PDA

View Full Version : who opens the chest?



Fitz10019
2009-08-03, 10:52 AM
Here's the situation: the party finds a chest. The rogue checks for traps and declares 'no traps found.' Which party member should open the chest? (I know there's an OotS panel where Roy opens a door for which Haley declared 'no traps found.' I want to pre-emptively declare that as a different situation. The possibility that enemies are beyond the door means that one of your frontliners should open the door in case of battle.)

Now, who should open the chest?
1. The character with the most hit points
2. The character with good saving throws and/or evasion
3. The rogue, because professionally, he declared 'no traps found' [and has elements of #2 anyway].

Sticking to PHB classes and leaving out the casters, here are our contenders and their trap-related virtues:
The level 3+ barbarian, with d12 HPs, strong Fort and trapsense
The level 9+ ranger, with d8 HPs, strong Fort, strong Reflex and evasion
The level 2+ rogue, with d6 HPs, strong Reflex and evasion
The level 10+ rogue, with d6 HPs, strong Reflex and improved evasion
The level 1+ fighter, with d10 HPs and strong Fort
The level 2+ monk, with d8 HPs, evasion and strong for all saves
The level 9+ monk, with d8 HPs, improved evasion and strong for all saves
The level 1+ paladin, with d10 HPs, and strong Fort saves
Any character with improved evasion

My group had a brief disagreement about this chest issue. I was outvoted, but I'm fine with the group decision. Still, I'm curious what standard operating procedures other groups may have, and how you decided upon it.

Please declare your order of preference for a top five list, and some reasoning. For instance:
1. any character with improved evasion (damage is likely to be minimized)
2. the level 2+ monk (likely to avoid damage, can take it if he flubs the save)
3. the level 9+ ranger (likely to avoid damage, can take it if he flubs the save)
4. the level 2+ rogue (likely to avoid damage, might survive if he flubs the save)
5. the level 3+ barbarian (no trap can stop him)

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-03, 10:54 AM
I'm wise to your game. That chest is a mimic.

Drider
2009-08-03, 11:00 AM
I'm wise to your game. That chest is a mimic.

No...the floor, walls and ceilings are all mimcs that are partially lycanthrope. They attack the pants, and turn the pants into a mimc...all because you demanded the DM roleplay that waitress you tried seducing and no one helped him out.

Darcand
2009-08-03, 11:02 AM
whomever wants it the worst

Telonius
2009-08-03, 11:04 AM
1. The 9+ monk. Even if he sets it off, it'll be the most useful thing he does all day.
2. The 2+ monk. As above.
3. 10+ Rogue. Probably best reflex saves of the rest, it's probably his fault if it's actually trapped, and he probably won't die even if he sets it off.
4. 9+ Ranger. Best able to withstand the trap if he sets it off.
5. 3+ Barbarian. Probably won't die if it goes off.

Typewriter
2009-08-03, 11:10 AM
The rogue proclaims the chest to be trapped beyond his skills to take apart and recommends returning later when he has more skill. Later, he returns and loots the unprotected chest on his own.

kjones
2009-08-03, 11:13 AM
The 1st level fighter - he's expendable. This is a compelling argument for the 2nd level monk as well.

Yukitsu
2009-08-03, 11:14 AM
An unseen servant.

Origomar
2009-08-03, 11:15 AM
Whoever has the lowest sense motive score(and im a rogue)

Random832
2009-08-03, 11:30 AM
The rogue proclaims the chest to be trapped beyond his skills to take apart and recommends returning later when he has more skill. Later, he returns and loots the unprotected chest on his own.

This. While your #3 has some merit in theory, in practice this means nobody else is risking anything, so nobody gets the treasure. I'd do it in front of them, too.

Logically, the rogue is entitled to half the treasure if there was no trap or it was disabled; the person opening the chest is entitled to the other half (all if the trap went off). If the rogue opens the chest, she is entitled to everything regardless of what happened with traps or not.

There ought to be a way to open it with a 10 foot pole. Doing so should give you a bonus on your reflex save (and if the trap either attacks the square in front of the chest or has a line/cone targeted in that direction, standing to one side will avoid it entirely.)

Anxe
2009-08-03, 11:31 AM
My players use the fighter type because whatever the trap does he'll survive. That doesn't work too well with teleporting traps though.

Mando Knight
2009-08-03, 11:42 AM
A level 2+ Paladin could be a good contender: d10 HD and Divine Grace to improve the saving throws...

Glimbur
2009-08-03, 11:57 AM
The wizard. Didn't we establish that they're invulnerable?

Cieyrin
2009-08-03, 11:58 AM
I've always been a fan of Barbarian trap finding myself, as he's probably too impatient for the rogue to do his job, rages and heel stomps the chest open, ignores the poison dart that's now in his chest, sees only gold in there and declares he's kicking in the next door now b/c it's boring here.

Blacky the Blackball
2009-08-03, 12:02 PM
1) The one who - after the entire party spends five minutes staring at the chest - cracks first and is overcome by curiosity.

daggaz
2009-08-03, 12:03 PM
Open the chest??? The barbarian picks it up and swings it around his head a few times before flinging it with force against the wall all the way across the room, where it promptly breaks apart into many pieces.

Milskidasith
2009-08-03, 12:07 PM
This. While your #3 has some merit in theory, in practice this means nobody else is risking anything, so nobody gets the treasure. I'd do it in front of them, too.

Logically, the rogue is entitled to half the treasure if there was no trap or it was disabled; the person opening the chest is entitled to the other half (all if the trap went off). If the rogue opens the chest, she is entitled to everything regardless of what happened with traps or not.

There ought to be a way to open it with a 10 foot pole. Doing so should give you a bonus on your reflex save (and if the trap either attacks the square in front of the chest or has a line/cone targeted in that direction, standing to one side will avoid it entirely.)

Wait, what? Whoever checks for traps gets 50% of the loot? Despite the fact that the rogue probably only got there because of his/her meatshields?

An even split is always best, or at least an even split by level. If most loot is in chests or past traps, then why would anybody who isn't searching for traps ever go with your group? They'd get nothing for getting attacked by creatures just because the rogue was the only one who can search for traps.

Random832
2009-08-03, 12:13 PM
Wait, what? Whoever checks for traps gets 50% of the loot?

Sure, why not? :smallwink: 1d20+11

The fighters can have all the gold in the pockets of whatever monsters they killed.

The Glyphstone
2009-08-03, 12:15 PM
The wizard. Didn't we establish that they're invulnerable?

You're on the right track...the answer is

-) The Wizard's summoned monster/elemental.

Thanatos 51-50
2009-08-03, 12:16 PM
What self-respecting rogue lets the party know he's actually found a treasure chest?
The same self-respecting rogue that finds a diamond ring in a pile of loot and doesn't immedialty make a slight of hand check to ensure the other party members don't see him tucking the ring into his pocket.

That's right, said rogue does not exist. I'm wise to your game.

Alternativly, Always vote for the "Good saves all around + evasion" monk.
Other alternativly, make the wizard or sorceror do it. Let's see hos well their so-called invulnerability suits them when they're at a low level, eh?

Also: Your roll tags are wrong, random. And they don't work outside of the PbP subforums. The proper syntax is:
1d20+x

jmbrown
2009-08-03, 12:19 PM
The rogue should open it because he declared the chest trap free (#3).

The players here are thinking in meta-game terms. "Okay, if the rogue is wrong which one of us should sacrifice ourselves for quite likely a useless trinket?"

Disregarding all gameplay mechanics, as in I'm speaking from purely a roleplay standard, if the party expert declares something to be safe then it's assumed to be safe and said expert carries out the task. A mine sweeper that deactivates a live mine removes it himself, he doesn't let some joe shmoe soldier he's traveling with remove it despite the fact that he deactivated it.

A player's character can be paranoid if that's his perosnality type but if every character is instantly worried about every chest being trapped then as a DM I'd mark every chest as untrapped until that one chest they don't bother searching is opened.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-03, 12:25 PM
-) The Wizard's summoned monster/elemental.

You're both wrong.

The wizard disintegrates the chest. :smalltongue:

Epinephrine
2009-08-03, 12:28 PM
In our group? Depends on the type of trap. The monk is a pretty good pick (evasion, all good saves, immune to poisons and diseases, SR in a couple of levels, high AC and touch AC) for nearly any trap though.

chiasaur11
2009-08-03, 12:32 PM
The disposable henchman.

Myshlaevsky
2009-08-03, 12:35 PM
You're both wrong.

The wizard disintegrates the chest. :smalltongue:

What if the mimic is a freakin' archmage? What then, punk? Huh? Huh?

Curmudgeon
2009-08-03, 12:48 PM
Make the Rogue do all the work, and the Rogue gets to keep all the treasure. It's only fair. If the Rogue decides to share things (like maps and keys) the party members should give some additional reward, like first choice of magical goodies from combat encounters.

John Campbell
2009-08-03, 12:48 PM
I open the chest. (Fighter 2/Urban Ranger 2/Rogue 8)

Because if I didn't find a trap, there isn't one.

eta: I open doors, too, because if there's an enemy beyond them, that puts me in position to move/tumble into flank without the tactically-inept Knight getting in my way.

Fitz10019
2009-08-03, 12:57 PM
The reason I wanted answers to be a list of 5 is because not every group has a [your first choice].

Jmbrown makes a good point about metagaming. My prioritization was based on minimizing the healing needed thereafter. Assuming a trap is there, and no character has improved evasion: for a failed save, every choice needs the same healing; for a save made, any class with evasion needs no healing.

Mr.Moron
2009-08-03, 12:58 PM
None of the above.

Test to see if there are any traps that set off from pressure by jabbing with a long sturdy pole at several different points on the thing. If you're feeling particularly paranoid tie a mouse to the end of the pole for magic that triggers on living beings touching it.

Once you've either set of the traps or determined there are none that will be set off from simple pressure, test to see if it can move. Several people with heavy sticks push on it. If it moves without traps, you're cool. If it's bolted down or otherwise secured, you're also cool.

In either case, take some chains and secure them to the weakest point of the chest. Then either attach them to a donkey/mule/horse (if you can move the chest and anchor it somewhere else). Or have your strongest members pull in tandem.

Failing that, throw heavy objects at it until it busts open.

Random832
2009-08-03, 01:05 PM
Disregarding all gameplay mechanics, as in I'm speaking from purely a roleplay standard, if the party expert declares something to be safe then it's assumed to be safe and said expert carries out the task. A mine sweeper that deactivates a live mine removes it himself, he doesn't let some joe shmoe soldier he's traveling with remove it despite the fact that he deactivated it.

Except the difference is that: (A) In-gameworld, the Rogue [and everybody else] knows that there are people who are better than her at this and can make traps she can't detect/deactivate. (B) Again in-gameworld, everybody knows that the fighter or barbarian is probably tough enough to take it - there's no such thing as 'tough enough to take' a landmine.

Skorj
2009-08-03, 01:16 PM
None of the above.

Test to see if there are any traps that set off from pressure by jabbing with a long sturdy pole at several different points on the thing. If you're feeling particularly paranoid tie a mouse to the end of the pole for magic that triggers on living beings touching it.

Once you've either set of the traps or determined there are none that will be set off from simple pressure, test to see if it can move. Several people with heavy sticks push on it. If it moves without traps, you're cool. If it's bolted down or otherwise secured, you're also cool.

In either case, take some chains and secure them to the weakest point of the chest. Then either attach them to a donkey/mule/horse (if you can move the chest and anchor it somewhere else). Or have your strongest members pull in tandem.

Failing that, throw heavy objects at it until it busts open.

Right spirit, but not very optimized. Only the guy searching for traps should even be in the room. It's his job to pick the lock when he decides it's trap free. You can then tie a rope to the lid, run that rope through a pully if needed, and out the door and around the corner. Never be in the same room as the chest when it is opened - nothing good can come from that.

Fixer
2009-08-03, 01:23 PM
Volunteer

Person who opens the chest gets first dibs.

If they survive the "not trapped" chest, that is.

jmbrown
2009-08-03, 01:38 PM
Except the difference is that: (A) In-gameworld, the Rogue [and everybody else] knows that there are people who are better than her at this and can make traps she can't detect/deactivate. (B) Again in-gameworld, everybody knows that the fighter or barbarian is probably tough enough to take it - there's no such thing as 'tough enough to take' a landmine.

That's still accepting a level of in-game logic. A rogue's though shouldn't be "Well, this guy is pretty tough he can take it if it's a poison trap. But this guy has a strong will so he can resist falling asleep if it's a magical sleep trap. Now me, I can dodge fireballs without taking damage so I should..." A spinning dagger to the face is still a spinning dagger to the face. It might not kill a fighter outright but it'll still hurt like hell.

Your average character without the trapfinding ability or disable device should have absolutely zero knowledge on how traps work except for what comes through personal experience. A person with no experience questioning the party expert is like a surgeon telling you your pancreas is inflamed followed by you saying "Give me the scalpel so I can check myself."

Another_Poet
2009-08-03, 01:50 PM
In our RL group, typically whoever does the searching/disabling opens the chest. While I understand arguments against this on utilitarian grounds, it is a matter of professionalism (and, to be honest, ease of play - keeps the game moving along).

t_catt11
2009-08-03, 01:59 PM
Yep, another vote here for the "cut the metagaming" nonsense. If you searched the chest and declared it untrapped, logically, you're the one who is going to open it. Placing a fighter in front because of their HD (or another character type because of their saves versus what you think MIGHT be in there) is nothing but metagaming.

If a group I'm DMing for does this, they can expect reduced treasure/increased area of effect traps. As stated above, the "professional" who delared the chest safe to open would naturally open it themselves. Anythign else requires you to look at a character sheet, and the characters involved don't have access to these.

My two dented coppers. :smallsmile:

Avilan the Grey
2009-08-03, 02:06 PM
Barbarian opens chest with big club, from afar.

Basically, never open any door or chest you can smash from a far way away...
(once we solved a number of seriously trapped doors by tying ropes to a steel bar, put it through the small window in the doors and then pull, all of us. Door flew off the hinges after a while (magical ropes FTW) and all the acid traps fizzled nicely way over there...:smalltongue:

Random832
2009-08-03, 02:19 PM
If a group I'm DMing for does this, they can expect reduced treasure/increased area of effect traps. As stated above, the "professional" who delared the chest safe to open would naturally open it themselves. Anythign else requires you to look at a character sheet, and the characters involved don't have access to these.

And they wouldn't know their abilities? There's a difference between metagaming and common sense, and a difference [that some above are not recognizing] between RL common sense and in-gameworld common sense.

"If I'm wrong, this could kill me, but it'll probably only hurt you a little bit" is not metagaming, regardless of the RL nonexistence of people who would only be hurt a little bit.

Da Pwnzlord
2009-08-03, 02:27 PM
Just have some summoned monster or something do it.

ColdSepp
2009-08-03, 02:29 PM
If you have the reserve elemental summoning feat from CAr or CMage, you don't need a trapfinder. Just send them out, over and over again.

jmbrown
2009-08-03, 02:32 PM
"If I'm wrong, this could kill me, but it'll probably only hurt you a little bit" is not metagaming, regardless of the RL nonexistence of people who would only be hurt a little bit.

Yes it is metagaming. An expert shouldn't be constantly thinking about the possibility of failure and then expect someone else to take the fall for his failure.

There's also an alignment issue there. No good rogue would accept someone else sacrificing themselves (even willingly) for his shortcomings.

Rogue: "Hey Mr. Fighter, you're tough. I'm 90% positive there's no traps but in case of that 10% I want you to stand here and hope you save against the possible falling rock, pit fall, swinging blade, poison needle, disintegrate, fatiguing ray, phantasmal killer, etc. etc. etc."

Fighter: "Uh... what's fantasimal killer?"

Rogue: "Yeah, just stand there and open the damn box."

JeenLeen
2009-08-03, 02:36 PM
I would recommend that the party (and the players) determine such scenarios before entering a dungeon. If there was any time to plan your trip, it makes sense to work out plans such as this.

But, in general, I would say either the rogue or the toughest (i.e., HP and Fort) character. HP damage can be healed; Will effects usually fade, or, if not, your healer can probably heal most status ailments. Fort saves can mean death.
At your party's level, it's probably not a save-or-die, so having evasion matters more. I'd say the barb or the level 10 rogue, whichever has more HP.

There is metagaming, but as the poster said, there's also in-game common sense. People know their basic abilities. Yes, the rogue knows he might fail, but he's probably pretty sure of his ability. I don't now if having an idea of "CR appropriate traps" would be metagaming or not. It's resonable, at least with some ranks of Knowledge, to figure that a dungeon of such and such construction probably doesn't have traps above such and such difficulty.


Tangent: If your party is mid to high level, I recommend using a Wand of Silence on the chest in case it has a Wail of the Banshee or Blasphemy trap. Or have the party be in a Silence field. Being in the last room might not help.

chiasaur11
2009-08-03, 02:38 PM
Yes it is metagaming. An expert shouldn't be constantly thinking about the possibility of failure and then expect someone else to take the fall for his failure.

There's also an alignment issue there. No good rogue would accept someone else sacrificing themselves (even willingly) for his shortcomings.


Umm...

Haley Starshine?

I mean, she's not a shining paragon of righteousness or anything, but she falls closer to G than N.

And only a total moron of the Lawful Stupid variety takes every risk for the party. You hand a job to the guy that does it best, and in the case of opening a trapped door, that's the guy who can shrug off an axe to the face.

Thanatos 51-50
2009-08-03, 02:46 PM
Umm...

Haley Starshine?

I mean, she's not a shining paragon of righteousness or anything, but she falls closer to G than N.

And only a total moron of the Lawful Stupid variety takes every risk for the party. You hand a job to the guy that does it best, and in the case of opening a trapped door, that's the guy who can shrug off an axe to the face.

Or someone with a martyr complex. I've played Rogues with martyr complexes, before.

magellan
2009-08-03, 02:50 PM
Yes it is metagaming. An expert shouldn't be constantly thinking about the possibility of failure and then expect someone else to take the fall for his failure.

There's also an alignment issue there. No good rogue would accept someone else sacrificing themselves (even willingly) for his shortcomings.

Rogue: "Hey Mr. Fighter, you're tough. I'm 90% positive there's no traps but in case of that 10% I want you to stand here and hope you save against the possible falling rock, pit fall, swinging blade, poison needle, disintegrate, fatiguing ray, phantasmal killer, etc. etc. etc."

Fighter: "Uh... what's fantasimal killer?"

Rogue: "Yeah, just stand there and open the damn box."

This is nowhere near metagaming! Even if the "character" believes to be 100% correct, after the first time he wasn't the "character" will know that he can be in error on his trap asessment! Is it also metagaming that most wizards dont run dagger swinging towards their opponent? Or do they have to do that in your games, because "It works for the guy with the sword"?

awa
2009-08-03, 02:57 PM
Ive run into this before pepole saying if you don't have knowledge X you are not allowed to use logic to try and figure out something that works.
Case in point you don't need to know how to build a trap to know that the charecter who's can take a mountain being dropped on him and laugh it off is more likely to be able to walk off a trap then the guy knocked unconscious by a stiff wind. The monk knows he dodge almost anything that comes his way and is immune to poison to boot it not unreasonable to ask him to open it.

And the idea that an expert is so sure of himself that it never occurs to him to take any kind of precaution becuase that would be meta gaming is ludicrous. ( note if he only worries about this when he rolls a one on his check then that is meta gaming)
That said monk level 9 all good saves and decent hit points means no matter what kind of trap it is hes got a good chance of survival

monk 2 for all the same reasons

Next barbarian because the most obvious traps are either going to use an attack roll, a reflex, or a fort save. Trap sense is always good the high fort will let him survive vrs forts save and attack rolls and reflex tests typical cause hp damage and hes most likely to survive that.

Next the rouge he lacks the fort save and his armors not very high and he doesn't have many hit points but hes got trap sense and evasion so its better then nothing.

Stompy
2009-08-03, 03:10 PM
None of your people open the chest.

If you want it opened (and you're paranoid), use a captured enemy. (If there are problems, use intimidate, or beat him to unconsciousness and use suggestion/dominate) You can also put a wall of force between you and the enemy, and open away. :smallbiggrin: If you don't have that option, then I would suggest a rope and pulley system. Have the guy with the biggest saves (and decent HP) use the system to open the chest, around the corner.

Make sure everyone else is out of the room, not in line of effect with the room when opening the chest.

This assumes that no expendable summons are used (sometimes DM's get fed up of this tactic, and ban it, usually due to morality reasons.) The summons work wonders though. Same with 1 point astral constructs.

Also, I feel that "I don't find any traps" means that I may have missed them (I'm not a perfect rogue), and I like "out of the box" solutions to situations like this. (Hell, I like trapfinding without the use of skills, it's fun.)

Milskidasith
2009-08-03, 03:16 PM
Sure, why not? :smallwink: 1d20+11

The fighters can have all the gold in the pockets of whatever monsters they killed.

Under Rich's system, that would be a pretty impossible roll; it would be a +10 to DC (giving up all the treasure despite having worked for it) and then at best a -5 and at worst a +2 for the relationship level (if the rogue is asking for all the treasure, they aren't going to be that liked by the party), and then the level modifiers. Ouchie.

jmbrown
2009-08-03, 03:22 PM
This is nowhere near metagaming! Even if the "character" believes to be 100% correct, after the first time he wasn't the "character" will know that he can be in error on his trap asessment!

Exactly. There's always a marigin of error but a person with confidence in his abilities isn't going to assume that the chest he's 100% positive isn't trapped is actually a trap (and whenever the DM rolls a hidden skill check, the character is supposed to be absolutely certain of the result until he's aware of failure). There's a infinitely small chance a piano could fall on your head but does that mean you're going to wear a hardhat wherever you walk? In the same vein, a level 10 character with 13 ranks in search and disable device isn't going to assume the simplest box has a cloud kill trap that he didn't notice.

Now if the player delegates to someone else "Please open this chest for me." Fine, whatever. That's the player willingly requesting something. If the player identifies the trap as something specific like poison needle, he can tell the barbarian to open it and pray for the best.

But if the players start bickering over who should open the chest because there's an equal chance on might absorb the damage, one might evade the damage, and one might save against the damage is meta-gaming to the extreme.

Random832
2009-08-03, 03:29 PM
Under Rich's system, that would be a pretty impossible roll; it would be a +10 to DC (giving up all the treasure despite having worked for it)

It doesn't matter that the Rogue is putting together a logical argument disputing the notion that they worked for it?


and then at best a -5 and at worst a +2 for the relationship level (if the rogue is asking for all the treasure, they aren't going to be that liked by the party)

Not all the treasure - just the treasure the Rogue is taking the sole risk for. The Fighter can keep anything he finds in the monsters' pockets. And if they want their share of the treasure, they can open the damn chest themselves. If they want all of it, then open it without having the Rogue search it for traps first.

No guts no glory.

Elfin
2009-08-03, 03:31 PM
The monk, because then the monk can at least soak up damage for the useful members of the party.
Or the rogue, because they were the one who declared the chest "trap free", and they have evasion.
Unless this is the end of the adventure, I wouldn't have the meatshield open it, because they'll need those hp when they're in melee.

Milskidasith
2009-08-03, 03:35 PM
It doesn't matter that the Rogue is putting together a logical argument disputing the notion that they worked for it?

That's what the check is for. But saying "Ok, I'm checking for traps, which is inherently riskless, and for that I get 50% of the treasure while you get none for bringing me here" is something that's, at the very least, unfavorable (+5) to the character, and probably a +10 depending on how much of the total wealth is in chests or other locked objects.


Not all the treasure - just the treasure the Rogue is taking the sole risk for. The Fighter can keep anything he finds in the monsters' pockets. And if they want their share of the treasure, they can open the damn chest themselves

So if a fighter fought through hordes of undead to get to the chest, and then the rogue checked for traps and opened the chest, he/she would get 100% of the treasure, despite the fact they'd be dead before they got there without the rogue and most BBEGs probably don't make it a habit to fill their undead's pockets with gold?

An even split makes more sense and never screws anybody over. (except in the case of this party, which has such wildly varying levels I don't know how it can function.)

Stompy
2009-08-03, 03:40 PM
To the side thread concerning the rogue getting 50% of the treasure...

Do note that ideally, each party member has their own contribution to retrieving the contents of the chest. I mean, you did have to crawl through a dungeon just to reach it, right? The fighter had the splat moochs, the wizard had to get rid of the big problems, etc. Sure, said rogue did search it for traps, and possibly unlocked it, but why does that mean you get 50% of the chest? (Does the person who opens it get the other half?)

This line of logic is a very slippery slope, and can result in PCs getting no loot. What happens if the wizard in his brokenness one-shots a dragon? Is he/she entitled to the dragon's horde?

This sounds like you're in a party with trust issues, and if this is a problem, may I suggest an adventurer's contract, that spells out in writing what each person is expected to do?

(The contract is written by the rogue obviously. :smallamused:)

EDIT: Milskidasith beat me to the point. Oh well.

Also, if you have to use the diplomacy skill against your fellow players, then you're doing something wrong.

t_catt11
2009-08-03, 03:43 PM
Yup. It is absolutely metagaming when you say "hmmm, you are tougher than me, you open the chest," or "you are better at dodging than me, you open the chest." It is of course not metagaming that the wizard stays behind the fighters in melee.

The first is using OOC knowledge to make an in-game decision. The second is simply use of basic tactics.

quick_comment
2009-08-03, 03:55 PM
Nobody opens the chest, you do what the army does with booby trapped things. You detonate it from afar. Disintegrate works, as do thrown weapons. You can even chuck the whole thing into a bag of holding, then outside the dungeon, take time to carefully demolish it.

In high level parties, the best way to open any chest is to have the psion manifest timeless body and then open the chest.

Gnaeus
2009-08-03, 03:55 PM
It isn't metagaming to say, "If Fred Fighter or Mark Monk is disabled by a trap, we can continue through the dungeon to our ultimate objective. If Ralph Rogue is disabled, we are likely going to have to stop if this dungeon contains traps. Fred, Mark, open the chest".

Cieyrin
2009-08-03, 03:55 PM
This is why you have a summoner druid in the party to send in the monkeys to do the Skill Monkey's job. If he can't be sure, send in the monkeys! The druid can push them into opening stuff and if they 'die,' they'll wake up at home in their jungle, a cold sweat down the back of their neck and suddenly zoologists will start wondering why the monkey population of the world has this haunted look on their face and the thousand yard stare from the various traumatized primates.

Milskidasith
2009-08-03, 03:57 PM
Yup. It is absolutely metagaming when you say "hmmm, you are tougher than me, you open the chest," or "you are better at dodging than me, you open the chest." It is of course not metagaming that the wizard stays behind the fighters in melee.

The first is using OOC knowledge to make an in-game decision. The second is simply use of basic tactics.

It's assumed all characters know about their abilities, at least in the abstract, isn't it? If the rogue said "It's a sleep trap, but I can't disarm it" would it be metagaming for the elven wizard, who knows he can't be forced to sleep, to open the chest while everybody else stood back? Even with how abstract HP is, having the guy in plate armor who can run for miles on end and shrugs off being hit in combat easily opening the trap makes more sense than having the frail stealthy character who gets knocked out by a single blow do it.

Stompy
2009-08-03, 03:59 PM
This is why you have a summoner druid in the party to send in the monkeys to do the Skill Monkey's job. If he can't be sure, send in the monkeys! The druid can push them into opening stuff and if they 'die,' they'll wake up at home in their jungle, a cold sweat down the back of their neck and suddenly zoologists will start wondering why the monkey population of the world has this haunted look on their face and the thousand yard stare from the various traumatized primates.

Just be careful that the DM doesn't say that "your druid ceases to revere nature" and revoke your Druid license. (I like using astral constructs better, no morality involved.)

Random832
2009-08-03, 04:00 PM
That's what the check is for. But saying "Ok, I'm checking for traps, which is inherently riskless, and for that I get 50% of the treasure while you get none for bringing me here" is something that's, at the very least, unfavorable (+5) to the character, and probably a +10 depending on how much of the total wealth is in chests or other locked objects.

They're being awfully unfavorable to the rogue in expecting him/her to take the damage from whatever trap he/she maybe didn't find with his/her d6 hit dice. (hit dice are a game concept, but the idea that fighters and barbarians are generally tougher than rogues is in-gameworld reality)

Milskidasith
2009-08-03, 04:02 PM
They're being awfully unfavorable to the rogue in expecting him/her to take the damage from whatever trap he/she maybe didn't find with his/her d6 hit dice. (hit dice are a game concept, but the idea that fighters and barbarians are generally tougher than rogues is in-gameworld reality)

Dude, this isn't about opening the trap... this is about the rogue getting 50% of the gold just for checking, which has no risk involved. It makes perfect sense for somebody else to open the chest, but it doesn't make sense to say "Ok, I get half the money anyway despite not putting myself at risk during combat or while searching for traps, and nobody else gets anything despite getting me here safely. And since the guy who opened the chest is dead, I call dibs on his corpse. Cleric, the money to raise him is coming out of your cut of the loot."

"You aren't giving me any of the loot and you are the one who killed him!"

"It's coming out of your cut!"

Does that really make sense to you, at all?

Random832
2009-08-03, 04:05 PM
Dude, this isn't about opening the trap... this is about the rogue getting 50% of the gold just for checking, which has no risk involved.

If you don't think trap searching is worth anything, feel free to open it without getting it checked, by all means. I won't stop you - in fact, I'll be standing waaaaay over here.

This isn't intended to be a general principle to manage loot division by, it's intended to be a counter-response if the rest of the party wants to play hardball about making the rogue open it.

Milskidasith
2009-08-03, 04:08 PM
If you don't think trap searching is worth anything, feel free to open it without getting it checked, by all means. I won't stop you - in fact, I'll be standing waaaaay over here.

This isn't intended to be a general principle to manage loot division by, it's intended to be a counter-response if the rest of the party wants to play hardball about making the rogue open it.

If the rogue had to have his hand held all the way through the dungeon just so he could preform an action that carries no risk, he doesn't deserve 50% of the loot in the chest. He deserves an equal cut, but not 50% of the loot.

EDIT: Also, with the size of this group, most of the people in the group could easily do what the rogue can do alone just by using a bunch of Aid Another checks, taking 20.

quick_comment
2009-08-03, 04:09 PM
If you don't think trap searching is worth anything, feel free to open it without getting it checked, by all means. I won't stop you - in fact, I'll be standing waaaaay over here.

This isn't intended to be a general principle to manage loot division by, it's intended to be a counter-response if the rest of the party wants to play hardball about making the rogue open it.

Fine. I grab the rogue and use him as an improvised weapon to smash open the chest.

Stompy
2009-08-03, 04:10 PM
Dude, this isn't about opening the trap... this is about the rogue getting 50% of the gold just for checking, which has no risk involved. It makes perfect sense for somebody else to open the chest, but it doesn't make sense to say "Ok, I get half the money anyway despite not putting myself at risk during combat or while searching for traps, and nobody else gets anything despite getting me here safely. And since the guy who opened the chest is dead, I call dibs on his corpse. Cleric, the money to raise him is coming out of your cut of the loot."

Once again, slippery slope. While the rogue isn't putting themselves into danger, only the rogue has the expertise to find traps. So, in fairness, in this money-hogging example, the rogue should get a portion, but only if there aren't any traps, otherwise they failed.

This example is one spark short of a PvP powder keg explosion, and really, you should be able to trust your party, and not screw them over (including financially).

Random832
2009-08-03, 04:13 PM
If the rogue had to have his hand held all the way through the dungeon just so he could preform an action that carries no risk, he doesn't deserve 50% of the loot in the chest. He deserves an equal cut, but not 50% of the loot.

I guess we have different views of things - my initial mental image was of a room that has piles of loose stuff lying around, and a couple of (probably trapped) chests in one corner. And I certainly don't remember anything about the rogue having "had his hand held all the way through the dungeon" - maybe this is a playstyle difference, but in this current campaign I (as the rogue) tend to take more damage (because the barbarian refuses to take point), and the DM screws me over on treasure anyway.

Milskidasith
2009-08-03, 04:14 PM
Once again, slippery slope. While the rogue isn't putting themselves into danger, only the rogue has the expertise to find traps. So, in fairness, in this money-hogging example, the rogue should get a portion, but only if there aren't any traps, otherwise they failed.

This example is one spark short of a PvP powder keg explosion, and really, you should be able to trust your party, and not screw them over.

Yeah, I always advocate (roughly) equal loot division. You can't ever get exact without selling all your magic items, and if you find something special you really like, just take it out of your cut next time.

Also, the rogue can be emulated with somebody with high Int getting Aid Another'd by everybody in the party, but if the DM takes that into account, then you are going to need to Aid Another the rogue anyway (which kind of lessens the whole "we need the rogue" thing since the rogue still needs your help to find traps. >_>)

Random832
2009-08-03, 04:15 PM
Also, the rogue can be emulated with somebody with high Int getting Aid Another'd by everybody in the party, but if the DM takes that into account, then you are going to need to Aid Another the rogue anyway (which kind of lessens the whole "we need the rogue" thing since the rogue still needs your help to find traps. >_>)

Plus, no Rogue = "DC21 YOU ALL FAIL".

Milskidasith
2009-08-03, 04:16 PM
I guess we have different views of things - my initial mental image was of a room that has piles of loose stuff lying around, and a couple of (probably trapped) chests in one corner. And I certainly don't remember anything about the rogue having "had his hand held all the way through the dungeon" - maybe this is a playstyle difference, but in this current campaign I (as the rogue) tend to take more damage (because the barbarian refuses to take point), and the DM screws me over on treasure anyway.

My general view of things is that the rogue is hitting people from behind a meatshield (which makes sense! That barbarian can take more than you!), and that most of the loot is probably going to be found in chests. Finding a huge pile of gold on an enemy is exceedingly unlikely, and magic items are only going to be found on "big" encounters. It's all a matter of what the DM says, though; if he likes lots of loose items and a few chests, then dividing the loot in a way so that whoever "primarily" does something could work, although it seems like sharing the loot would be easier (except in such a mixed level party; the list he gave us has to be a headache for the DM).


Plus, no Rogue = "DC21 YOU ALL FAIL".

Find Traps.

Stompy
2009-08-03, 04:17 PM
Yeah, I always advocate (roughly) equal loot division. You can't ever get exact without selling all your magic items, and if you find something special you really like, just take it out of your cut next time.

Also, the rogue can be emulated with somebody with high Int getting Aid Another'd by everybody in the party, but if the DM takes that into account, then you are going to need to Aid Another the rogue anyway (which kind of lessens the whole "we need the rogue" thing since the rogue still needs your help to find traps. >_>)

wizard/sorc/UMD-guy
Wand of Knock
Wand of Summon Monster I (4 CL)

...and now we don't need the rogue for chests.
EDIT: (Now stop whining about uneven loot division or I'll kick you out of my party.)

quick_comment
2009-08-03, 04:20 PM
There is also the warblade school of chest opening, which involves using adaptive style to prepare your save replacement maneuvers, and using a stone dragon strike to smash the thing open. Trap goes off? You initiate your maneuver. If you are high enough level you go into stance of alacrity and you can initiate the maneuver and iron heart focus if you still fail the save.

Fitz10019
2009-08-03, 05:35 PM
(except in the case of this party, which has such wildly varying levels I don't know how it can function.)

It's not a party... it's a list of the PHB classes, with their noteworthy abilities, and at what level they get them.

A level 11 party with a Rogue might rely on the Rogue who has improved evasion, but a level 5 party might rely on the Barbarian. Another way to look at it may be...

Levels 1-8, the Barbarian does it.
Levels 9-10, the Ranger does it.
Levels 11+, the Rogue does it.

... based on their abilities at those levels. That was the intent, ignoring casters and magic-related solutions.

Yrcrazypa
2009-08-03, 05:37 PM
What kind of games are you guys running where monks are completely useless? I've seen monks contribute just as much as anyone else to the party, and unless you are playing a magic mart campaign where everything is possible to find in the cornerstore of Hutshire, they are a useful class that doesn't need as much equipment as anyone else. By that logic, everyone in the party that isn't a druid, cleric, or wizard is completely useless.

Milskidasith
2009-08-03, 05:37 PM
Ah. I assumed it was a party; it seemed unclear.

Also, in actuality, it's probably "At all levels, caster opens the chest with a summon. Druid maybe, depending on your DM's interpretation of using summoned animals as suicide bombers.

To Yrcr...something, with a well all characters being equally optimized (except at very very low levels of optimization and character levels) full casters will always be more effective than other classes, even at the classes "specialty." Casters are also less reliant on magic items than anybody else; for example, a cleric doesn't need the magical belt of +4 enhancement to all stats because he can get +4 to all of his stats (well, not Int or Dex, IIRC) just with his cleric spells.

Fitz10019
2009-08-03, 05:44 PM
Also, in actuality, it's probably "At all levels, caster opens the chest with a summon.

...but the premise is to not use magic. Also, at low levels, spell slots are too precious and few.

Milskidasith
2009-08-03, 05:45 PM
You were assuming up to level 10. At level 1, traps are going to (nearly) kill the players instantly or be trivially damaging, so using a spell slot makes sense. At level 10, level 1 slots aren't worthless, but their best use is triggering traps.

quick_comment
2009-08-03, 05:47 PM
What kind of games are you guys running where monks are completely useless? I've seen monks contribute just as much as anyone else to the party, and unless you are playing a magic mart campaign where everything is possible to find in the cornerstore of Hutshire, they are a useful class that doesn't need as much equipment as anyone else. By that logic, everyone in the party that isn't a druid, cleric, or wizard is completely useless.

Because a fighter who uses his feats right can do almost anything a monk can do, and gets full BAB and a d10 HD. Wow, they lose out on dimension door 1/day, spell resistance (which, fyi, prevents buffing) and DR/magic.

A swordsage can do everything a monk can do, and is about a hundred times more fun and effective.

tyckspoon
2009-08-03, 05:51 PM
You were assuming up to level 10. At level 1, traps are going to (nearly) kill the players instantly or be trivially damaging, so using a spell slot makes sense.

Or you pick up the chest, turn it over, and have your Fighter or Barbarian smash open the bottom. That'll work against most level 1-style chests (eg, a Kobold rigged up a blade to cut the fingertips off whoever tried to steal his goods, your mundane poison needles, wires strung to fling alchemist's fire in your face when you over-tension them by lifting the lid, etc.) If you can't turn it over completely, it's probably big enough that you can just break open a side instead (if you don't want to be that violent, your adventurer's gear should include some form of camp saw and/or hatchet.)

John Campbell
2009-08-03, 06:22 PM
This is why you have a summoner druid in the party to send in the monkeys to do the Skill Monkey's job. If he can't be sure, send in the monkeys! The druid can push them into opening stuff and if they 'die,' they'll wake up at home in their jungle, a cold sweat down the back of their neck and suddenly zoologists will start wondering why the monkey population of the world has this haunted look on their face and the thousand yard stare from the various traumatized primates.

One time, we made our druid cry by using summoned animals to set off traps. And I mean the player, for real.

As DM, I'd make any Druid that knowingly assisted in such a thing fall immediately.


My general view of things is that the rogue is hitting people from behind a meatshield (which makes sense! That barbarian can take more than you!), and that most of the loot is probably going to be found in chests.

My rogue hits people from behind a meatshield. The meatshield in question is the enemy's.

My usual first move in combat is to tumble behind/amongst the enemy so I can shut down their tactical maneuvering (reach weapon + Combat Reflexes) and their casters (see previous, plus the whole Mage Slayer chain), and flank their meatshields with my own (SNEAK ATTACK, BITCH!). If at all possible (which it usually is; I have blurring armor, so can get concealment at will), I combine this with a Hide so I'm not getting counterattacked and can Sneak Attack even the ones that I'm not flanking.

quick_comment
2009-08-03, 06:29 PM
One time, we made our druid cry by using summoned animals to set off traps. And I mean the player, for real.

As DM, I'd make any Druid that knowingly assisted in such a thing fall immediately.



Druids cant fall, there isnt any mechanic for that. And if you want justification, this particular druid is red in tooth and red in claw.

Druids dont have to be happy and prancing about in the woods with deer. Wolves and vultures and ebola are all part of nature too.

Milskidasith
2009-08-03, 06:38 PM
One time, we made our druid cry by using summoned animals to set off traps. And I mean the player, for real.

As DM, I'd make any Druid that knowingly assisted in such a thing fall immediately.

Well, considering most creatures summoned (not sure about Nature's Ally) don't actually die, they just pop away. Plus, what if they use Astral Constructs or elementals?

erikun
2009-08-03, 06:44 PM
Whenever I play a rogue, they has enough guts to open the stupid door/chest they just searched. After all, nobody else is going to find it if I don't, and the rest of the party is too nervous to even attempt opening it. (Note: Take 20 Search for trap = triggers the trap)

Of course, this assumes I'm at full health. If the cleric doesn't want to heal me up, he can risk his own hand at opening the chest.

Then again, I'm with the equal-split on all treasure boat. After all, everyone is risking their lives going into the dungeon - why shouldn't they get the rewards? And besides, saying "50% treasure from chests" because I searched for traps ends up implying "0% treasure from the dragon" because the traps were before the dragon, not part of the encounter - and I wouldn't agree to go slay a dragon with no chance of getting anything from it.

Plus, as people said, the rest of the party could just smash open the chests and leave the rogue broke.

Random832
2009-08-03, 06:54 PM
(Note: Take 20 Search for trap = triggers the trap)

No it doesn't; that's Disable Device.


One time, we made our druid cry by using summoned animals to set off traps. And I mean the player, for real.

As DM, I'd make any Druid that knowingly assisted in such a thing fall immediately.

Me: I ready an action to dismiss the summoning right after they open the chest, but before they take damage from the trap. :smallbiggrin:

DM: :smallfurious:



Druids cant fall, there isnt any mechanic for that.

A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).

John Campbell
2009-08-03, 07:10 PM
Druids cant fall, there isnt any mechanic for that.
Uh...


Ex-Druids

A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities (including her animal companion, but not including weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She cannot thereafter gain levels as a druid until she atones (see the atonement spell description).


And if you want justification, this particular druid is red in tooth and red in claw.

Druids dont have to be happy and prancing about in the woods with deer. Wolves and vultures and ebola are all part of nature too.
Oh, yeah, I hate the hugging trees and dancing with unicorns druids, too (especially since the Forgotten Realms, at least, presents any alternative that more closely resembles nature deities from actual mythology as being Evil and/or insane). But while violence and predators and disease are all part of nature, commanding animals to walk into humanoid-made traps because you can't be bothered to take the risk yourself isn't. And even if the animals aren't permanently destroyed, I'm betting that eating a disintegrate hurts.

quick_comment
2009-08-03, 07:43 PM
Oh, yeah, I hate the hugging trees and dancing with unicorns druids, too (especially since the Forgotten Realms, at least, presents any alternative that more closely resembles nature deities from actual mythology as being Evil and/or insane). But while violence and predators and disease are all part of nature, commanding animals to walk into humanoid-made traps because you can't be bothered to take the risk yourself isn't. And even if the animals aren't permanently destroyed, I'm betting that eating a disintegrate hurts.

Disintegrate is probably very painless, owing to the instant disintegration of anything that would conduct pain.

But regardless, you might have a druid who reveres pain as the aspect of nature closest to the real world. Life is nasty, brutish and short, and rather than fleeing from it, this druid thinks we should embrace the terrible things that happen to us.

Ripped Shirt Kirk
2009-08-03, 08:10 PM
Make the entire party stand well away from the chest.
Make the barbarian go into rage and open it.
Promptly heal him.

Cieyrin
2009-08-03, 08:13 PM
um...yeah...not my intention to open up a can of worms on druid ethics and nature. This was more a funny 'haha', not a funny 'Oh my gods, what are you doing?!? 0_0;;". The character in question doing such was made for running the Tomb of Horrors, so one-shot character that no one particularly cared for, anyways.

In any case, I don't advocate animal abuse, even if it wasn't in a permanent and/or lasting manner, for which I apologize. -_-

magellan
2009-08-04, 03:19 AM
Yup. It is absolutely metagaming when you say "hmmm, you are tougher than me, you open the chest," or "you are better at dodging than me, you open the chest." It is of course not metagaming that the wizard stays behind the fighters in melee.

The first is using OOC knowledge to make an in-game decision. The second is simply use of basic tactics.

Ok, getting the squishies out of potential harms way and let the guys with the hitpoints eat it is metagaming, but getting the squishies out of potential harms way and let the guys with the hitpoints eat it is tactics. got it. I think. errr huh?

... And what if your Rogue already failed once at detecting traps? he still has to assume that when he detects none there are none? So being delusional is a requirement for rogues? Up to the point where your delusions get you killed?

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-08-04, 03:58 AM
How about the 0th level cantrip Open/Close (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/openClose.htm)? That's... kinda what it was designed for...

Sholos
2009-08-04, 04:20 AM
It's assumed all characters know about their abilities, at least in the abstract, isn't it? If the rogue said "It's a sleep trap, but I can't disarm it" would it be metagaming for the elven wizard, who knows he can't be forced to sleep, to open the chest while everybody else stood back? Even with how abstract HP is, having the guy in plate armor who can run for miles on end and shrugs off being hit in combat easily opening the trap makes more sense than having the frail stealthy character who gets knocked out by a single blow do it.

Well, if you actually find the trap and can identify it, then it makes perfect sense for the one best suited to avoiding the trap (assuming a failed disabling) should set it off. However, what's under discussion is the rogue believing there to be no traps whatsoever. I still think it's valid to discuss letting another person open the chest, but the rogue should lose part of his/her cut for it, unless they're really frail.

Myrmex
2009-08-04, 04:22 AM
How about the 0th level cantrip Open/Close (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/openClose.htm)? That's... kinda what it was designed for...

If your chest doesn't have the 30lbs of resistance to prevent Open/Close from opening it, you're a crappy trapsmith.

magellan
2009-08-04, 04:40 AM
Well, if you actually find the trap and can identify it, then it makes perfect sense for the one best suited to avoiding the trap (assuming a failed disabling) should set it off. However, what's under discussion is the rogue believing there to be no traps whatsoever. I still think it's valid to discuss letting another person open the chest, but the rogue should lose part of his/her cut for it, unless they're really frail.

Rogue: "There are no traps on this chest. I'll open it"
Fighter: "Wait. remember that last time you said that? A fireball went off and fried us all. Maybe I should and you step a little to the side?"
Rogue: "What are you talking about?"
Fighter: "You know, the fireball, and the poison needle before that and the ... Oh... you forgot it again, didn't you?"

elonin
2009-08-04, 06:31 AM
The rogue does with noone else in the party even being aware of the chest!

Random832
2009-08-04, 06:42 AM
However, what's under discussion is the rogue believing there to be no traps whatsoever.

No, what's under discussion is the rogue not finding any traps. Acknowledging a difference between these two things is not metagaming.

Jarawara
2009-08-04, 09:44 AM
Original question: "Who should open the chest?"

Answer: The DM's girlfriend.

(I knew a DM who, in nearly this same situation, was ready to unleash the horrific trap upon the poor unwary soul who dared open it, when suddenly his girlfriend volunteered to open the chest. DM didn't miss a beat, saying "There was no trap, and atop a pile of beautiful treasures is a large diamond ring, just your size too."

Thereafter the DM's girlfriend was nominated as the party's "opener".

*~*~*

Alternately, use a summoning spell to summon children to open the chest. Then watch to see if your DM is a rat-bastaige enough to kill innocent children with acid to the face. Not recommended for Paladins.

*~*~*

After these options are utilized a few times too many, the answer to the question changes to "The miniaturized but rapidly expanding demon hidden inside the chest, now released by the rogue's disarm check, bangs open the chest lid and bursts forth upon the party."

Fixer
2009-08-04, 12:20 PM
Yes it is metagaming. An expert shouldn't be constantly thinking about the possibility of failure and then expect someone else to take the fall for his failure.You need to spend more time out in the real world if you believe this to be true. Have you EVER had anything to do with politics?

Myrmex
2009-08-05, 01:49 AM
You need to spend more time out in the real world if you believe this to be true. Have you EVER had anything to do with politics?

But consider the politician's field of expertise.

Gelondil
2009-08-05, 11:22 PM
As was said before, by someone... There is too much metagaming going on here. The rogue opens the chest because he's right there when he completes his inspection.

but in the spirit of the question - lets metagame:

The cleric can fix just about anything within 6 seconds or less, so the chest should be opened by somebody with the hps or con to avoid the instant death or dismemberment caused by magic traps a few levels above the party wizard. Any special abilities beyond that are bonus, reducing potential damage makes the cleric's job easier. If you're in disintegrate level, the wizard should be prepared to assist.

Best Choice: NPCs and pets - summoned monsters, unseen servants, etc.

Other choices:
Druid with Wild Shape - good hps & self healing, thus saving the cleric's spells
Rogue - provided he has decent hps (con 12+) - and he is already there by the trap anyways, so you don't have to shuffle the party
Tank - Paladin beats equal level fighter hands down

ericgrau
2009-08-05, 11:38 PM
The tank should open it because he has more HP and b/c poison darts are a fortitude save. Even if it is a reflex save, it's gonna do HP damage which the tank can just shrug off. The rogue, OTOH, is risking death at every trap even if he does have a lower chance of triggering it. No thanks.

I once played a dwarven fighter who made it a point to open every door for the rogue. The most amusing trap was a spear trap followed by jets of fire. The rogue identified both but we weren't sure if he managed to disable them.

Me: "No, no, let me go. I have a +4 vs. saves vs. fire."
DM: "How do you get a +4 vs. fire?"
Me: "You know that feat that gives me a +1 to smithing?"
DM: "Ah, it's from being around furnaces all the time."
Me: "Okay, I duck under the hole where the spear might come out and crawl towards the door.
DM: Make a reflex save as the fire jet triggers. And, oh, you have a -4 for being prone.

Saph
2009-08-05, 11:49 PM
We had this argument many times in our long World's Largest Dungeon campaign. The rogue, a halfling named Rosia Lightfoot, had a habit of searching doors then announcing to the rest of the party that the door had the "Rosia Lightfoot Guarantee of Safety!"

The rogue also had a habit of flunking Search checks.

After the third door that blew up in the party's face, the rest of the party started to become exceptionally cynical about the "Rosia Lightfoot Guarantee of Safety", especially after she developed the habit of backing 60 feet away around a corner after giving it.

In the end we just shared it. Everyone would be on point sometimes, everyone would be on door-opening duty sometimes. It's the "share the risk, share the reward" principle.

magellan
2009-08-06, 02:34 AM
But consider the politician's field of expertise.

Actually if you require an expert in any field in real life and the one you find is utterly convinced that he has never failed, never will fail, and never can fail, I strongly suggest to keep looking...

Random832
2009-08-06, 05:27 AM
After the third door that blew up in the party's face, the rest of the party started to become exceptionally cynical about the "Rosia Lightfoot Guarantee of Safety", especially after she developed the habit of backing 60 feet away around a corner after giving it.

But that's metagaming. Clearly they should just trust the "expert".

Dixieboy
2009-08-06, 05:52 AM
Actually if you require an expert in any field in real life and the one you find is utterly convinced that he has never failed, never will fail, and never can fail, I strongly suggest to keep looking...
theoretical physicists.
Mathematicians.

There.

Mathematicians will make stuff up to make their statement correct.

And Theoretical physicists are so vague, and their descriptions of what they do are actually just random words mixed together.
They mix these randoms words together in a way that will ALWAYS make it sound like they are correct.

But i digress.

John Campbell
2009-08-06, 12:32 PM
The tank should open it because he has more HP and b/c poison darts are a fortitude save. Even if it is a reflex save, it's gonna do HP damage which the tank can just shrug off. The rogue, OTOH, is risking death at every trap even if he does have a lower chance of triggering it. No thanks.

My rogue actually has a better Fort save than the party tank (Knights have poor Fort progression. WTF? I, on the other hand, have dips into not one but two good-Fort classes), along with a vastly better Reflex save. And my Will save is... uh... well, we don't talk about my Will save. Traps that attack Will are pretty rare IME, though.

My Search mod is ridiculous, too - it's an easy one to pump through the roof, and I did because it's my job. The Ten-Fingered Jack Guarantee of Safety is iron-clad. I very rarely miss traps, and have yet to take damage from triggering one, whereas when the Knight tries to be all chivalrous and valiant and goes first, he invariably gets lightning bolted or poisoned or dropped into pits or sprayed with acid or whatever. That d12 hit die gives him enough hit points that it unfortunately hasn't killed him yet, but we don't have much in the way of party healing, so each of those costs us wand charges or healing belt uses. I've got half as many hit points, but that's still enough that traps are unlikely to kill me outright, and I'm far more likely to avoid damage entirely.

LibraryOgre
2009-08-06, 12:38 PM
The Rogue should open it; he said it was safe.

quick_comment
2009-08-06, 01:20 PM
theoretical physicists.
Mathematicians.

There.

Mathematicians will make stuff up to make their statement correct.

And Theoretical physicists are so vague, and their descriptions of what they do are actually just random words mixed together.
They mix these randoms words together in a way that will ALWAYS make it sound like they are correct.

But i digress.

You fail. Horribly.

DrGonzo
2009-08-06, 01:24 PM
The Rogue should open it; he said it was safe.

I second that.

Lappy9000
2009-08-06, 02:04 PM
too much think. barbarian smash puny chest!

Gnaeus
2009-08-06, 04:23 PM
Other choices:
Druid with Wild Shape - good hps & self healing, thus saving the cleric's spells


NO!!! You want the druid to be in good shape to dominate the next day's encounters. You never want to risk him rolling a 1 and losing a level or suffering some debilitating effect you can't cure. If the fighter loses a level, the monsters will never notice!

Stompy
2009-08-06, 06:33 PM
here are our contenders and their trap-related virtues:
The level 3+ barbarian, with d12 HPs, strong Fort and trapsense
The level 9+ ranger, with d8 HPs, strong Fort, strong Reflex and evasion
The level 2+ rogue, with d6 HPs, strong Reflex and evasion
The level 10+ rogue, with d6 HPs, strong Reflex and improved evasion
The level 1+ fighter, with d10 HPs and strong Fort
The level 2+ monk, with d8 HPs, evasion and strong for all saves
The level 9+ monk, with d8 HPs, improved evasion and strong for all saves
The level 1+ paladin, with d10 HPs, and strong Fort saves

My new official vote for who opens the chest: anyone on this list that's 3rd level or below, starting with either:
--the paladin for irony. (Paladin: Trap? My god surely wouldn't let me perish to a trap! *click*)
--or the fighter because they are a dime per dozen. Hell, you can hire minimum wage mercenary warriors for 3sp/day. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellcastingAndServices)

The level 9+ ranger, rogue, and monk should form a cabal to make the lower level people do it. I mean, if it is a insta-kill OMGBBQ trap, then they are fairly replaceable. Plus, this party is highly inbalanced, has no casting or heals (unless your rogues are UMDing wands), meaning that any damage or disability is not going to be healed. If the trap is something like insanity or bestow curse, it makes sense that the higher level people don't get hit with this, "for the greater good".

Another idea: You have a 9+ Ranger, have his animal companion open it. If it dies, you can get another one in 24 hours, and, by RAW, he does not have to give a care about nature to keep his class abilities.

(I am joking about this post, low-level character hating creates more problems than it solves, and is generally un-neighborly. If I had to choose a person to open the chest, it would be the monk due to high [relative] HP, good saves, improved evasion, and high movement [and possible movement skills].)

Arakune
2009-08-06, 06:46 PM
The players here are thinking in meta-game terms. "Okay, if the rogue is wrong which one of us should sacrifice ourselves for quite likely a useless trinket?"


How it is meta-game? This is a high risk job and often mistakes like the rogue failing to disable the trap happens.

oxinabox
2009-08-06, 08:42 PM
there are 2 options:
Admiral Acibar: HE'll know if there is a trap.

Or
the /b/tard player's character: they're used to traps.


He're the logic my players used: (I'm letting take 20 on trap searching checks (but must roll on diable), house rules)
They came into a treasure room (vault of a rich jewler).
They use an arcana check to search for magic, inc magical traps (this is 4e so that's allowed).
They found none.

They came across a chest, with a peice of thin sheat metal cut into a rune on the top.
They take it, not touching it directly.
And then bluff there way out of the town.
when they reach the forrest half a weeks traqvel away, then they look at it.
PCs "I thought there was no magic"
me: *shrug*
PC: "I take 20 on an arcana check on the rune"
me: "It's a rune of magical concealment, no it hides magic"
PC: "Withouit touching the chest, i used both my daggers to lever it off, and take 20 on an arcana and theivery check to idetify any traps"
Me: " You know theres some kind of magical trap on it"
PC: "taking 20 I have 36 arcana and 36 theivery, do i know anything asbout how it works?"
Me: "You think it's linked to the bottom of the lid seperating from the top of thebox"
PC: "i'm not risking trap check, i turn it upsode down and slowly, carefull cut the bottom off"


In greneral for chests;
60% of traps are trapped in the latch or lock,
30% in lid,
10% other.

Therefore the solution is have your strogest character *cry* who may or may not be the sorcerer *cry*.+
turn it on it's side, and cut the bottom out.
Even if my above table doesn't hold perfectly true who thinks to trap the bottom?
it'll be true tio some extent.

Also i second having the barabian throw it at the wall

quick_comment
2009-08-06, 08:48 PM
there are 2 options:
Admiral Acibar: HE'll know if there is a trap.

Or
the /b/tard player's character: they're used to traps.


He're the logic my players used: (I'm letting take 20 on trap searching checks (but must roll on diable), house rules)
They came into a treasure room (vault of a rich jewler).
They use an arcana check to search for magic, inc magical traps (this is 4e so that's allowed).
They found none.

They came across a chest, with a peice of thin sheat metal cut into a rune on the top.
They take it, not touching it directly.
And then bluff there way out of the town.
when they reach the forrest half a weeks traqvel away, then they look at it.
PCs "I thought there was no magic"
me: *shrug*
PC: "I take 20 on an arcana check on the rune"
me: "It's a rune of magical concealment, no it hides magic"
PC: "Withouit touching the chest, i used both my daggers to lever it off, and take 20 on an arcana and theivery check to idetify any traps"
Me: " You know theres some kind of magical trap on it"
PC: "taking 20 I have 36 arcana and 36 theivery, do i know anything asbout how it works?"
Me: "You think it's linked to the bottom of the lid seperating from the top of thebox"
PC: "i'm not risking trap check, i turn it upsode down and slowly, carefull cut the bottom off"


In greneral for chests;
60% of traps are trapped in the latch or lock,
30% in lid,
10% other.

Therefore the solution is have your strogest character *cry* who may or may not be the sorcerer *cry*.+
turn it on it's side, and cut the bottom out.
Even if my above table doesn't hold perfectly true who thinks to trap the bottom?
it'll be true tio some extent.

Also i second having the barabian throw it at the wall

I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul

Milskidasith
2009-08-06, 08:50 PM
I would suggest that, if you really get annoyed with your players avoiding your traps like that, making the box actually suspending acid over the valuable items. It makes more sense if there are important/incriminating documents in there, not just gems.

theMycon
2009-08-06, 09:31 PM
The most important part in all this is to make sure the wizard is at least 35' away.

(my personal groups strategy is "have everyone stand in battle formation, facing whatever door we just came through, somewhere they can't be easwily seen, 35' from the suspected trap.
Then, ghost sound an explosion and wait for an ambush. THEN have my monk set it off, when the enemy'll get fried too.)

Avilan the Grey
2009-08-07, 01:51 AM
Yes it is metagaming. An expert shouldn't be constantly thinking about the possibility of failure and then expect someone else to take the fall for his failure.

There's also an alignment issue there. No good rogue would accept someone else sacrificing themselves (even willingly) for his shortcomings.

I must say I disagree completely. What you suggest is Utter Stupidity, and no character with an INT over 3 would think like this. Of course they will let the fighter or other suitable tough guy take the hit.

Drakevarg
2009-08-07, 02:09 AM
Akushin Oka's Totally In-Character Chest-Opening Strategy:

Make the Paladin open it. If he survives, slit his throat.

Random832
2009-08-07, 06:33 AM
(I'm letting take 20 on trap searching checks (but must roll on diable), house rules)

Other than the hard DC limit for non-rogues (which normally turns "take 20" into take some lesser number), that's RAW in 3.5; did they change it in 4e?

Glass Mouse
2009-08-07, 08:33 AM
Wow. That question is so grey on the scale of metagaming/not-metagaming that it's starting to hurt my eyes...

Anyway. I agree that the chest should be opened by whoever wants to. Some may not be that interested in reward (*cough*druid*cough*), some may not want to take the risk, some may do it to help their friends, some may open it due to overselfconfidence (which would probably change after being blasted the first one or two times), some may want the opportunity to sleight-of-hand a few items, etc.

Only seriously masochistic characters wouldn't think twice about setting off a trap after that last one sprayed his face full of acid. To you, the player, the prize is just hp. To the character, it's a lot more.

SinsI
2009-08-07, 08:35 AM
Isn't it too much metagaming already if the party considers classes to decide who opens the chest?
You don't exactly walk around introducing yourself as a thief to paladins - the only thing that would accomplish is getting your ass faster into the jail.
That being said, the most stupid one (lowest WIS) gets to open the chest.

Random832
2009-08-07, 08:50 AM
Isn't it too much metagaming already if the party considers classes to decide who opens the chest?

The actual relevant class features (yes, even including hit die size) are present as in-gameworld reality, and considering them is not metagaming.


You don't exactly walk around introducing yourself as a thief to paladins - the only thing that would accomplish is getting your ass faster into the jail.

Even if you only steal from evil people? (The class name in 3rd edition is "Rogue", anyway, and includes more than just thieves.)

Typewriter
2009-08-07, 08:54 AM
From a pure RP perspective, I imagine a rogue being asked to examine a chest, finding it good and popping it open.

Anything else is metagaming, and I don't mean that in a mean way or to say that it's any better than anyone opening a chest potentially rigged to fling acid everywhere.

Let me ask you a question. You and some friends find a chest in a dungeon that may be rigged to fling acid at your face. Let's pretend you're all 'level 1' and so the trap is probably just acid splash or something, so it's only going to do 1d3 points of damage. That's only slightly more than a cat scratch.

Who discusses opening the trap except for characters being controlled by people not involved in said scenario?

Thief: No traps here, open it up.
Fighter: You're sure? None.
Thief: Well I couldn't find any....
Fighter: But it could fling acid at my face?
Thief: It could but even if it did it would only hurt slightly more than a cat scratch.
Fighter: Acid.
Thief: Hardly any ac...
Fighter: IN MY FACE?
Bard: So since the fighter refuses, will you open friend thief?
Thief: Hell no, what if it flings acid at my face?

Drakevarg
2009-08-07, 08:55 AM
(The class name in 3rd edition is "Rogue", anyway, and includes more than just thieves.)

I think that if anyone ever introduced themselves to me as "a rogue" I'd think he's incredibly full of himself.

Then I'd have him open the next chest.

Narmoth
2009-08-07, 08:56 AM
The one who's most impatient. Or who's character's most impatient.
If I have the hp, I often don't care to wait for the rogue, but open doors and chests myself, exposing myself to the traps

Random832
2009-08-07, 09:05 AM
From a pure RP perspective, I imagine a rogue being asked to examine a chest, finding it good and popping it open.

Anything else is metagaming

really? You're saying anything else is - even, say, having been burned in the past and sensibly deciding to try to open it via some means other than opening the latch and lifting the lid (cutting off the bottom, or smashing it with a reach weapon) - or even just leaving the chest alone?

Those aren't things you might try to do in real life if faced with a chest that may be rigged to spray acid on you if you open it?


Let me ask you a question. You and some friends find a chest in a dungeon that may be rigged to fling acid at your face. Let's pretend you're all 'level 1' and so the trap is probably just acid splash or something, so it's only going to do 1d3 points of damage. That's only slightly more than a cat scratch.

1d3 can still beat the roll of a nonmaximized commoner hit die, and anyway acid is 1d6 (which is, you know, equivalent to being stabbed with a shortsword)


Thief: No traps here, open it up.
Fighter: You're sure? None.
Thief: Well I couldn't find any....
Fighter: But it could fling acid at my face?
Thief: It could but even if it did it would only hurt slightly more than a cat scratch.
Fighter: Acid.
Thief: Hardly any ac...
Fighter: IN MY FACE?
Bard: So since the fighter refuses, will you open friend thief?
Thief: Hell no, what if it flings acid at my face?

That's fine in the real world where acid in the face hurts everyone about the same amount. Making decisions based on things that are actually different between the gameworld and the real world is not metagaming.

[also note: traps don't make called shots. called shots don't even exist. So why do you say the face?]

Drakevarg
2009-08-07, 09:07 AM
[also note: traps don't make called shots. called shots don't even exist. So why do you say the face?]

Because the generic chest-opening tactic is apparently to crouch down and open it with your face very near the opening so you can see all the shinies, making the logical design to have it squirt acid out of the keyhole or something upon delatching it?

Random832
2009-08-07, 09:09 AM
Because the generic chest-opening tactic is apparently to crouch down and open it with your face very near the opening

An adventurer who keeps doing that after the first time they encounter a trapped chest is otherwise known as a "dead" adventurer.

Drakevarg
2009-08-07, 09:12 AM
Truth be told in all my campaigns I have only encountered actual "treasure chests" ONCE. And about half of 'em were mimics anyway.

Everything else was just critter stabbing, puzzle solving, and quest rewards.

Of course, most of my campaigns took place in deserts, swamps, underwater, and in frozen wastelands...

Oh, wait, there was that time where the chest had a Madcoil in it... fun.

Lamech
2009-08-07, 09:23 AM
From a pure RP perspective, I imagine a rogue being asked to examine a chest, finding it good and popping it open.

Anything else is metagaming,
So in a world were chests are semi-commonly trapped, your saying that they would not try too: Smash the chest from a distance, have the wizards summon/unseen servant open it, cut off the bottom, have the artificer suck the magic out of it, ect.

I do have one small question though, if your trapping a chest with say, a powerful staff, a mighty ring, or a rare scroll, isn't the trap builder making an assumption enemies might open it? And letting powerful magicks fall into the hands of enemies is bad, so if the trap can't prevent the magicks from falling into the wrong hands the trap obviously failed. If the fighter can open it, and grab the new toy the trap needs to be better. Now which is easier? Making a trap to break the fighter or break the new toy?

Typewriter
2009-08-07, 09:24 AM
really? You're saying anything else is - even, say, having been burned in the past and sensibly deciding to try to open it via some means other than opening the latch and lifting the lid (cutting off the bottom, or smashing it with a reach weapon) - or even just leaving the chest alone?

Those aren't things you might try to do in real life if faced with a chest that may be rigged to spray acid on you if you open it?



1d3 can still beat the roll of a nonmaximized commoner hit die, and anyway acid is 1d6 (which is, you know, equivalent to being stabbed with a shortsword)



That's fine in the real world where acid in the face hurts everyone about the same amount. Making decisions based on things that are actually different between the gameworld and the real world is not metagaming.

[also note: traps don't make called shots. called shots don't even exist. So why do you say the face?]

What I'm saying is that if you think a chest could be trapped no one would really open it. Acid is acid, and if I were actually roleplaying a character I would never open a chest. That being said, it's a game and the point is to get the loot, so whoever wants to open it - go right ahead, and don't worry about it.

The only way it would actually be considered by me is if I know that some item of plot is inside.

And I say the face because that's what I would be most worried about.

Physics work differntly in game terms than the real world - yes you're right. Someone willingly risking acid to the face? No dice.

Yes I think that trying to find a way to open potentially dangerous chests is always going to be considered meta-gaming, but I also think that if theres a chest in the middle of a dungeon it's asking to be handled in this meta-game fashion.

Typewriter
2009-08-07, 09:32 AM
So in a world were chests are semi-commonly trapped, your saying that they would not try too: Smash the chest from a distance, have the wizards summon/unseen servant open it, cut off the bottom, have the artificer suck the magic out of it, ect.

I do have one small question though, if your trapping a chest with say, a powerful staff, a mighty ring, or a rare scroll, isn't the trap builder making an assumption enemies might open it? And letting powerful magicks fall into the hands of enemies is bad, so if the trap can't prevent the magicks from falling into the wrong hands the trap obviously failed. If the fighter can open it, and grab the new toy the trap needs to be better. Now which is easier? Making a trap to break the fighter or break the new toy?

If I existed in a D&D type world I would probably be a fighter, and after a chest blew up in my face the first time I would simply walk past all future chests and just keep going without acknowledging my party members calling for me to slow down while they get it open. Especially if we were on any kind of time constraint.

If every time I hit a door that was trapped and flung acid over me, I'd probably get angrier and angrier as I got closer and closer to the owner of this dungeon. By the point I reach him my anger at all the traps will have caused me to multiclass into barbarian and I would do things to him that would make most consider me chaotic evil.



The ways that people play dungeons is often full of meta-gaming, but dungeons require that to a certain degree. If the DM tells you guys that the wizard at the top of the tower is 'moments away from fulfilling his evil plan' and you spend 5 minutes at every chest along the way are you meta-gaming? I say yes. Is it okay? I say yes, because the DM puts those there intending on you spending time overcoming this challenge, and the wizards plan will culminate not a set time, but when you reach him.

Sometimes I have events move in real time for my players, and if they spend time looting/changing into fullplate they just found/etc. etc. they'll arrive too late, but for the most part I put things like that there for them to use, not to trick them into taking too long to stop the bad guy.

Fixer
2009-08-07, 10:00 AM
The ways that people play dungeons is often full of meta-gaming, but dungeons require that to a certain degree. If the DM tells you guys that the wizard at the top of the tower is 'moments away from fulfilling his evil plan' and you spend 5 minutes at every chest along the way are you meta-gaming? I say yes. Is it okay? I say yes, because the DM puts those there intending on you spending time overcoming this challenge, and the wizards plan will culminate not a set time, but when you reach him.See, that last part is metagaming. Belief that the story will only occur at a certain pace and you can affect its pace by performing tasks not related to the story.

A similar thing would be if you open a book that appears to have 10 pages in it. One of the characters in the story begins telling their own story and the book suddenly grows a few pages. Then some subplot occurs and the book has grown dozens more pages. Finally, you get to the last two pages of the book and someone decides to check everything for traps before the final encounter and the books grows another 12 pages.

Assumption that your characters are more important than the story and that the world won't move on without you is ONE example of metagaming.

I have, nearly always, told the players (through appropriate knowledge skills) that a certain ritual needs to be performed at X time, or takes Y hours. At X time or after Y hours, that ritual happens even if the PCs got sidetracked by a sidequest somewhere along the way. Sucks to be them.

Typewriter
2009-08-07, 10:11 AM
I'm not saying that it's not metagaming, I'm saying that that's the way most dungeons are handled though.

If each combat goes a couple rounds longer than expected, or if the players take a couple minutes longer to figure out a puzzle does the DM say they fail to stop the wizard when he provided those challenges that caused slight delays throughout the dungeon constantly, or does he just say 'you make it right on time'. I've gone both ways, as I said before, and most of the time I take the approach that enhances the fun of the players, which is that they arrive just in time.

I don't think metagaming is bad in all situations, and is in fact very important in some places. Characters dont know about levels or classes or anything like that. If I saw a level 1 commoner get hit by a ball of acid and turn into a puddle of goo, but then I(a level 20 superhero) had that same acid effect injected into my eye with a needle, causing me to simply have an eye itch for a few minutes I would be mighty confused. In character I could let it lead me to believe that I had some type of magical protection, or perhaps I am some type of an acid creature, but I'm not going to do that, because out of character I know that it's because I have more HP. Theres a section in the DMG that talks about letting players know if some portion of physics works differently in game than out, so they know how to respond.

I've never had a DM pull me off to the side and say 'Acid ain't no thing' so I would not willingly send my 250 HP fighter swimming through a vat of acid for a round or two because, while out of character I know it's probably only 30 damage per round(10d6 for submersion), in character all I know is that someone wants me to swim through acid.



I'm not saying that this version of metagaming is wrong, I'm saying that it's necessary to have a game in which dungeons, HP, etc. etc. can all exist.


EDIT: I would actually swim through the acid while playing because that's what our next challenge is. Cross the chasm or some such, yada yada.

oxinabox
2009-08-08, 01:57 AM
Wether or not it's metagaming really depends on the setting (and the campgin too):
In a world where the thieve guild is always complainign about how well concealed traps are, and how they look and as many times as not they can be sure there isn't a trap. and then it goes off in there face.
Well then it;'s perfectly reasonalbe for those NPCs to take extra precautions, even to the extent of bringing in toughs (who any theives guild would also employ), to crack it open.

This thieves guild sittuation is no diffent forom that of the party (has theives=rogues, and toughs = barbarian)

Similarly If the party rogue has often (or even ocvcatiuonally) been sure there was no traps, and then there was.
Well, the dwarf could hardly be considered metagaming if he said:
"My people are tougher than yours, friend halfelf. to be on the safe side, incase there was a cunningly concealed trap(again), allow me to open it."
and being a dwarf, it's 50:50 as to weather he would open it with his ax. jk.

That could be harldy consider metagaming.
If you consider that metagaming then why isn't
Checking a chst for traps metagaming:
It's using outside knowledge (Chests maybe trapped, and I amd a Rogue who is good at finding traps) tyo make in game discisions.


Normally Our party the dwarf open's everything - the rogue is never there.
so without skill we cut at it with stregth.

The psion is taking over opening things now, cos he can use klnock (and if suspicious he can use telikinesis, which is in character as he using telikinsis for most things)

awa
2009-08-08, 02:00 AM
So when your playing if someone points a crossbow at you you surrender becuase your not allowed to realize your level 20 pc wont be killed when hes shot?

Never runs through a wall of fire to get the caster behind it?

Never casts high levels spells at high level enemies becuase it would be meta gaming to realize the epic black guard has more hp then the commoner?

Your charecter has to have some concept that his world doesn't function like our world especially when trial an error tell him that it dosent.

Never has the super agile monk who can dodge a trap with ease take the risk of setting off a trap becuase you are not aloud to notice his incredible reaction time and speed?

Not aloud to notice that virtually every chest you find is trapped and every time you fail to find a trap it turns out you just weren't looking hard enough (may by dm) becuase that would be meta gaming?

Random832
2009-08-08, 01:32 PM
See, that last part is metagaming. Belief that the story will only occur at a certain pace and you can affect its pace by performing tasks not related to the story.

A similar thing would be if you open a book that appears to have 10 pages in it. One of the characters in the story begins telling their own story and the book suddenly grows a few pages. Then some subplot occurs and the book has grown dozens more pages. Finally, you get to the last two pages of the book and someone decides to check everything for traps before the final encounter and the books grows another 12 pages.

Assumption that your characters are more important than the story and that the world won't move on without you is ONE example of metagaming.

I have, nearly always, told the players (through appropriate knowledge skills) that a certain ritual needs to be performed at X time, or takes Y hours. At X time or after Y hours, that ritual happens even if the PCs got sidetracked by a sidequest somewhere along the way. Sucks to be them.

Does anyone have any good methods for bookkeeping for an "every second counts" dungeon crawl? I mean, it's obvious that taking 20 on a check takes two minutes, but e.g. for travel time through rooms in the dungeon.

Mapping everything out and treating it all as one long encounter is the simple option, I guess, but there's got to be a way to make it easier than that (resolving a round of actions takes quite a long time even when all anyone does in the round is double move)

EleventhHour
2009-08-08, 01:50 PM
Now we need the real trapped chest. One that has nothing that'll hurt the Rogue for opening it, but will wait until all the treasure is removed. No, not the predictable pressure plate, or anything like that. Something far more sinister... a Symbol of Insanity scribed on the bottom. :smallbiggrin:

elonin
2009-08-08, 02:04 PM
first check for traps then have the mage cast the higher level version of mage hand.

Glass Mouse
2009-08-10, 01:34 PM
Now we need the real trapped chest. One that has nothing that'll hurt the Rogue for opening it, but will wait until all the treasure is removed. No, not the predictable pressure plate, or anything like that. Something far more sinister... a Symbol of Insanity scribed on the bottom. :smallbiggrin:

That is an awesome idea! Mind if I hog that for my own campaign? I've got a BBEG who'd LOVE to have a trap like that lying around :smallbiggrin:

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-10, 01:59 PM
Summon Monster I. Celestial Monkey. Done.

Epinephrine
2009-08-10, 02:08 PM
I think that if anyone ever introduced themselves to me as "a rogue" I'd think he's incredibly full of himself.

Then I'd have him open the next chest.

What about freelance wealth redistribution specialists?