|
I think you are thinking about it backwards. Being a trap doesn't make it invisible, being invisible is what makes it a trap. If you can notice it, that makes it a hazard.
If the GM puts traps in the middle of well-traveled roads, or random points in the wilderness, you might have other things to talk about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
8 miles/day in hostile terrain, with traps, ambushes and so on? I don't think it is a bad speed.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.
Thinking about this some more, if you have three people with good perception scores, you could move significantly faster.
PC A moves into the most recently checked area and checks the next ten feet after that.
PC B moves into the area checked by A and checks the next ten feet after that.
PC C moves into the area checked by B and checks the next ten feet after that.
PC A moves into the area checked by C and checks the next ten feet after that.
And so on.
That would allow a speed of thirty feet per round instead of ten feet per round.
3mph isn't too bad - that's a slow walking pace.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, rules support would be nice. You're essentially begging the question.I think you are thinking about it backwards. Being a trap doesn't make it invisible, being invisible is what makes it a trap. If you can notice it, that makes it a hazard.
If the GM puts traps in the middle of well-traveled roads, or random points in the wilderness, you might have other things to talk about.
What are you confused about? You seem to be the one suggesting GMs are required to be aggressive jerks. Turns out, they can choose to run a game where everyone has fun. I believe that is called rule 0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are you confused about? You seem to be the one suggesting GMs are required to be aggressive jerks. Turns out, they can choose to run a game where everyone has fun. I believe that is called rule 0.
Yeah, as a GM I can do whatever I want... but that doesn't make the ruling magically disappear either. So when I see a ruling that basically seems designed to encourage hostile player-GM relationships and in general feels intuitive or inconsistent or not paticularly believable why wouldn't I say something?
The whole "oh you can change it in your home games so there's nothing wrong" argument just seems kind of like a nonsequitur.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are you confused about? You seem to be the one suggesting GMs are required to be aggressive jerks. Turns out, they can choose to run a game where everyone has fun. I believe that is called rule 0.Again, rules support would be nice. You're essentially begging the question.I think you are thinking about it backwards. Being a trap doesn't make it invisible, being invisible is what makes it a trap. If you can notice it, that makes it a hazard.
If the GM puts traps in the middle of well-traveled roads, or random points in the wilderness, you might have other things to talk about.
He is discussing the actual rules, not what they could be. Rule 0 has no meaning outside of someone's table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to change the rule in your game. You just have to use the rule well, and the GM note on the FAQ supports that view.
Well no, I don't have to. I want to, because it's a pretty bad rule.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, rules support would be nice. You're essentially begging the question.I think you are thinking about it backwards. Being a trap doesn't make it invisible, being invisible is what makes it a trap. If you can notice it, that makes it a hazard.
If the GM puts traps in the middle of well-traveled roads, or random points in the wilderness, you might have other things to talk about.
No, the guys defining a hole in the ground or a visible tripwire a "trap" are those mishandling the rules and the FAQ.
Something that is plainly visible is a hazard.If it isn't concealed it isn't a trap.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A certain well-known evergreen adventure features an exposed pit trap that is mechanically labeled a trap. It's Perception 0 to notice and actually mentioned in box text. And it's blocking your path.
I think in some cases the GM will have to apply common sense to "you don't see it if you don't look for it". Especially in material predating the FAQ.
---
I think the distinction between traps and hazards is that a trap was built by someone intentionally, and a hazard is more happenstance (erosion, decay, weather phenomena, panicking crowds).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He is discussing the actual rules, not what they could be. Rule 0 has no meaning outside of someone's table.What are you confused about? You seem to be the one suggesting GMs are required to be aggressive jerks. Turns out, they can choose to run a game where everyone has fun. I believe that is called rule 0.Again, rules support would be nice. You're essentially begging the question.I think you are thinking about it backwards. Being a trap doesn't make it invisible, being invisible is what makes it a trap. If you can notice it, that makes it a hazard.
If the GM puts traps in the middle of well-traveled roads, or random points in the wilderness, you might have other things to talk about.
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.
When GM discretion is explicitly called out, Rule 0 is the actual rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When GM discretion is explicitly called out, Rule 0 is the actual rule.
Rule 0 is always the actual rule. That doesn't take away from what Paizo actually decided to rule on themselves though.
Besides, the section you quoted just suggested that you roll in advance to speed things up, which doesn't touch on the issue of traps being completely undetectable without active searching, which is what was being talked about in that quote tree. So I'm not sure why you'd cite that.
Again, rules support would be nice. You're essentially begging the question.I think you are thinking about it backwards. Being a trap doesn't make it invisible, being invisible is what makes it a trap. If you can notice it, that makes it a hazard.
If the GM puts traps in the middle of well-traveled roads, or random points in the wilderness, you might have other things to talk about.
A pit trap has a perception DC of 20. It's hidden well enough that you need a perception check of 20 to spot it while searching, the same as finding a concealed door, so it seems reasonable to conclude that a pit trap probably refers to a covered pit (but not one that's well-camouflaged, which is a separate trap).
A pit trap has a perception DC of 20. It's hidden well enough that you need a perception check of 20 to spot it while searching, the same as finding a concealed door, so it seems reasonable to conclude that a pit trap probably refers to a covered pit (but not one that's well-camouflaged, which is a separate trap).Again, rules support would be nice. You're essentially begging the question.I think you are thinking about it backwards. Being a trap doesn't make it invisible, being invisible is what makes it a trap. If you can notice it, that makes it a hazard.
If the GM puts traps in the middle of well-traveled roads, or random points in the wilderness, you might have other things to talk about.
Except we have an adventure path example that isn't covered/concealed, is DC0, and is still a 'trap'.
Also, DC20 is trivial at high levels, and yet you can't actually 'spot' those things unless specifically searching.
Yeah. Adventure paths don't always take exact rules into account, especially when those are clarified later. There are probably a lot of instances of it being assumed that SLAs are hidden.
Just pointing out that, by the published rules (rather than one-off stuff in APs), you're not going to get uncovered pits that are magically unseeable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just pointing out that, by the published rules (rather than one-off stuff in APs), you're not going to get uncovered pits that are magically unseeable.
But you can and you do. There's no rule anywhere that sets a minimum perception DC before a trap can count as a trap. Having a Perception DC0 trap may be silly, but there's nothing inherently illegal about making one and that it's printed in an AP doesn't suddenly mean it's not real.
And likewise, per the rules, you will never be able to see that trap unless you announce that you're searching before you reach it.
So, yeah. It does exist, by the published rules and is completely rules consistent to have it behave that way.
In general, characters have to look to spot a trap or secret door. Individual authors or GMs can override that rule for a specific circumstance.
Absolutely, but as previously stated invoking Rule 0 to circumvent a rule doesn't change that Paizo still thought it was a good idea to codify in the rules.
|
|
Absolutely, but as previously stated invoking Rule 0 to circumvent a rule doesn't change that Paizo still thought it was a good idea to codify in the rules.
In general, characters have to look to spot a trap or secret door. Individual authors or GMs can override that rule for a specific circumstance.
It is a good idea to codify it in the rules. Paizo has made a trend of empowering GMs in their FAQ answers. It is much easier for a GM to relax a rule when needed than it is for them to restrict actions or enforce a rule. The FAQ is just plain better for gameplay.
Once again, where do the rules separate the chance to passively notice an open pit trap from a covered pit trap?
Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ is just plain better for gameplay.
I'm sorry, but no. Invisible holes in the ground are not good for gameplay. They're inconsistent with the rest of the game, break versimilitude and encourage antagonistic player-GM relationships.
Me being empowered to fix that BS whenever I GM does not take that way.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that you agree that a GM should change these things when they're as ridiculous as this. I just find it strange for one to simultaneously argue the rule is good for the game and yet also argue that the rule should be discarded basically whenever it's inconvenient.
The problem is at that point you don't really have a rule, you have arbitrary GM calls and the FAQ just muddies the water... and if you do apply it consistently, Ozy's done a good job demonstrating why that's just a mess.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The FAQ is just plain better for gameplay.I'm sorry, but no. Invisible holes in the ground are not good for gameplay. They're inconsistent with the rest of the game, break versimilitude and encourage antagonistic player-GM relationships.
This is hyperbole. This whole "invisible holes" line is taking a rule to ridiculous extremes and calling it a bad rule. That is not a fair evaluation at all.
Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that you agree that a GM should change these things when they're as ridiculous as this. I just find it strange for one to simultaneously argue the rule is good for the game and yet also argue that the rule should be discarded basically whenever it's inconvenient.
They are only ridiculous when you make them ridiculous. In the normal course of play, a GM won't need to make exceptions. Players know to announce when they are looking for traps or that they are "moving cautiously" and GMs roll in secret or call for rolls and apply those to the relevant areas.
The problem is at that point you don't really have a rule, you have arbitrary GM calls and the FAQ just muddies the water... and if you do apply it consistently, Ozy's done a good job demonstrating why that's just a mess.
We have a decent rule. Ozy has demonstrated that it is easy to come up with ridiculously unrealistic gaming situations. Yes, there are exceptions. They are easy to handle. And with the FAQ, every day adventuring is both fun and fair.
An open pit is a trap.
An open pit should not be a trap. Create Pit doesn't follow trap rules, for instance, and the trap rules actually cover the difference between covered and uncovered pit traps.
Pits in dungeons come in three basic varieties: uncovered, covered, and chasms. Pits and chasms can be defeated by judicious application of the Acrobatics skill, the Climb skill, or various mechanical or magical means.
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. A character who fails to detect a covered pit is still entitled to a DC 20 Reflex save to avoid falling into it. If she was running or moving recklessly at the time, however, she gets no saving throw and falls automatically.
only hidden traps can't be passively noticed, then traps such as tripwires, which aren't hidden, can be passively noticed.
Tripwires also don't show up under the list of traps.
I only noticed two examples of clearly visible traps. One didn't involve a perception check (barbed wire), and one wouldn't be obvious to adventurers (electrified fence).
Ok, take that 'ridiculous' hole, and put down a single branch to cover it. Invisible yet? Now another, and another, and so on.
At what point of covering the hole with branches does it become invisible?
When it's a DC 20 perception check to spot it while actively checking for traps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting isn't it, that the Core Rules, long before this FAQ make it quite clear in the case of covered pits: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.
ahah! they're thus immune to trapfinding!
*ow ow ow ow ...kidding ow ow ow ow...*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is missing is why a character with +1 perception can spot an exposed pit (DC 0) automatically but a character with a +50 perception can not spot an bear trap hidden under a few leaves (DC 20)? Especially when that same character can spot an invisible enemy standing still.
What is missing is why a character with +1 perception can spot an exposed pit (DC 0) automatically but a character with a +50 perception can not spot an bear trap hidden under a few leaves (DC 20)? Especially when that same character can spot an invisible enemy standing still.
A character that is invisible, standing still, still has other ways of revealing his presence.
A trap is literally stationary and noiseless until triggered. It's not so much that you cannot see it, but you do not recognize it as a trap without active effort.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is hyperbole. This whole "invisible holes" line is taking a rule to ridiculous extremes and calling it a bad rule. That is not a fair evaluation at all.
It's literally something that actually exists in the game. It's telling when you can come up with 'ridiculous extremes' just by citing something Paizo actually printed.
They are only ridiculous when you make them ridiculous.
No, the idea that it's utterly impossible to notice them without actively searching no matter how perceptive you are or how easy it is to spot the trap is ridiculous on its face.
The more extreme examples only serve to help highlight how strange the rule is, but even ignoring those doesn't take away from the issue of binary trapfinding.
And with the FAQ, every day adventuring is both fun and fair.
I'm not sure I agree with either of those statements. It makes trap management even more of a chore and encourages strategic overuse and it certainly doesn't feel good to play a high perception character and autofail because you didn't think you needed to burn a move action that one time. As I said way back in the beginning, I find it beyond silly that Pathfinder characters have no ability to notice things around them without actively taking actions to do so.
Interesting isn't it, that the Core Rules, long before this FAQ make it quite clear in the case of covered pits:
To be fair, the core rules made it quite clear in the case of traps too. Which is another reason to dislike this FAQ, since it literally 'wastes' one of Paizo's FAQ slots on merely restating what is already in the CRB.
I didn't say it broke mine. Bends it maybe, but I'm familiar with the inattentional blindness phenomenon and consider it an adequate explanation for the edge case.
Inattentional blindness is a thing, but would you really say it's always true? That you never see objects you aren't actively looking for? Ever?
It's a concept that seems better served by increased DCs than guaranteed failure.
|
|
They are only ridiculous when you make them ridiculous.No, the idea that it's utterly impossible to notice them without actively searching no matter how perceptive you are or how easy it is to spot the trap is ridiculous on its face.
The more extreme examples only serve to help highlight how strange the rule is, but even ignoring those doesn't take away from the issue of binary trapfinding.
See inattentional blindness. This well-studied phenomenon demonstrates exactly what you seem so hung up on. While there is a debate on whether perception is limited or unlimited, and hence whether a high perception bonus would help or not, it nevertheless exists. Paizo just comes down on the side of the debate that argues inattentional blindness is a result of memory and not perception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See inattentional blindness. This well-studied phenomenon demonstrates exactly what you seem so hung up on. While there is a debate on whether perception is limited or unlimited, and hence whether a high perception bonus would help or not, it nevertheless exists. Paizo just comes down on the side of the debate that argues inattentional blindness is a result of memory and not perception.
I discussed this further down in the same post. Inattentional blindness is a real phenomenon that actually exists, but it's far from absolute. It is, in fact, possible to notice things you aren't looking for. It's not even a particularly rare occurrence.
|
|
It is also impossible for characters to decode simple ciphers without formal language training. Reality has little basis in the game.
There is a reasonable explanation for paizo to make the assumption that blindness is always applicable. And ultimately it is a game design question, not a realism question. It's plausible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules+FAQ cover non-combat well enough: take your time if you want to find traps. It just means more in-game time passes: Sessions only get slowed down when you need to explain that's how they're going to work. That's all fine and good.
-----
But they fall over in situations like combat where actions are at a premium, and players will not be burning actions to find traps at all times. Since "finding traps is an action" and that action is unlikely to be taken unless sufficient hints are given by the DM, the problem arises that the Trap Statblock does not include enough information in this regard.
There needs to be a 'hints to divulge' or at least 'hints to notice reactively' section of the statblock for the DM to read off, or use, to give players some form of understanding of their situation.
Since there is not, this rule comes under the guise of requiring either:
- excessive metagaming on behalf of the players "I search the puppy for traps"
- additional blatant/descriptive gusto on behalf of the GM "the stone walkway is flanked on either sides by carvings of dragons with completely non-suspicious mouth openings that i normally would not describe in such detail"
Both are expectations that are at least slightly unfair, especially on new players/GMs, and turn traps into a mechanic that is clunky to use.
Now, granted: the rules are only really falling apart during a combat/chase: but if they fall apart at all - that's bad.
There are ways that this could be fixed: but searches always being reactive is the only one that would do so without re-writing the trap rules, to some extent. Does this mean that active searching kind of goes out the window? Yes.
But it means that there's no unfair situations inherent in the rules.
Unspottable traps - even if they only have the possibility to occur in combat - are still inherently unfair. Yes: Trap Spotter and Find Traps let you get around that. But for any other party, they become unfair.
You should not require a class+talent or class+spell combo to make a system function in a way that preserves player agency: even if that particular situation is uncommon, it still will occur.
Case in point:
Magic traps are a more specific scenario than just any trap: yet because trapfinding was rogue only, and this was overly confining, they've continually added abilities that either grant trapfinding to non-rogues, or allow the same thing under a different name for other classes.
Combat trap spotting is specific as well, but has only two real options going for it as a solution.
That's also completely discounting the fact that the FAQ still requires you to set up a party "standard procedure" to not have traps function unfairly outside of combat.
There are other problems with the trap rules:
This thread has covered the requirement of meta-gaming to make the rules 'fair':
- Unfair outside of combat unless you define a default-party-operating-procedure that is not assumed by the core game.
- Unfair inside of combat unless you have a trap-spotter-rogue or find traps spell.
But there's also:
- Design rules are overly loose and difficult to scale traps for a relevant CR. Have you ever tried to make a trap as a GM, and match it to a 'standard party'? try it.
- Rules don't provide enough guidelines/caveats to cater to all types of parties, nor an expectation for a valid Perception/disable check for a PC per level.
- not enough guidelines for getting through traps by blowing them up or smashing them, at least without feats that specifically provide the means to do so etc.
Note: I'm defining "fair" as "preserves player agency without requiring them to jump through hoops, thus creating a negative clash between players and GM". Other's definition may vary.