4
\$\begingroup\$

If a mundane trap that makes an attack roll targets a creature who possesses concealment (normal or total), does the miss chance apply to the attack roll?

I've ruled in the past that traps ignore concealment because they don't need to "see" the target in most cases, but that prompts complaints from my players. I haven't been able to find any relevant rules one way or the other.

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

No, traps do not apply concealment

The paragraphs following Concealment tell you to apply logical limitations to concealment based on specifically the ability to see the opponent clearly and how it would modify your chance to hit.

Ignoring Concealment

Concealment isn’t always effective. An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn’t provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. [...]

Varying Degrees of Concealment

Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the miss chance accordingly.

Looking at it logically, "attack" traps do not adjust their aim to hit a particular individual, instead they are aimed at a particular location that will be attacked when the trap is triggered. An equivalent situation with a sentient attacker would result in the attack being considered to be into total concealment, ie 50% miss chance. However, given this is not the way traps work, the trap cannot see its target anyway, so concealment is meaningless.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think you might be mixing up total cover and total concealment at the end of your answer. \$\endgroup\$ – Carcer Aug 8 '18 at 6:31
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Looking at it logically, "attack" traps do not adjust their aim to hit a particular individual, instead they are aimed at a particular location that will be attacked when the trap is triggered. An equivalent situation with a sentient attacker would result in the attack being considered to be into total concealment, ie 50% miss chance. However, given this is not the way traps work, the way I would house rule as @blurry suggests - the trap cannot see its target anyway, so concealment is meaningless. \$\endgroup\$ – KerrAvon2055 Aug 8 '18 at 9:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KerrAvon2055 what if it's a magical trap which could plausibly be argued that it is magically aiming at the triggering target in some way? \$\endgroup\$ – Carcer Aug 8 '18 at 10:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Carcer I'll admit my Pathfinder adventures to date have only involved "attack" traps that were non-magical, the magical ones have all been "save" types. I would be inclined to look at interaction between concealment and the trigger. For example, the example CR3 Acid Arrow trap in the Core Rulebook is triggered by Alarm - concealment does not stop Alarm detecting a character, so I would rule as GM that it would not affect the attack by the Acid Arrow. \$\endgroup\$ – KerrAvon2055 Aug 8 '18 at 13:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Baskakov_Dmitriy Many thanks! I ended up re-editing the final line out to conform to the edit you made (as "Left for posterity" no longer made sense) \$\endgroup\$ – blurry Aug 8 '18 at 13:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.