Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThePolarBear" data-source="post: 7054150" data-attributes="member: 6857451">Absolutely. The opposite is also possible however: unless you lift a carpet you can't see what's beneath it. And the something you find might very well be blatant the moment you actually lift the carpet, requiring no roll whatsoever even if its "an act of perception".Possibly means possibly. It's just a possibility. It might have required a perception roll. Still missing the point: The example brought forward is NOT that of a functional trap but how the two different skills are used in regards to traps. Perception to notice something, Investigation to gain informations that are not immediatly apparent. In the example, the knowledge of the marks on the door is a given. How such information has been acquired is not revealed.In regards to burn marks the fact that are faint does mean something: you do not perceive them - at least not as burn marks. No amounts of looking around will let you distinguish said burn marks from other black spots, until you get down on your knees and start touching, analyzing the runes, passing your fingers on them and on the mosaics. At that point, assuming you have been thorough enough on your investigation, the difference is apparent without a roll.You are not investigating something you can't see. You do see that the mosaic has black spots, just like it has red, purple, green ones and runes and whatever. You are investigating something you are already looking at, and want to know more about it. You either realize that what you are looking at is not what you expected it to be or you don't.No matter how good your perception is you are not going to identify water just by sound: You hear a liquid sloshing. That's it.Even if it looks like water, sounds like water, smells like water, taste like water - it might still be poison.How is that not consistent? If it is always that way, it IS consistent <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />You never need more than one roll to identify a threat. Why?My opinion:a) Rolling is more complex than not rolling, so 2 rolls is more complex than one and takes more time.b) It increases the chance of failure no matter what: You have to succeed twice to obtain a single advantage. This might lead to group unsatisfaction.c) It uses "do not roll if not necessary" to skip parts that would be so obvious that rolling would not be required.Now, obvious traps are obvious because there's something that can be perceived as "obviously" out of place. No need for an investigation check.Non obvious traps require logic to see them through because the trigger is non obvious. Even if you see it, you won't recognise it. Or prehaps you won't even be able to see it at all because it's just in a non obvious place, where it's just not normal to look at.Once an investigation is done, you ALREADY know that there's something wrong because the effects are not difficult to perceive once you know what too look for.And again, this is how the "official" rules are. You do not like it? Do not run as they say. You do not find that consistent? Fix it at your liking. I personally have zero problems with applying rules as is when i feel like it, and changing them if i want to. Zero problems with having impossible tasks being impossible and not even checks, trivial tasks not be checks too, and gating apparent discoveries that should fall under another skill behind something that makes more sense does not infringe my suspension of disbelief.</blockquote>

Verification