Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9050330" data-attributes="member: 6801845">I'm literally using [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER]'s example.&nbsp; The player objected to the suggestion that they describe how their rogue checked for traps and then, when they did describe what they were doing they were given a check.&nbsp; Disarming the trap was automatic because the players came up with a way to disable it.You, and Charlaquin may not consider describing how to find and disable a trap &quot;convincing&quot; the DM, I do.&nbsp; The player had to convince the DM they were doing an adequate job of searching for the trap.&nbsp; The player initially stated they would search for the trap the way a trained rogue would do.&nbsp; That wasn't adequate so they had to try again.&nbsp; The PCs then convinced the DM that their method of disabling the trap would automatically work and it did with no check.&nbsp;In the case of finding the trap &quot;doing what a well trained rogue&quot; would work for me and I would grant a check at that point.&nbsp; Disabling the trap?&nbsp; Cool fluff, but you still need to make a roll.&nbsp; It's not that the plan of how the trap is disabled matters, the check is for how well you implement that plan. There is no strawman.&nbsp; You can call it a &quot;strategy&quot; or some other term to disarm the trap by shoving a dagger in the door seam if you want.&nbsp; I call it the PCs coming up with a convincing narrative.&nbsp; A strategy to bypass the trap by cutting a hole in the thatch roof would work for me, otherwise you're just describing how the rogue is using their disarm trap skill. Convincingly.EDIT: again, there's nothing wrong with people using a playstyle I don't personally care for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 9050330, member: 6801845"] I'm literally using [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER]'s example. The player objected to the suggestion that they describe how their rogue checked for traps and then, when they did describe what they were doing they were given a check. Disarming the trap was automatic because the players came up with a way to disable it. You, and Charlaquin may not consider describing how to find and disable a trap "convincing" the DM, I do. The player had to convince the DM they were doing an adequate job of searching for the trap. The player initially stated they would search for the trap the way a trained rogue would do. That wasn't adequate so they had to try again. The PCs then convinced the DM that their method of disabling the trap would automatically work and it did with no check. In the case of finding the trap "doing what a well trained rogue" would work for me and I would grant a check at that point. Disabling the trap? Cool fluff, but you still need to make a roll. It's not that the plan of how the trap is disabled matters, the check is for how well you implement that plan. There is no strawman. You can call it a "strategy" or some other term to disarm the trap by shoving a dagger in the door seam if you want. I call it the PCs coming up with a convincing narrative. A strategy to bypass the trap by cutting a hole in the thatch roof would work for me, otherwise you're just describing how the rogue is using their disarm trap skill. Convincingly. EDIT: again, there's nothing wrong with people using a playstyle I don't personally care for. [/QUOTE]

Verification