is remove the 10' per round searching FOR THE SAME REASONS the FAQ also suggests you "handwave". Traps STILL have all the same old uses PLUS strategic ones that the FAQ removes from use. It's only a positive for people that want/like to use traps "to their own advantage in a game".
PS: I've used/ran traps quite successfully in games without requiring players to crawl along the ground at 10' round to find them...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to bet that those who want to hand-wave the rules for finding traps have never used traps to their own advantage in a game.I've used/ran traps quite successfully in games without requiring players to crawl along the ground at 10' round to find them...
Yeah, that's a bet that I was pretty sure that Quintain would lose. I use traps quite frequently (I'm notorious, in fact, for trying to solve problems in the most tactically-effective way possible, both as a player and as a GM --- and traps are a very useful tool in that arsenal).
The thing is, I tend to use traps effectively, to do what traps are good at, instead of trying to get them to do something better served by another tool. If I want to know where the bad guys are going, I use reconnaissance. If I want to misdirect the bad guys, I will use traps (or sometimes other tactics), and if I want to actually hurt them, I use as much firepower as I can muster. ("The more you use, the less you lose," see also Lanchester's laws of combat.)
I'd almost be willing to take the other side of Quintain's bet -- the better you are at using traps, the more bogus you think this FAQ is....
A question for Orfamay Question, graystone and those who share their views on this FAQ...
What do you think would be a fitting bonus/penalty for:
1- Passively detecting traps, ambushes, etc.
2- Actively searching for traps, ambushes, etc.
?
You seem to be mixing some things here. Requiring a dedicated search action for traps doesn't suddenly make traps relevant. It just causes people to either waste time or set aside resources to repair their damage while removing most of their strategic uses.
Again, you are looking at traps from a perspective only that of the one on the receiving end of the trap.
Here's a quick trap that is better than scry.
Covered pit trap: upon someone dropping into the trap, a Auditory Hallucination/Audiovisual Hallucination spell (See Ultimate Intrigue) gives a running commentary/visual of the area of the trap (say within 60'). Reset: immediate.
Heck, you could put this on a proximity trap that does no damage at all or have no visible effect whatsoever, and you'll have a running audio/video of the progress of the "bad guys" and where they are progressing through your territory.
Spells required, Sending/Audiovisual Hallucination
If you want to make it audio only, use message/auditory hallucination.
A scout/spotter/lookout is FAR superior to those. Heck, billy the hedgehog familiar is better at that.
Nope, the scout/spotter/lookout uses stealth -- which requires a passive check and can be done at full speed.
How many familiars do you have, and how many times are you willing to sacrifice them on scouting duty?
I'd almost be willing to take the other side of Quintain's bet -- the better you are at using traps, the more bogus you think this FAQ is....
Why would you want your own traps hand-waved into irrelevancy? Most NPC monsters have no trapfinding capability at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure your example really maps well to a Pathfinder adventure.
Well, most PF adventures --- more's the pity --- don't involve playing defense, which is where traps are actually useful. It's certainly to the aggressor's advantage if traps simply didn't exist at all, because it's very hard to lay a mine field, string a tripwire, or even dig a pit in the teeth of a charging orc band.
In PF, if PCs need to cross a river they're going to pick a crossing and go to it. If there are traps there, they'll have to be pretty damn serious traps to stop them from just getting over or around,
So build "pretty damn serious traps," then. Hell, or build fake "p.d.s. traps," and hope to hell that they actually get spotted, because at least 2/3 of the value of a trap is to mess with the troops' collective mind.
One of the best trap stories I've seen involved British and German units in WWII. In the North African desert campaign, water was one of the most critical supplies -- control the oases, and you double your fighting effectiveness. So when the Germans drove the British from some positions, they found signs (in German and English) saying "Ha, ha, we've poisoned the oases! Sucks to be you, Fritz" or something like that. Around the wells were a number of dead birds and whatnot that obviously couldn't read the signs. So the Germans were forced to use their trucks to continue to haul water instead of food/ammo/gasoline/domino sets and all the other necessities of military life.
After the war, the Germans hauled the relevant Brits up for war crimes. I mean, well-poisoning has been a no-no for literally a thousand years. The Brits pointed out that, while well-poisoning was indeed a no-no, there were no rules against putting up signs and scattering dead birds.
Part of it is just that PCs are very small units and even with the old understanding of the rules, they'd likely have to go to the crossing to spot the traps anyway - they don't send out scouts to each and then move the main force to one.
Yeah, sure, that's fine. I (as the GM) want to put a trap there so that they will decide not to risk crossing there and to cross somewhere less deadly. This buys the bad guys two things.... first, time, to complete whatever nefarious thing they are doing, and second, lets them (the baddies) concentrate their forces so they can more effectively fight the PCs. [It also makes for a more interesting and varied adventure, which the PCs don't want but the players do.] Yes, if the PCs just waltz through with their eyes wide shut, they'll probably escape with nothing more seriously injured than their pride. It's my job as the trap designer to make sure that doesn't happen.
On the other hand, I'd have that same problem if I put a token force to guard the crossing, too. If this is a party of fourth level heroes, two orcs and a wolf aren't going to slow them down, either.
Why would you want your own traps hand-waved into irrelevancy? Most NPC monsters have no trapfinding capability at all.
I don't want my traps handwaved into irrelevancy. This is why I want them to be findable, if I so choose. I want to be able to put a DC 0 pit trap in a corner that's so obvious any fool will see it, because that will distract and misdirect the NPC monsters into doing something else and going someplace else where I have an even "better" surprised laid out for them.
|
|
Why would you want your own traps hand-waved into irrelevancy? Most NPC monsters have no trapfinding capability at all.I don't want my traps handwaved into irrelevancy. This is why I want them to be findable, if I so choose. I want to be able to put a DC 0 pit trap in a corner that's so obvious any fool will see it, because that will distract and misdirect the NPC monsters into doing something else and going someplace else where I have an even "better" surprised laid out for them.
Do you think the FAQ says you can't make a trap findable, if you choose? Because that is a very unusual interpretation of what a GM does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A question for Orfamay Question, graystone and those who share their views on this FAQ...
What do you think would be a fitting bonus/penalty for:
1- Passively detecting traps, ambushes, etc.
2- Actively searching for traps, ambushes, etc.?
At my table, everyone gets their take 10 Perception score automatically as a passive check, and I've never had any difficulties caused by that. If anyone really wants to check systematically for traps, that's what the take 20 rules are for.
1) Traps outside the dungeon are a waste of time, just as are wandering monsters. There's a reason that few if any modern modules incorporate wandering monster tables despite their omnipresence in the 1970s.
I feel like there's really no context where you'd want to put a trap on a road for overland travel when it wouldn't be better to just stage an ambush. I mean, a group of brigands can't decide who falls in the pit, but they can decide to attack or who not to attack. Plus, unlike the "log trap in the middle of nowhere that someone set up in hopes that the right person would stumble into it" you can actually advance the story by having the PCs overcome a planned ambush (since maybe these weren't just opportunists, and were carrying notes).
Plus, you get passive perception to spot "people who are hiding" and "combat" is more engaging for everybody at the table than one person rolling some skils to bypass the trap. Random monster encouters are tired and old hat, but "agents of the antagonist plan an ambush that the PCs might spot and turn to their adventage" scenarios can be fun and meaningful.
1) Traps outside the dungeon are a waste of time, just as are wandering monsters. There's a reason that few if any modern modules incorporate wandering monster tables despite their omnipresence in the 1970s.I feel like there's really no context where you'd want to put a trap on a road for overland travel when it wouldn't be better to just stage an ambush.
There are a few, but you really have to work to come up with them.
The most likely reason is to render that road unusable when you don't have the manpower to stage an ambush. Traps are (or can be) extremely cheap, especially if you can use unskilled corvée labor to construct them. ("Yeah, you, you and you. I want a trench dug across the road right here.") If the traps are deadly enough, people will pick a different route. Even if the traps aren't deadly enough, if there are enough of them, people will get tired of climbing out of spiked pits and decide to take a different road.
The second most likely reason is simply to sow fear and terror among a population. You want to kill (or hurt) someone and don't care who. If every other traveling bard is telling tales about how they narrowly escaped a swinging log trap set up by the Chelish Liberation Front, that's good publicity. Again, if the trap works, great, and if it doesn't, no harm done.
But, yeah, most of the time if you want a trap, you want it in a specific place to a specific purpose.....
Do you think the FAQ says you can't make a trap findable, if you choose?
That's exactly what it does say though. 10'/round grid searches every round of every day of every adventure OR 99.9999% unfindable traps. [.0001 for trap spotter talent] It'd be "a very unusual interpretation" to say otherwise.
Unless of course you use rule 0 but then you aren't using the FAQ are you?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think the FAQ says you can't make a trap findable, if you choose?
Why would you want your own traps hand-waved into irrelevancy? Most NPC monsters have no trapfinding capability at all.I don't want my traps handwaved into irrelevancy. This is why I want them to be findable, if I so choose. I want to be able to put a DC 0 pit trap in a corner that's so obvious any fool will see it, because that will distract and misdirect the NPC monsters into doing something else and going someplace else where I have an even "better" surprised laid out for them.
Yes. I think that's exactly what it says. If you don't have the relevant talent, you can't see it without actively looking for it. I could hang a sign on the wall saying "there is a trap here," but I would still be reliant on one of my players saying the magic words "I check for traps near the sign."
Which is part of why I think this is a really stupid FAQ.
You are the one deciding it is a trap, though... If you want the characters to see it, call it an open pit.
So, the way to set up a trap that the players correctly identify as a trap and respond to as if it were a trap..... is to lie to them and call it something else?
I think you just proved my point for me. I'm not sure that I could have done it so elegantly or concisely.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are the one deciding it is a trap, though... If you want the characters to see it, call it an open pit.So, the way to set up a trap that the players correctly identify as a trap and respond to as if it were a trap..... is to lie to them and call it something else?
I think you just proved my point for me. I'm not sure that I could have done it so elegantly or concisely.
Why are you lying to your players? Let them draw their own conclusions from the information you give them.
Don't confuse the in-game reality of a sprung trap with the out-of-game concept of a trap in your dungeon design.
How many familiars do you have, and how many times are you willing to sacrifice them on scouting duty?
#1 Familiars tend to have a FAR better DC to find than a trap ever could. Billy the hedgehog takes 10 and has a DC 29 and that's without any favorable bonuses or extra skill ranks.
#2 Billy the hedgehog take the Figment archetype, meaning it comes back every day after it dies. The 100' range still works as long as the owner is out of line of sight and taking the skilled evolution makes the DC 37 to find... What was the DC on that pit trap?
#3 it's owner is a rogue [Carnivalist]. Now it gets the rogues skill points in stealth so at least a DC 39 at 3rd.
#4 NOW think about what actually happens IF the party actually MAKES the DC check.
Player: "Ok I rolled a 45 what do I see"
DM: You see a hedgehog sitting on a tree."
Player: "... OK, anything else?"
Who's chasing/attacking random wild animals in a forest?
You are the one deciding it is a trap, though... If you want the characters to see it, call it an open pit.
The FAQ opens the option for GMs to keep things hidden from inattentive PCs. It does not prevent GMs from putting features in their dungeons.
So it JUST matters if you call something a trap? SO if I call a bear trap a trap someone needs to search for it but if I call it a foot ouchie instead I can find it without searching? So as a DM I need to invest in a label maker and mark everything I want PC to search for with "trap".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it JUST matters if you call something a trap? SO if I call a bear trap a trap someone needs to search for it but if I call it a foot ouchie instead I can find it without searching? So as a DM I need to invest in a label maker and mark everything I want PC to search for with "trap".You are the one deciding it is a trap, though... If you want the characters to see it, call it an open pit.
The FAQ opens the option for GMs to keep things hidden from inattentive PCs. It does not prevent GMs from putting features in their dungeons.
A bear trap is not always a trap in the rules sense. A sprung bear trap hanging on the hunter's wall is clearly not a trap. Why is that a difficult concept for you?
Do you think the FAQ says you can't make a trap findable, if you choose?
Why would you want your own traps hand-waved into irrelevancy? Most NPC monsters have no trapfinding capability at all.I don't want my traps handwaved into irrelevancy. This is why I want them to be findable, if I so choose. I want to be able to put a DC 0 pit trap in a corner that's so obvious any fool will see it, because that will distract and misdirect the NPC monsters into doing something else and going someplace else where I have an even "better" surprised laid out for them.
Yes. I think that's exactly what it says. If you don't have the relevant talent, you can't see it without actively looking for it. I could hang a sign on the wall saying "there is a trap here," but I would still be reliant on one of my players saying the magic words "I check for traps near the sign."
Which is part of why I think this is a really stupid FAQ.
I assure you, there are plenty of published adventures where trap descriptions are included in the room descriptions.
And even with clearly worded descriptions, I've still had players get caught in said traps. And I'm not talking subtle hints, I'm talking massive stone blocks obviously (as in included in the description) rigged to collapse by ropes and pulleys.
A bear trap is not always a trap in the rules sense. A sprung bear trap hanging on the hunter's wall is clearly not a trap. Why is that a difficult concept for you?
A sprung trap is still a trap. A trap, by the FAQ, needs to be searched for. ERGO, that sprung bear trap on the wall needs searched for just as you'd have to search for it in your backpack. There are NO RULES for a low DC traps to become a non-trap.
I assure you, there are plenty of published adventures where trap descriptions are included in the room descriptions.And even with clearly worded descriptions, I've still had players get caught in said traps. And I'm not talking subtle hints, I'm talking massive stone blocks obviously (as in included in the description) rigged to collapse by ropes and pulleys.
It seems that those "published adventures" are now incorrect taking the FAQ into account. Traps are invisible unless you do a 10'/rd grid search.