Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8104807" data-attributes="member: 12731">I'm not sure I interpret the rules to give "minimum rank" this significance.All that requirement does, AFAIK, is to ensure a trap check fails to detect the trap if it isn't met.Whether you need to foreshadow or not is - again AFAIK - something that depends on other factors, such as the one I discussed in the post previous.I have other issues with the PF2 implementation of trap <s>detection</s> disabling I find much more problematic. It concerns "non-traditional" traps, for just a single example:[URL unfurl="true"]https://2e.aonprd.com/Hazards.aspx?ID=12[/URL]The rules have several examples of traps which you evidently can disable by making a mental check (in this case, Religion) rather than to take action with your fingers (Thievery).How do I (the GM) know this? Because the hazard says so?But how do the players know this?I can't get the pieces to fit. First, the trap is hidden until detected. So it's not like the party hears ominous moaning or insane chatter.Only if the Perception check is made do you get clued in there's a trap at all. What does this mean - that the ominous moaning is so low and subtle it's hard to hear?And what does it mean for the example trap linked above? It says an object is "haunted by the echoes of a vicious mind". But it tells me nothing of how to present the trap to the players. Does it mean audible echoes? Or does it mean "a disturbance in the Force".And okay, so the Rogue manages to percept the hazard. But she's not trained in Religion, so I'm assuming she knows nothing of the nature of the hazard. And if the Cleric rolled low on his Perception, he presumably has detected nothing, so how can he know Religion is involved?How do we go from the "there's some kind of trap here" state, to the state where the Cleric realizes "this must be a spirit I can talk out of existence"?I have absolutely no idea.And even if you do realize there's a "spirit" what does that mean? How do you know you can exorcise the spirit just by making a check?! Are players expected to be so meta that they know which spirits that can be dispelled with a mere skill check, which spirits that require a greater ritual, and which spirits that must be bested in combat?I can find no better way to impart the "roll Religion" knowledge than to... say "you can roll Religion to disable the trap".As you probably agree, this makes for extremely dull and flat roleplaying.It exhibits the worst tendencies where "rollplayers"...say "I roll an Intelligence check to figure out the puzzle" instead of, you know, actually engaging in the puzzle, figuring it yourself as a player....say "I roll Diplomacy to convince the King to let us pass" instead of, you know, actually roleplaying your character, making up arguments and telling the king (GM) yourself....say "I roll Wisdom to see through the lies of the Witch" (or worse, "I Detect Evil" and if I get a reading, I draw my sword") instead of, you know, making up your own mind whether to trust the little old lady or not.Please tell me there is a better way to run traps Please tell me Paizo isn't so entrenched in their own rules system they take it for granted that gamesmasters just tell players the meta knowledge their characters need to know in order to take rational action.More importantly: Gamesmastering traps usually is no problem.Only here in PF2 have I encountered these problematic questions. Again, why are the rules so prescriptive? What is the value of this incredible rules minutae?My conclusion is the same as with every other issue I'm having: The rules would have been objectively better if a truckload of crud were erased before publication.</blockquote>

Verification