| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, now the best traps ever will be covered pit traps on wilderness trails, or really any trap in the wilderness. Because nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to be searching every 10' when they have to travel 10 miles to the next town.
Hey if it worked for Team Rocket...
Seriously though, now Trap Spotter is actually worth taking.
Ultimately, I approve of this FAQ, though the suggestion of the GM taking away player agency by making their rolls for them gives me pause.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, now the best traps ever will be covered pit traps on wilderness trails, or really any trap in the wilderness. Because nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to be searching every 10' when they have to travel 10 miles to the next town.Hey if it worked for Team Rocket...
Seriously though, now Trap Spotter is actually worth taking.
Ultimately, I approve of this FAQ, though the suggestion of the GM taking away player agency by making their rolls for them gives me pause.
Players making the die rolls isn't agency.
I have yet to meet a player that didn't throw a fit when I started making rolls on their behalf.
Take 10 is only permitted if the GM rules that you are not "distracted." All the GM needs to say is that you're "distracted" by the thought that you might be missing something important, and you can't take 10 any more.
The PDT has been very explicit in this: "The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies," meaning that if the GM doesn't want you to do it, the example in the rulebook is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial.
And, once again, this is the example given in the core rulebook.
It is an explicitly defined set of circumstances that is permissible.
Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you roll a d20 enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.
....
Common "take 20" skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
Emphasis mine.
Per the core rulebook. The presence of traps and the act of looking for said traps is neither threatening nor distracting. Taking 10 and/or taking 20 while looking for traps is permitted.
The non metagaming work around is to get the party into their dungeon crawling formation , and then ask for rolls. That lets them use things like rerolls and whatnot when you call for perception checks, then you put them on the map depending.
2. Traps require active searching. Has weird implications for perception, and means that even demigods can't spot a pit unless they actively look for it, but at least traps aren't totally neutered. *Was* the way it used to work in 3.5.
Neither is particularly good. I would have leaned towards the first option, but the second isn't a *totally* terrible choice either.
Well, yeah, in 3.5, unless made of stone (dwarfs*), gods without trapfinding can't find traps.
"Rogues (and only rogues) can use the Search skill to locate traps when the task has a Difficulty Class higher than 20."
Dwarfs can find them if related to stone.
Not even gods can disable a magic trap (unless they have trapfinding)
*"A dwarf who merely comes within 10 feet of unusual stonework can make a Search check as if he were actively searching, and a dwarf can use the Search skill to find stonework traps as a rogue can"
Dwarfs have trapspotter related to stonework in 3.5.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dislike the 10 foot search as well, but perhaps you could up the substance to grarg ratio a bit?
You're probably right. My bad,
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, now the best traps ever will be covered pit traps on wilderness trails, or really any trap in the wilderness. Because nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to be searching every 10' when they have to travel 10 miles to the next town.Hey if it worked for Team Rocket...
Seriously though, now Trap Spotter is actually worth taking.
Ultimately, I approve of this FAQ, though the suggestion of the GM taking away player agency by making their rolls for them gives me pause.
I'm fully in agreement here. This is how perception should work, and makes traps significant and not just a hand-wave. Choices become important again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh - it takes time.
There are two mechanics that move things along and keep the players from searching every 5 feet:
If you are handwaving those in your game - (opinion) you may as well handwave traps as any character that puts a smidge of effort into detection will outpace the perception DC's quickly.
I've yet to see a solid case made where the current rules result in a trap that is dangerous, tension building, or even resource using... which leaves the question of why they are even a feature of the game really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
10 feet move action search 10 feet move action 10 feet. Its not going to take as long as you'd think to search a place, it tends to wear out buffs because the players take so long with it, not their characters.
Looking quickly through say, the dog pharoes tomb (spoiler alert, there's a fairly good sized tomb) i get about 106 10 foot squares, doors, and sarcophogi to perception. That 636 seconds of searching and moving, or 10 minutes. That really only matters for 10 minute per buffs at low levels, not at all four hour buffs, and if you're casting minute buffs and kicking down the door you're not searching anyway.
Taking 20 on the doors sarcophogi etc would add (3 seconds per check X 20 times as long= 1 minute per check) 6 minutes to the run time.
So you don't need to handwave the rules about search times, what you need to handwave is the players trying to write code for a dm playing the gotcha game "you didn't search the LEFT Eyesocket!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I know I would need hidden rolls for players I would have them roll X number of times before the game started. Normally X was 5, which was more than I needed for any one session. That way it is their rolls, not mine that determine their success or failure.
For this new rule a GM might ask for 10 rolls and just keep them recorded for future sessions to avoid having to ask them to roll at the beginning of every session.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read this FAQ, was disappointed, but then took a moment to digest:
It does affect the speed/area covered per action: however, people looking for confirmation that trap checks can be made pseudo-reactively have actually gotten exactly that.
The FAQ says several things:
ergo: if players want reactive checks out of combat, they can have them, provided they are willing to take the speed hit, which will be irrelevant in most non-combat-circumstances. They can take checks in combat too, but since that burns an action, it makes more sense to declare it as a combat action instead.
If you take a second to reword the FAQ to a more simple step-by-step way to play, without changing the meaning:
If players wish to check for traps constantly:
Outside of initiative, it is smoother to have all movement done at search-as-you-go speeds, players should declare when they want to move at full speed, and neglect trap searching.
Inside initiative, whether due to combat/danger/time constraints, players move at full speed by default, and should declare trap-searches only if they are prepared to use a move action.
Furthermore: it provides FAQ backing (by saying its "smoother") for players who want to run the game that way, that might otherwise be denied the option by a hard-line GM.
The one other thing this does affect is that searching for traps and combat/speed/limited actions per round do not mix easily, and thus you must choose an active search and waste part of your combat round, if you're really keen on looking for traps: and even then you're probably burning 1 move action per 10 ft square. Meaning if you want a chance to react to a trap that's on a bridge you are charging across to smack an orc, you want trap spotter talent or find traps spell.
Thus:
Trap Spotter and Find Traps retain some measure of power, allowing them to function as free checks within 10 ft that function even in combat/not searching. If you are solely reliant on a trap-spotter rogue for trap finding, you can move at full speed while relying on them. I'm also reasonably sure that if you move at half-speed-search-mode, they technically allow that character to roll twice to find the trap.
But you don't need to bog the game down, and are directly encouraged not to by using auto-search-speeds.
The FAQ is, in fact, confirming, that you can legally/FAQ-RAW run the games as pseudo-reactive checks, provided you are happy to be moving at a certain speed. You are also within your rights, as a player, to ask the GM to run the game in that manner, as it is FAQ-supported and FAQ suggested:
If a GM objects to you taking 2x as long to clear a dungeon for whatever reason, he can throw random encounters at you to soak more resources.
So:
Barring being mindful of the half speed caveat (which is not relevant a lot of the time) this does not change the way I run my table, and I can't help but feel pleased by this :)
Whether you or your players actually roll the dice is largely up to your table.
There might be some questions about taking 10/20 though!
Edit: Rule 0 always applies of course :P
This thread makes me understand why the dev team is loathe to issue FAQs. No matter what they say, some people will be mad, and no matter how well they say it, some people will parse and quibble over every single word to try to still get the result they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is really more with the 10 foot area check from what I see.
That is what really slows things down. I dont think the move action to search would be an issue if not for that.
Rather than rolling Perception checks in secret, I'd probably make the players roll only when they're about to trigger the trap. If they make the check, they don't trigger it.
Though I think I'll house rule that you can spot traps with a penalty if you're not actively searching. Does -5 sound about right?
I have always played that you have to call for the check when looking for traps, hidden doors and other things, but I have never used the 10 foot area limit. I will continue to do that. The fact that some AP's say "if the players search for .." has also been a hint that the search has to be intentional.
As for a -5 penalty I think it will vary by table. Traps don't have nearly as high a perception DC as hiding opponents, and if a character is made to have a really high perception they can easily find traps even with a -5. As an example I have seen level 10 characters with a +20 and higher perception modifier. I have even seen as high as a +30.
On the high end most traps dont go over a 30 perception DC so even if someone has a -5 penalty they are going to find the trap unless they just roll poorly and/or it has an extremely high check.
Basically past level 10 I would not expect for it to be too difficult to find a trap if they always get passive checks, and with everyone in the party getting a check someone is likely going to roll high even if they modifier is not great.
Looking over a few traps, the Perception DCs seem like they go up slower than the trap DC on average. At level 1, a -5 penalty would make a typical DC 20 trap almost impossible to find. At level 20 a DC 34 trap probably isn't hard to spot for the 'average' group.
|
We have players that pump up thier perception checks so as to make trap DCs trivial up to APL+4. So they just declare they are taking 10 every 10 feet. It doesn't slow things down, but it ensure traps will never be a challenge. At least with letting perception work at a distance for travelling trap searches for paranoid players, you can apply distance penalties. They might see the trap at the far end of the 50 foot room. And they might still more closely investigate the door or desk as they get closer.
But realistically, people closely examining every 10 feet through miles of adventure is ridiculous. But as it's in the rules, how do you tell them no, especially in PFS.
|
It's not exactly how I'd have made it, but this ruling works well enough for me. It does have several advantages;
- Clarity, at long last, about what kind of rulings to expect
- One rule that works for all kinds of traps, regardless of whether the trap is in the open or not
- 10ft search area nicely matches 10ft Trap Spotter/Stonecunning range, as well as the Sift and Find Traps spells.
If someone's travelling at 10 feet per round, that's about 1mph.
So let them know their ten mile journey to the dungeon is going to require them to turn a day-trip into a camping expedition if they want to be like that.
But if you're just walking through the woods, the chances of you stumbling upon a random trap seem pretty infinitesimal.
Traps are mostly just an irritant anyway. If my adventurer stands on a bear trap in the middle of the woods, he heals up and moves on.
Traps are mostly just an irritant anyway. If my adventurer stands on a bear trap in the middle of the woods, he heals up and moves on.
That's the problem that spawned this whole thread. They aren't just an irritant -- especially spell-traps.
Getting hit with multiple dispel magic glyphs of warding on your way to the bbeg is more than just an irritant. It is significant insofar as how you approach the entire problem.
And what happens if one of those glyphs you trigger sends him a message that you are coming and basically your exact location?
Now, you have not only your buffs being dispelled by moving in a combat situation when he takes the initiative and comes to you, you can't even take the time to search for them while fighting his minions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
has anyone ever caught a badguy unaware in their dungeon? really? With Sir Clanks a lot the paladin making negative 30 stealth checks?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Replace all traps with haunts. All problems solved!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the hot new tactic is to set up an ambush in the forest with a pit trap between the archers and the PCs. Melee PC tries to rush the archers, doesn't take time to look for traps, timbeeeeerrr!
Hot new tactic? This is ultimately why minefields are nothing more than speed bumps to sophisticated armies if they aren't covered by fire, either infantry or artillery. Enemy fire keeps the engineers from effectively searching for and deactivating the mines without massive risk or distracts the unit from searching for them at all until it's too late.
|
Take 10 is only permitted if the GM rules that you are not "distracted." All the GM needs to say is that you're "distracted" by the thought that you might be missing something important, and you can't take 10 any more.
The PDT has been very explicit in this: "The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies," meaning that if the GM doesn't want you to do it, the example in the rulebook is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial.
And, once again, this is the example given in the core rulebook.
It is an explicitly defined set of circumstances that is permissible.
Taking 20: When you have plenty of time, you are faced with no threats or distractions, and the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, you can take 20. In other words, if you roll a d20 enough times, eventually you will get a 20. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, just calculate your result as if you had rolled a 20.
....
Common "take 20" skills include Disable Device (when used to open locks), Escape Artist, and Perception (when attempting to find traps).
Emphasis mine.
Per the core rulebook. The presence of traps and the act of looking for said traps is neither threatening nor distracting. Taking 10 and/or taking 20 while looking for traps is permitted.
Taking 10 is fine for most moving parties (unless they are riding at a galop or some such), taking 20 take a lot of time and movement would be slowed to a crawl, but is perfectly valid if the players are willing to spend the character time.
With the addition of 2move action to check for traps" the overland speed change, but it still work fine for things like a hole in the ground and similar obstacles, people arguing that "you can't perceive the sun" notwithstanding.
So a group can get normal overland movement while taking 10 (it is what we do in RL, unless we want to hit a lamppost while walking), or slow to 1/20 of overland speed and check every centimeter of the road. Probably they would find a few dimes, but never get anywhere.
|
has anyone ever caught a badguy unaware in their dungeon? really? With Sir Clanks a lot the paladin making negative 30 stealth checks?
Last game I played in we had the cleric with a -13 stealth check... so we used a couple "gimmicks" and got his -13 back to positive numbers and stuck him in the back of the party... (the comment was heard - "with a -13 Initiative modifier, you are 'Last'". So yeah, it's POSSIBLE, if we put some effort into it, and the judge allows it...
|
|
So the hot new tactic is to set up an ambush in the forest with a pit trap between the archers and the PCs. Melee PC tries to rush the archers, doesn't take time to look for traps, timbeeeeerrr!Hot new tactic? This is ultimately why minefields are nothing more than speed bumps to sophisticated armies if they aren't covered by fire, either infantry or artillery. Enemy fire keeps the engineers from effectively searching for and deactivating the mines without massive risk or distracts the unit from searching for them at all until it's too late.
yep, and this is why Bangalore torpedoes were invented...
Replace all traps with haunts. All problems solved!or with Tech traps.
Judge: "Anyone have the Technologist Feat? No?"
Perception can be made untrained, and is there unaffected by technological traps.
Only Disable Device would require the Technologist feat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Replace all traps with haunts. All problems solved!or with Tech traps.
Judge: "Anyone have the Technologist Feat? No?"
Perception can be made untrained, and is there unaffected by technological traps.
Only Disable Device would require the Technologist feat.
Yes, but if you're making a check untrained you can't use your skill ranks.
It's silly, but it came up before on bards using Bardic Knowledge to know about tech.
Int bonus, class level bonuses, but not skill ranks.
(I still think Technologist was bad design.)
|
|
Yeah, slow-movement searching for traps every 10' in a dungeon is one thing. That's not too hard to justify for either the GM or the players.
On a 30 mile jaunt through the wilderness? I don't think so. Which is why wilderness traps will always work unless they have a trapspotter. Trip wires- invisible, pits- invisible, bear traps- invisible, regardless of your perception or special senses.
It strains credibility and outright breaks game consistency.
Not exactly.
"Concealed Trip wires- invisible, Concealed pits- invisible, Concealed bear traps- invisible, regardless of your perception or special senses."
That is how it work. If the traps is concealed you need to spend an action to find it or have someone with the appropriate ability. Not is the trap is out in the open.
To paraphrase an old film: "The old wire across the street a neck level for the driver always work. Either it kill him or make him crash. We used it a lot against the English occupation troops."
That kind of trap isn't hidden, simply, if you move fast enough, you notice it too late to stop. Same thing for some pit trap.
But you don't need a special ability to spot it, and with our character perception we will be able to see it very far away.
The concealment of concealed traps in the wilderness last only for some time, then the plants used to hide them wither, or are blow away by rain and wind and so on. After a time (days or weeks) the traps isn't purposely concealed anymore, it is only a hazard that can be spotted by anyone, with different Dc depending on the terrain.
|
|
If someone's travelling at 10 feet per round, that's about 1mph.
So let them know their ten mile journey to the dungeon is going to require them to turn a day-trip into a camping expedition if they want to be like that.
But if you're just walking through the woods, the chances of you stumbling upon a random trap seem pretty infinitesimal.
8 miles/day in hostile terrain, with traps, ambushes and so on? I don't think it is a bad speed. If there is a highway leading to your dungeon it will be different, but I doubt someone will trap an highway unless he know in advance that you will be using it.
|
|
Traps are mostly just an irritant anyway. If my adventurer stands on a bear trap in the middle of the woods, he heals up and moves on.That's the problem that spawned this whole thread. They aren't just an irritant -- especially spell-traps.
Getting hit with multiple dispel magic glyphs of warding on your way to the bbeg is more than just an irritant. It is significant insofar as how you approach the entire problem.
And what happens if one of those glyphs you trigger sends him a message that you are coming and basically your exact location?
Now, you have not only your buffs being dispelled by moving in a combat situation when he takes the initiative and comes to you, you can't even take the time to search for them while fighting his minions.
The ones 15 miles away in the middle of the woods?
Unless he already knows you're coming and the path you're taking he can't put traps there that won't be randomly triggered by animals or hunters or something else not coming for him. And multiple ones? How do you arrange to be hit by multiple traps, but still have them spread out so far they can't be searched for?Sure, traps in combat can be a pain, but that's a good niche for them. Makes find traps useful.
To add: spell traps can't be found without trapfinding. And the trap spotter rogue talent makes that check reactive.
without that combo you will blunder into every magical trap.Yeah, slow-movement searching for traps every 10' in a dungeon is one thing. That's not too hard to justify for either the GM or the players.
On a 30 mile jaunt through the wilderness? I don't think so. Which is why wilderness traps will always work unless they have a trapspotter. Trip wires- invisible, pits- invisible, bear traps- invisible, regardless of your perception or special senses.
Random wilderness traps out in the middle of nowhere, with no clues or indications there's a threat? Sure. Don't use those. That's silly. Bear trap in the middle of a 30 mile trek? Why? What's the point?
A bunch of traps in the wilderness immediately surrounding the entrances to the kobold's lair? Makes sense. Limited enough area that it's reasonable for PCs to search for them.
Why? Because they are almost guaranteed to work. Why would they be there in the first place? Great place to snare/kill unwary travelers for loot/food.
If you're a hunter putting out snares for game, you put your snares on game trails well away from your campsite. If you're a smart bunch of monsters putting out snares for travelers, why not use the same logic? Put your snares on roads/trails through the woods, well away from your lair. Especially if they have zero chance of detecting the snare unless they are actively searching.
PCs get ambushed all the time without the GM giving them clues that they are in dangerous territory. Difference is, they actually get a chance to spot the ambush.
Now, as far as 'don't use them', well yeah, that should be said for the vast majority of all the traps out there.
Most animals are either immediately killed by the trap or will be unable to escape. A living human/humanoid, probably with unscathed friends, generally will find them only an annoyance (in the game, not RL).
To work hunting traps need to be checked fairly often to get the catch.