| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
More importantly, you should usually give the PCs some way to learn that they're heading into an area that has traps. This shouldn't always be automatic, but if they take a bit of effort to try to learn more about an area, letting them know there's traps involved is nice. In addition, don't be shy about making it sort of obvious when there's a trap in an area if that area isn't a place that the PCs are already expecting traps. Spiked walls, glowing runes, mysterious bloodstains or dead animals, excessive gearworks in the walls, etc. Visual clues that the PCs can use to realize that there may be more to an area than it appears. In this case, the PCs will still need to say "I look for traps" of course, and they'll still need to roll the appropriate Perception DC to see the trap even if the player is 100% convinced there's a trap in the area.
Also:
Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what kind of trap would you expect, even in the old understanding of the rules would you expect to make even a low level party turn back if they saw it, but would be less useful if they actually tripped it?
The easiest way to do this is with lots of traps, or at least, lots of spots for traps, such that the party thinks that it will be a waste of time and effort to clear out all the traps in order to proceed.
There was a published module I ran a number of years ago (so not actually my own design work, but I'm not above stealing good ideas) where the floors of many of the corridors were flagstones covered in coconut matting, except where the flagstones were missing, or were carefully balanced to turn and dump you into a trap. Make one of the early squares an "obviously" already-sprung pit trap, and then back it up, if you feel it necessary, with two or three unsprung pit traps.
The party walked into around a corner and saw a 10' wide corridor of nothing but trap-bait extending as far as their light source permitted. The first words out of their mouths were "there has to be an easier way."
Naturally, I expressed my "disappointment" that they weren't going to walk along that corridor and instead were going to take the other obvious entrance, the one that led directly into the kobold ambush. ("Score!")
I'm sure there are other ways -- in fact, I know of several -- but I'm sure you understand that I don't want to play all my cards face up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
don't be shy about making it sort of obvious when there's a trap in an area if that area isn't a place that the PCs are already expecting traps. Spiked walls, glowing runes, mysterious bloodstains or dead animals, excessive gearworks in the walls, etc. Visual clues that the PCs can use to realize that there may be more to an area than it appears. In this case, the PCs will still need to say "I look for traps" of course,
Hmmm. This sounds suspiciously like what someone else was writing upthread:
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
don't be shy about making it sort of obvious when there's a trap in an area if that area isn't a place that the PCs are already expecting traps. Spiked walls, glowing runes, mysterious bloodstains or dead animals, excessive gearworks in the walls, etc. Visual clues that the PCs can use to realize that there may be more to an area than it appears. In this case, the PCs will still need to say "I look for traps" of course,Hmmm. This sounds suspiciously like what someone else was writing upthread:
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.
There is nothing stupid about it. While it can be obvious there are traps in a general area, you still have to exert effort, as a character, to find them.
It's like seeing a sign that says "Warning Minefield". You can choose to a) be careful and look for mines, b) traipse across nonchalantly, or c) take a different path.
Your argument is in favor of (b), because what the heck, everyone was warned there were mines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing stupid about it. While it can be obvious there are traps in a general area, you still have to exert effort, as a character, to find them.
And that's what's stupid about it.
It's like seeing a sign that says "Warning Minefield". You can choose to a) be careful and look for mines, b) traipse across nonchalantly, or c) take a different path.
Except that it's also like seeing a sign that says "Warning: Open Pit Ahead," complete with the yellow-and-black hazard tape, and you still need to be careful and look for it, because you're not allowed to traipse nonchalantly around it.
Your argument is in favor of (b), because what the heck, everyone was warned there were mines.
Not quite. The mines themselves probably aren't obvious, even when you know they're around. If they were obvious -- if they were sitting on top of brightly colored picnic tables instead of being buried in the ground -- I would be able to traipse across nonchalantly unless I decided that I wanted to do some table-dancing.
And what's the difference? It's the DC, not the "trap-ness." I can put a sign up saying "Warning, DC 40 trap present" and most low-level characters will still not be able to find it. Knowing that the trap exists and being able to find it are two different things.
|
It's like seeing a sign that says "Warning Minefield". You can choose to a) be careful and look for mines, b) traipse across nonchalantly, or c) take a different path.Except that it's also like seeing a sign that says "Warning: Open Pit Ahead," complete with the yellow-and-black tape, and you still need to be careful and look for it, because you're not allowed to traipse nonchalantly around it.
*bangs head on desk repeatedly*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*bangs head on desk repeatedly*
It's like seeing a sign that says "Warning Minefield". You can choose to a) be careful and look for mines, b) traipse across nonchalantly, or c) take a different path.Except that it's also like seeing a sign that says "Warning: Open Pit Ahead," complete with the yellow-and-black tape, and you still need to be careful and look for it, because you're not allowed to traipse nonchalantly around it.
Yes, because it's a "trap", not a "hazard." So sayeth the module, so by rule, putting high-vis hazard tape does not actually help anyone see it.
In this case, the PCs will still need to say "I look for traps" of course,
You said yourself it's not a question of the actual in-game situation, but of what the GM or module designer "calls" it. (Here's your quote: "You are the one deciding it is a trap, though... If you want the characters to see it, call it an open pit.")
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Just stop responding to people who are being deliberately obtuse. You'll live a longer, healthier, happier life.
Honestly, it's all part of a broader approach I'm not really fond of with skills in PF: Far too often for my taste, rather than just make things more difficult, they make them impossible.
Well, I think it's supposed to be a way to make skill-monkeys more relevant. It's way too easy to out-rogue the rogue, so the idea (IMHO) is to make all the other classes unrealistically incompetent because the original rogue abilities were just so limited.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually there are a few modules where the open pit traps are labeled hazards not traps (they give CR like normal though).
|
|
In this case, the PCs will still need to say "I look for traps" of course,You said yourself it's not a question of the actual in-game situation, but of what the GM or module designer "calls" it. (Here's your quote: "You are the one deciding it is a trap, though... If you want the characters to see it, call it an open pit.")
You, GM, are not a helpless creature. If you put a pit in your dungeon, you have the choice of whether to designate it a trap encounter or not. If you want them to see it, it's not really intended to be a trap. If you want the party to need to search for the hidden trapdoor, what you have is a trap.
|
|
I think in the mind of many writers, there are clear distinctions between traps and hazards.
Traps are things that are usually intentionally constructed, have trigger and maybe reset conditions. They have a statblock that's fairly standardized.
Hazards are much more varied. They can be rockslides waiting to happen, magical fields that'll fry you if you wander into them, quicksand, a wasp's nest that will release a swarm if disturbed.
In many cases hazards aren't as "intentional" as traps, and they don't have a standardized format for their stablock (if any). They do get a CR because they're a challenge.
I'm not 100% on spells that detect danger, but at least during some editions of D&D/PF, there was a strong distinction between intentional traps and "accidents waiting to happen"; some spells could only detect one or the other type. Traps and hazards sort of cover that distinction.
---
I do think the "distracted" passive looking for traps makes more sense than "active only" search. If it's at a penalty, then Trap Spotter is clearly better (no penalty, or it may even be a second roll at no penalty after your roll at penalty).
As a concession to the prevalence of 10ft-distances in trap detection, I'd also restrict the reactive spot check to situations where you happen to come within 10ft.
So in the combat example, the barbarian wants to charge the archer at the other side of a trapped hallway. On his way over he comes within 10ft of a pit trap, succeeds at a perception check, and skids to a halt just in time not to fall in. (Or maybe he tries to leap over - opinions differ on whether you can jump over things while charging.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, it's all part of a broader approach I'm not really fond of with skills in PF: Far too often for my taste, rather than just make things more difficult, they make them impossible.Well, I think it's supposed to be a way to make skill-monkeys more relevant. It's way too easy to out-rogue the rogue, so the idea (IMHO) is to make all the other classes unrealistically incompetent because the original rogue abilities were just so limited.
It's not just rogues. Want to take down the wyvern so it's on the ground (or dragon?) - oh you can't do that unless you have 'wingclipper'.
Mind you - wingclipper itself is kind of a sucky feat - needing a +9 BAB to take and only working on natural winged flyers to begin with - but *because* of it's existence players across the world are faced with GM's going - "DO YOU HAVE THE FEAT?" and ending the discussion.
So.
many.
feats.
that.
ruin.
creativity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So.
many.
feats.
that.
ruin.
creativity.
This is my concern with every new book that gets published. In an attempt to keep up with a slew of new options for martials without overpowering them to the point of complaints every new feat runs the risk of taking an option out of the players hands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Started right from the beginning, with the Strike Back feat in the Core Rulebook.
Before that feat saw the light of day, readying an action to attack a creature's long limbs was a fantasy staple.
Just stop responding to people who are being deliberately obtuse. You'll live a longer, healthier, happier life.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'm NOT the one being obtuse. Those are the rules. Traps are immune to passive perception checks NO MATTER HOW EASY THOSE CHECKS MAY BE. A bear trap sitting on a table in the open with a DC 0 to see it can't be found unless you search for it. That's the result of the FAQ. If you think that's ridiculous, then look to the FAQ not me for pointing put what it says. Pointing out an extreme example to show the way it doesn't work isn't obtuse.
I'm not the one that forces the game to either slow to a 10'/rd grid search or you auto-trigger traps [even ones that SHOULD be easy to see]. And remember 'if you call it a trap, it's requires a search action to find'. The GAME determined that the bear trap was in fact a trap. That item has NO conditions for it to be continue to BE a trap. Unless destroyed, it's a trap. Traps can't be found unless you search. Same with open pits being immune to passive perception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not the one that forces the game to either slow to a 10'/rd grid search or you auto-trigger traps [even ones that SHOULD be easy to see]. And remember 'if you call it a trap, it's requires a search action to find'. The GAME determined that the bear trap was in fact a trap. That item has NO conditions for it to be continue to BE a trap. Unless destroyed, it's a trap. Traps can't be found unless you search. Same with open pits being immune to passive perception.
It is you being deliberately obtuse, conflating a mechanical device (the bear trap)with a deliberately placed and concealed obstacle intended to harm or hinder.
The word "trap" is being used in two difference contexts and, while being deliberately obtuse, you are attempting to combine both contexts into a single concept instead of applying common sense.
I'm not the one that forces the game to either slow to a 10'/rd grid search or you auto-trigger traps [even ones that SHOULD be easy to see]. And remember 'if you call it a trap, it's requires a search action to find'. The GAME determined that the bear trap was in fact a trap. That item has NO conditions for it to be continue to BE a trap. Unless destroyed, it's a trap. Traps can't be found unless you search. Same with open pits being immune to passive perception.It is you being deliberately obtuse, conflating a mechanical device (the bear trap)with a deliberately placed and concealed obstacle intended to harm or hinder.
The word "trap" is being used in two difference contexts and, while being deliberately obtuse, you are attempting to combine both contexts into a single concept instead of applying common sense.
Kinda like trying to conflate weapon and Improvised weapon as the same thing?
Kinda like trying to conflate weapon and Improvised weapon as the same thing?
Improvised weapon is a subset of weapon with specific penalties attached.
There are weapons on the weapon table with the improvised property.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kinda like trying to conflate weapon and Improvised weapon as the same thing?Improvised weapon is a subset of weapon with specific penalties attached.
There are weapons on the weapon table with the improvised property.
And pit traps with a DC 0 are still traps and on the trap list.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And pit traps with a DC 0 are still traps and on the trap list.Kinda like trying to conflate weapon and Improvised weapon as the same thing?Improvised weapon is a subset of weapon with specific penalties attached.
There are weapons on the weapon table with the improvised property.
Open pit traps are specifically called out as visible without an active search. A distinction from covered pits. Open pits are an exception to the general rule governing hidden traps.
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.
Covered pits are much more dangerous. They can be detected with a DC 20 Perception check, but only if the character is taking the time to carefully examine the area before walking across it.
The FAQ tells us not to treat the exception as the rule, but as the exception that it is.
|
|
And yet, that DC20 tripwire stretched across the path is just as easy to see for my high level character with a +30 perception as that bear trap is for a 'normal' person. But I've been told, common sense aside, that I can't see that tripwire unless I'm actively searching for it.
So, what's the difference between that bear trap on the table and the wire across the path which makes one 'obvious' and the other 'invisible'?
You are going to need some more examples to be convincing. So far, the tripwire is the only decent argument for why the FAQ doesn't work well. And personally, I'm willing to either handwave it as an artifact of how humans process their environment (not a perception problem, a cognition problem), or treat tripwires as an unwritten exception and allow the check.
Almost all the other examples of traps make more sense with the FAQ. Pressure plates, gears, and air pressure triggers are all hidden things that would require careful examination. At least intentional examination. If the rule were the other way, they would all require exceptions. I'm okay with a few exceptions, but I'd rather they remain in the minority.
|
|
You just don't buy them because you view perception as bounded by normal human limits, no matter what the perception modifier is.
It's not a limit on perception that I'm arguing as justification for the rule. It's a limit on cognition. The difference between noticing a detail, and realizing it is an important detail. Even superman has blind spots (cognitively).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like noticing the details of the slight bending in the air an invisible creature or the blades of grass he is standing on that make is so that its only a +40 to stealth for someone looking across a room? Those kind of details that a invisible creature gets noticed for but not any reasoning on the traps?
|
I'm not the one that forces the game to either slow to a 10'/rd grid search or you auto-trigger traps [even ones that SHOULD be easy to see]. And remember 'if you call it a trap, it's requires a search action to find'. The GAME determined that the bear trap was in fact a trap. That item has NO conditions for it to be continue to BE a trap. Unless destroyed, it's a trap. Traps can't be found unless you search. Same with open pits being immune to passive perception.It is you being deliberately obtuse, conflating a mechanical device (the bear trap)with a deliberately placed and concealed obstacle intended to harm or hinder.
The word "trap" is being used in two difference contexts and, while being deliberately obtuse, you are attempting to combine both contexts into a single concept instead of applying common sense.
Except that your common sense breaks down in a game with uncommon abilities.
Sure, we all agree that a DC0 bear 'trap' on a table should obviously be detectable without an active search.
And yet, that DC20 tripwire stretched across the path is just as easy to see for my high level character with a +30 perception as that bear trap is for a 'normal' person. But I've been told, common sense aside, that I can't see that tripwire unless I'm actively searching for it.
So, what's the difference between that bear trap on the table and the wire across the path which makes one 'obvious' and the other 'invisible'?
actually, the "DC0 bear 'trap' on a table" is not noticed - as long as the GM does not mention it. If it is not mentioned by the GM, it's not noticed unless you ask the GM what's on the table and/or he includes it in the "more in-depth" room description.
Judge: "The inside of the old trappers shack is dusty, gloomy and filled with odd junk. A rickety table and chair are against the east wall, a moth-eaten rug covers an area in front of a fireplace on the north wall and a moldering bed is on the west. You are in the only door, which is in the south wall."
Player: "I'll take a moment from the doorway to look around more. Anything of note in the room? What junk is on the table? anything hanging on the wall, under the bed?"
Judge: "What's your Perception check?"
Player: "Taking 10, with my MW tool, I get a 30"
Judge: "Wow! that good!? You can see an oil lamp, some eating utensils and a rusty bear trap are on the table. Under the bed is a closed chest that you can't really see into, and the most important note is what looks to be a trap door under the rug. In fact, with that high a result, you can also tell that the floor around the trap door under the rug has been rigged to collapse - it's a Pit Trap."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that your common sense breaks down in a game with uncommon abilities.Sure, we all agree that a DC0 bear 'trap' on a table should obviously be detectable without an active search.
And yet, that DC20 tripwire stretched across the path is just as easy to see for my high level character with a +30 perception as that bear trap is for a 'normal' person. But I've been told, common sense aside, that I can't see that tripwire unless I'm actively searching for it.
So, what's the difference between that bear trap on the table and the wire across the path which makes one 'obvious' and the other 'invisible'?
The problem with your argument is that there is a difference between perceiving a thing and realizing a thing is a trap.
Perception != recognition.
Like noticing the details of the slight bending in the air an invisible creature or the blades of grass he is standing on that make is so that its only a +40 to stealth for someone looking across a room? Those kind of details that a invisible creature gets noticed for but not any reasoning on the traps?
Training. We've already covered the distinction between invisible creatures and deliberately disguised traps.
Note that noticing a invisible thing over there is different than knowing what kind of invisible thing over there is a humane vs an elf.
Realizing there is an invsible thing over there doesn't tell you what that thing is.
|
|
You just don't buy them because you view perception as bounded by normal human limits, no matter what the perception modifier is.It's not a limit on perception that I'm arguing as justification for the rule. It's a limit on cognition. The difference between noticing a detail, and realizing it is an important detail. Even superman has blind spots (cognitively).That 'limit on cognition' is something that does not exist in the Pathfinder universe as any penalty on perception skills or modifiers.
You just made it up.
So, once again, what's the DC to smell poison from 10' away?
... because it is not an effect on your Perception? That is the point of distinguishing Perception and cognition...
The concept exists in the Pathfinder universe as the rule in the CRB that you have to actively look for traps.
Not all poisons are volatile. It shouldn't make a difference for your traps.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You just don't buy them because you view perception as bounded by normal human limits, no matter what the perception modifier is.It's not a limit on perception that I'm arguing as justification for the rule. It's a limit on cognition. The difference between noticing a detail, and realizing it is an important detail. Even superman has blind spots (cognitively).That 'limit on cognition' is something that does not exist in the Pathfinder universe as any penalty on perception skills or modifiers.
You just made it up.
So, once again, what's the DC to smell poison from 10' away?
"what's the DC to smell poison from 10' away?" hmm... I don't know.
Whatever the GM says it is? did he note it in his notes? This, like so many things, is in the control of the GM and I'll need to work out with them how to determine this. Or if I can even use that... maybe that poison is odorless? Unless I'm a Gnome or 1/2 Orc... or a red haired marmoset. All under the control of the GM.
What's the DC to tell from "obscure clues" (sound of more coins, "rich guy" perfume, gleam in his eye, whatever...) which of the Mooks in the party attacking me has the BBEs confidence? Which would be the best target for my dominate person? I want to control him and send him back to kill the BBE... so that we can follow him and finish the job when he fails. If I want this information, the GM will need to give it to me... I will have to ask for it. And (together) we'll work out what the DC is (if I can even hit that).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like noticing the details of the slight bending in the air an invisible creature or the blades of grass he is standing on that make is so that its only a +40 to stealth for someone looking across a room? Those kind of details that a invisible creature gets noticed for but not any reasoning on the traps?Training. We've already covered the distinction between invisible creatures and deliberately disguised traps.
Note that noticing a invisible thing over there is different than knowing what kind of invisible thing over there is a humane vs an elf.
Realizing there is an invsible thing over there doesn't tell you what that thing is.
So we know traps exist but we don't train to notice them? Even with trapfinding?
So we know traps exist but we don't train to notice them? Even with trapfinding?
Training has to be used. It isn't instinct, unless you have that rogue talent.
actually, the "DC0 bear 'trap' on a table" is not noticed - as long as the GM does not mention it. If it is not mentioned by the GM, it's not noticed unless you ask the GM what's on the table and/or he includes it in the "more in-depth" room description.
Judge: "The inside of the old trappers shack is dusty, gloomy and filled with odd junk. A rickety table and chair are against the east wall, a moth-eaten rug covers an area in front of a fireplace on the north wall and a moldering bed is on the west. You are in the only door, which is in the south wall."
Player: "I'll take a moment from the doorway to look around more. Anything of note in the room? What junk is on the table? anything hanging on the wall, under the bed?"
Judge: "What's your Perception check?"
Player: "Taking 10, with my MW tool, I get a 30"
Judge: "Wow! that good!? You can see an oil lamp, some eating utensils and a rusty bear trap are on the table. Under the bed is a closed chest that you can't really see into, and the most important note is what looks to be a trap door under the rug. In fact, with that high a result, you can also tell that the floor around the trap door under the rug has been rigged to collapse - it's a Pit Trap."
Bolded the relevant part no you don't know this you didn't check that 10x10 area particularly.
Training has to be used. It isn't instinct, unless you have that rogue talent.
So we know traps exist but we don't train to notice them? Even with trapfinding?
What? Really but my "training" is what per you lets me see the details of the invisible guy?
|
|
Bolded the relevant part no you don't know this you didn't check that 10x10 area particularly.actually, the "DC0 bear 'trap' on a table" is not noticed - as long as the GM does not mention it. If it is not mentioned by the GM, it's not noticed unless you ask the GM what's on the table and/or he includes it in the "more in-depth" room description.
Judge: "The inside of the old trappers shack is dusty, gloomy and filled with odd junk. A rickety table and chair are against the east wall, a moth-eaten rug covers an area in front of a fireplace on the north wall and a moldering bed is on the west. You are in the only door, which is in the south wall."
Player: "I'll take a moment from the doorway to look around more. Anything of note in the room? What junk is on the table? anything hanging on the wall, under the bed?"
Judge: "What's your Perception check?"
Player: "Taking 10, with my MW tool, I get a 30"
Judge: "Wow! that good!? You can see an oil lamp, some eating utensils and a rusty bear trap are on the table. Under the bed is a closed chest that you can't really see into, and the most important note is what looks to be a trap door under the rug. In fact, with that high a result, you can also tell that the floor around the trap door under the rug has been rigged to collapse - it's a Pit Trap."
sigh... the shack is 10x10. Does that help?
or maybe - with this GM - the phrase "I'll take a moment from the doorway to look around more." means "I will now perform a Perception check on each 10'x10' area (or potion thereof or lesser area if required), taking 10 and using my Perception MW tool, looking especially for hidden or concealed compartments/traps/creatures/treasure/doors/peep-holes/plot hooks. If I find/detect/perceive anything else you think I should know about please tell me?"
But I guess we COULD be playing a "Mother May I?" game and I'll write out the above statement and read it out at each doorway... if that is the way the GM wants to run the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the DC to recognize something is a trap?
Except that your common sense breaks down in a game with uncommon abilities.Sure, we all agree that a DC0 bear 'trap' on a table should obviously be detectable without an active search.
And yet, that DC20 tripwire stretched across the path is just as easy to see for my high level character with a +30 perception as that bear trap is for a 'normal' person. But I've been told, common sense aside, that I can't see that tripwire unless I'm actively searching for it.
So, what's the difference between that bear trap on the table and the wire across the path which makes one 'obvious' and the other 'invisible'?
The problem with your argument is that there is a difference between perceiving a thing and realizing a thing is a trap.
Perception != recognition.
[sarcasm alert!]Perception or Linguistics? It appears that that depends on the player (and perhaps the GM?).[/sarcasm alert!]
You just don't buy them because you view perception as bounded by normal human limits, no matter what the perception modifier is.It's not a limit on perception that I'm arguing as justification for the rule. It's a limit on cognition. The difference between noticing a detail, and realizing it is an important detail. Even superman has blind spots (cognitively).That 'limit on cognition' is something that does not exist in the Pathfinder universe as any penalty on perception skills or modifiers.
You just made it up.
So, once again, what's the DC to smell poison from 10' away?
There is none, unless you have the scent ability and specifically check.
Don't try to mix real-world physics with game rules. The two don't mesh.
Bolded the relevant part no you don't know this you didn't check that 10x10 area particularly.actually, the "DC0 bear 'trap' on a table" is not noticed - as long as the GM does not mention it. If it is not mentioned by the GM, it's not noticed unless you ask the GM what's on the table and/or he includes it in the "more in-depth" room description.
Judge: "The inside of the old trappers shack is dusty, gloomy and filled with odd junk. A rickety table and chair are against the east wall, a moth-eaten rug covers an area in front of a fireplace on the north wall and a moldering bed is on the west. You are in the only door, which is in the south wall."
Player: "I'll take a moment from the doorway to look around more. Anything of note in the room? What junk is on the table? anything hanging on the wall, under the bed?"
Judge: "What's your Perception check?"
Player: "Taking 10, with my MW tool, I get a 30"
Judge: "Wow! that good!? You can see an oil lamp, some eating utensils and a rusty bear trap are on the table. Under the bed is a closed chest that you can't really see into, and the most important note is what looks to be a trap door under the rug. In fact, with that high a result, you can also tell that the floor around the trap door under the rug has been rigged to collapse - it's a Pit Trap."
sigh... the shack is 10x10. Does that help?
or maybe - with this GM - the phrase "I'll take a moment from the doorway to look around more." means "I will now perform a Perception check on each 10'x10' area (or potion thereof or lesser area if required), taking 10 and using my Perception MW tool, looking especially for hidden or concealed compartments/traps/creatures/treasure/doors/peep-holes/plot hooks. If I find/detect/perceive anything else you think I should know about please tell me?"
But I guess we COULD be playing a "Mother May I?" game and I'll write out the above statement and read it out at each doorway......
Yes a very uncluttered 10x10 shack that would work in. But remember 10x10 is the max and clutter might reduce you maximum searchable area. But if it's bigger then even if the trap is in the 10x10 your standing in your glance around the shack misses it since you weren't limiting the search area.
|
|
Are you assuming a moment is 6 seconds? The character could be taking 12 or even 30 seconds.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the GM or player needs to roll a Perception check for every 10 foot by 10 foot area, however. It’s much smoother to have the GM roll several secret Perception checks for each searching character and then apply each roll only when the PC is searching an area that actually has something to find.
|
|
...Bolded the relevant part no you don't know this you didn't check that 10x10 area particularly.actually, the "DC0 bear 'trap' on a table" is not noticed - as long as the GM does not mention it. If it is not mentioned by the GM, it's not noticed unless you ask the GM what's on the table and/or he includes it in the "more in-depth" room description.
Judge: "The inside of the old trappers shack is dusty, gloomy and filled with odd junk. A rickety table and chair are against the east wall, a moth-eaten rug covers an area in front of a fireplace on the north wall and a moldering bed is on the west. You are in the only door, which is in the south wall."
Player: "I'll take a moment from the doorway to look around more. Anything of note in the room? What junk is on the table? anything hanging on the wall, under the bed?"
Judge: "What's your Perception check?"
Player: "Taking 10, with my MW tool, I get a 30"
Judge: "Wow! that good!? You can see an oil lamp, some eating utensils and a rusty bear trap are on the table. Under the bed is a closed chest that you can't really see into, and the most important note is what looks to be a trap door under the rug. In fact, with that high a result, you can also tell that the floor around the trap door under the rug has been rigged to collapse - it's a Pit Trap."
sigh... the shack is 10x10. Does that help?
or maybe - with this GM - the phrase "I'll take a moment from the doorway to look around more." means "I will now perform a Perception check on each 10'x10' area (or potion thereof or lesser area if required), taking 10 and using my Perception MW tool, looking especially for hidden or concealed compartments/traps/creatures/treasure/doors/peep-holes/plot hooks. If I find/detect/perceive anything else you think I should know about please tell me?"
But I guess we COULD be playing a "Mother May I?" game and I'll write out the above statement and
clearly we are not talking the same language...
"But remember 10x10 is the max"...
I did say - "...perform a Perception check on each 10'x10' area..."
"...and clutter might reduce you maximum searchable area...."
I did say - "...or lesser area if required..."
so the following statement..."But if it's bigger then even if the trap is in the 10x10 your standing in your glance around the shack misses it since you weren't limiting the search area. "
doesn't make sense.
- If it is bigger, then I will perform more perception checks,
- If it is in the area where I am standing, it has already been triggered, but yeah, I didn't say I was checking the area where my PC was, I said I was checking in the shack "from the doorway " - by which I meant "before entering". and my PC is in a 5'x5' area, not a 10'x10'. I'm medium sized (sometimes small, it increases my Disable Device to be small).
- the statement "...your glance around the shack misses it since you weren't limiting the search area." make no sense to me, as I state IWAS limiting them (as needed, under the control of the GM).