Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 5708756" data-attributes="member: 6669384">A Spot check may (or may not) tell them that there is a pattern of holes among the ironwork on the chest.  It might also reveal the maker's mark, whether the smith who hammered out the strap hinges was left handed, what type of wood was used to make the chest, or what kind of finish was used to preserve the wood.What I'm saying is, unless the trap maker is an idiot (entirely possible if it's spotted by a DC14), the details that reveal the trap could be seen, but would lack significance.To identify them as anything other than ornamental features would call for a Search check, and specifically by someone with the trap-finding class feature.  And that generally has to be asked for.Now some DM's presume that the Rogue will always check for traps before tinkering with a chest or lock.  Others don't.A couple of guys in our group had their "Standard operating procedure" for doors, windows, stairwells and containers.  Two stand guard, watching forward and back, one would hold a shield to partially protect the Rogue (give him an excuse for an Evasion in case something go boom), and the Rogue would check for traps.There were variations of course, depending on what sort of problem they were facing.  Still, one might declare, "We S.O.P. the door", and I know what they're doing.  positions are presumed, dice get rolled, and things happen (or not) as a result.That sort of "standard practice", once established, may replace the specific call of "I check for traps", but outside of that I generally expect someone to ask for the Search check.Why do I say the trap maker is an idiot to give it a DC 14...By the book, if it's DC 14, it doesn't even qualify as a "simple trap".</blockquote>

Verification