DM Help Are the DMG 3.5 traps too hard to find? [Archive]

HighWater

2014-04-14, 03:04 AM

Is it just me, or is the average Search DC of 20 on CR1 traps in the DMG a bit brutal for a level 1 character? I have a level4 Rogue in the party with max skillranks in Search (with an Int bonus of +2, for a total of +9 on Search)), and she has a 50%/50% chance of finding a SearchDC 20 CR1 trap, at level 1 that would've been a +6, so a 65% chance of failure. Isn't that a bit high of a failure chance for a CR1 threat when handled by the one character in the party that is supposedly good at finding and disabling traps? And as the average Disable Device DC also lies at 20, that means another 50% (level 4) or 65% failure chance on the second roll, leaving more ways for the Rogue to both die and feel utterly incompetent at her job.

I know that through proper out-of-core optimisation you can boost skill checks massively, but I think it odd that the premade traps are so hard to find if you follow the obvious (lowish-op, but that's the expected gameplay method) path of throwing max skill ranks into a skill you're supposedly good at. Who wants to invest max ranks in two skills, only to fail the first one very often (with potentially painful result), or if succesful, the second one (just as nasty)?

Most traps also don't seem like candidates for take 20 (if you fail to spot them the first time, you trigger them), or aid another (finding and disabling traps is delicate work where any wrong move can set the thing off, also should the Rogue really need aid at its shtick anyway in order to stand a chance?).

Am I just very wrong thinking the DMG-traps are unjustly hard to find ánd disable, or am I missing something obvious?

Techwarrior

2014-04-14, 03:27 AM

Search doesn't preclude taking 20, and any Rogue worth their salt should always do so when looking for traps unless they are confident enough in their skills that taking 10 is acceptable.

Besides that, they are supposed to be difficult to find on a random roll. Otherwise, they'd just be XP packets for people who invested in the two skills, and happen to have trapfinding.

ryu

2014-04-14, 03:36 AM

Yep. Besides that just look at how simple most of them are. I've gone through entire starting dungeons using nothing but thrown rocks and a ten foot pole to detect traps.

cricricri13

2014-04-14, 03:57 AM

I guess the answer is yes and no.

Yes: Because they are hard to find.

No: Because, as they said, they have to be that way, you can't just search randomly every room and get free xp all-the-way.

TuggyNE

2014-04-14, 05:34 AM

Most traps also don't seem like candidates for take 20 (if you fail to spot them the first time, you trigger them)

Um, what? If you're taking 20 on a Search, you're not moving anywhere, so why would the trap go off? :smallconfused:

cricricri13

2014-04-14, 06:33 AM

Um, what? If you're taking 20 on a Search, you're not moving anywhere, so why would the trap go off? :smallconfused:

Well actually "taking twenty" is sometimes not even allowed in some of the big tourneys the associations throw. Because the character is not supposed to know if he failed or not. Some even take it so far as to have the DM making the throws behind the screen and not telling what the result is, only if the character spots stuff or doesn´t.

So yeah depending on the circumstances, and how strict is your DM, taking twenty is not allowed at all. I personally allow it when I'm DM, as most I know, but well.

HighWater

2014-04-14, 06:36 AM

Search doesn't preclude taking 20,

Creatures who succeed on a DC 20 Search check detect a simple mechanical trap before it is triggered. [Similar statements in the same section for complex and magical traps]
I took that to mean that failing a search check is likely to set the thing off. Searching generally involves touching and moving stuff too and if you touch or move the wrong thing I can imagine the trap going off. I've used the "you can take 20" approach for very limited searches though that require no direct physical contact (the lock on a chest or door), but when people "take 20" on a room, I assume they move around while looking for stuff, take 10 seemed more appropriate (when not under outside pressure abysmal failures don't really happen) but is not enough for the DC's.

As take 20 is the prevailing opinion, I am open to the interpretation that "take 20" is an option though, but it does lead to new problems:

Besides that, they are supposed to be difficult to find on a random roll. Otherwise, they'd just be XP packets for people who invested in the two skills, and happen to have trapfinding.

- Problem of called rolls: So what you're saying is that the player should call out dedicated searches and if he/she fails to anticipate the DM's evil mind, run into every trap that's not in an obvious place? I can imagine it intended that way, but it gives me trouble with player/character separation. (I should mention that I occassionally prompt the Rogue for a Search check because her character thinks something might be trapped, which it is in a certain % of cases, yes houserule, no not attached to it, but intended to prevent the next problem...) Edit: maybe this is not a problem...

- The problem of time: I can imagine Rogues (righteously paranoid that they have to take 20) taking 20 on everything, taking up a lot of ingame-time, and if done for every single thing also a big real-life timedrain.

- The predictability problem: The hardest-to-mitigate problem I have with this is that it goes from (crappy) odds of finding a trap, to guaranteed success/failure, depending on how high the DM (or the book) has made the DC (with neigh perfect predictability for the DM barring player-activated skillboosters). Is that interesting gameplay? Either you make it or you dont, with no roll of the die? <-- Honestly asking for feedback on this, it seems boring to me but I might be wrong, in almost all other aspects DnD is a game of chance until the die is cast.

Yep. Besides that just look at how simple most of them are. I've gone through entire starting dungeons using nothing but thrown rocks and a ten foot pole to detect traps.
This is "roleplaying" negating "skills" at its finest. I appreciate player ingenuity, but it takes away most of what makes one of the Rogue's iconic class abilities special and makes investing skillpoints into it very unappealing. It is an entirely different issue when poking stuff with a 10ft pole (which is something everyone can do) is more effective than sinking 4 skillpoints into a class feature. My players currently don't use this tactic and I'd rather it stayed that way, instead of scaring them into negating the Rogue with great-chance-of-failure DCs

Deophaun

2014-04-14, 06:57 AM

Is it just me, or is the average Search DC of 20 on CR1 traps in the DMG a bit brutal for a level 1 character?
Not really.

Traps, unfortunately, are pretty much presented as stand-alone obstacles in 3.5. As such, you're probably not distracted or threatened when Searching for them. If they were at what might be called a "reasonable" chance for success at CR1, say DC 16, it would be an easy auto-success for most rogues. As it stands, you have to work at it, but it's still doable to almost auto-succeed at level 1:

+2 Int bonus
+4 ranks in Search
+2 MW item (I like to think of it along the lines of a thieves' kit, only with mirrors instead of manipulators)
+2 Aid Another
Take 10

You'll hit DC 20 all the time. This is even easier if you have an Artificer in the party, who will probably have an 18 Int instead of 14. And it just keeps getting easier from their as you get access to increasing circumstance bonuses and ability enhancements.

Well actually "taking twenty" is sometimes not even allowed in some of the big tourneys the associations throw. Because the character is not supposed to know if he failed or not. Some even take it so far as to have the DM making the throws behind the screen and not telling what the result is, only if the character spots stuff or doesn´t.
At that point you say "fine, roll 40 times, just to be absolutely sure." If the DMs want to make more work for themselves, I'll enthusiastically help them.

Although, to be honest, taking two minutes at every door or crossroad is not something that I encourage in my games. Bad things tend to happen to parties that linger. But, I'm also not one that leaves traps lying around.

ryu

2014-04-14, 07:06 AM

I'm of the opinion that you simply can't design an entire class around the concept of various skill tricks and have it be legitimately fulfilling. Why do I say this? Because with that design mindset everything else about the design effectively becomes an afterthought. This is why rogues have such a crummy battle kit in the form of sneak attacks that get shut down by many creature types alone to say nothing of other factors. Now you can fix a lot of that with certain builds and items, but the point still stands. Now why is this all such a problem? A class shouldn't feel invalidated when one little element isn't present. If the class can be replaced in function to the point of embarrassment with a well played commoner using entirely mundane implements the class design was borked to begin with. Second worst designed class in core I'd say.

Chronos

2014-04-14, 08:05 AM

Yes, the rogue class is designed to focus on skills, and so its other abilities (combat, for instance) are lower than most other classes. By the same token, the fighter is focused on combat, and its skills are lackluster. How is either of these a problem? It might be a problem if traps were the only thing a rogue could do, but that's not the case. Picking pockets is useful whenever you're up against any tool-using creatures (which is most of them), stealth skills are useful whenever you're up against any creature, and I can't think of a challenge for which Listen and Spot are useless.

Techwarrior

2014-04-14, 08:48 AM

I took that to mean that failing a search check is likely to set the thing off. Searching generally involves touching and moving stuff too and if you touch or move the wrong thing I can imagine the trap going off. I've used the "you can take 20" approach for very limited searches though that require no direct physical contact (the lock on a chest or door), but when people "take 20" on a room, I assume they move around while looking for stuff, take 10 seemed more appropriate (when not under outside pressure abysmal failures don't really happen) but is not enough for the DC's.

As take 20 is the prevailing opinion, I am open to the interpretation that "take 20" is an option though, but it does lead to new problems:

You seem to have the rules for Search and Disable Device mixed up. Disable Device has 'penalties for failure' and thus you can't take 20 on it. Search, especially from someone with Trapfinding, shouldn't set off a trap, otherwise how would they then be able to disarm the trap?

- Problem of called rolls: So what you're saying is that the player should call out dedicated searches and if he/she fails to anticipate the DM's evil mind, run into every trap that's not in an obvious place? I can imagine it intended that way, but it gives me trouble with player/character separation. (I should mention that I occassionally prompt the Rogue for a Search check because her character thinks something might be trapped, which it is in a certain % of cases, yes houserule, no not attached to it, but intended to prevent the next problem...) Edit: maybe this is not a problem...

This is the assumed methodology. The DMG even says that you shouldn't have traps in places that make no sense from the trap setter's perspective. Traps that are there for no reason eventually causes the game to devolve into I disbelieve the air. (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=54)

- The problem of time: I can imagine Rogues (righteously paranoid that they have to take 20) taking 20 on everything, taking up a lot of ingame-time, and if done for every single thing also a big real-life timedrain.

- The predictability problem: The hardest-to-mitigate problem I have with this is that it goes from (crappy) odds of finding a trap, to guaranteed success/failure, depending on how high the DM (or the book) has made the DC (with neigh perfect predictability for the DM barring player-activated skillboosters). Is that interesting gameplay? Either you make it or you dont, with no roll of the die? <-- Honestly asking for feedback on this, it seems boring to me but I might be wrong, in almost all other aspects DnD is a game of chance until the die is cast.

This is "roleplaying" negating "skills" at its finest. I appreciate player ingenuity, but it takes away most of what makes one of the Rogue's iconic class abilities special and makes investing skillpoints into it very unappealing. It is an entirely different issue when poking stuff with a 10ft pole (which is something everyone can do) is more effective than sinking 4 skillpoints into a class feature. My players currently don't use this tactic and I'd rather it stayed that way, instead of scaring them into negating the Rogue with great-chance-of-failure DCs

Reading Bad Traps 1 (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/90/bad-trap-syndrome/) and Bad Traps 2 (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/91/bad-trap-syndrome-curing-the-bad-trap-blues/) can go a long way to making life easier for your trapper, you as a DM, and the entire party as a whole.

John Longarrow

2014-04-14, 11:01 AM

HighWater,

An easy thing to consider is what the purpose is for a trap. Most often they are intended as obsticals rather than threats. The following may illustrate the thinking.

Kold decides he wants to improve the defenses for his dungeon.
His first step is to identify where his force and defenses are weak.
Any place that he can't easily cover with direct monster combat strength, he puts in hard to mitigate traps that are fairly easy to find. Think 50' pit.
Any place that his monsters can cover, but attackers can go through quickly, he puts in traps that are hard to find and reduce speed. Think covered 10' pit.
Any place that will not be directly observed gets traps that make noise and random patrols (to keep folks honest).

Then come the important traps. Battle field control.
In an area he expects his monsters to fight in, there are different traps spread around that keep the attackers channeled OR to punish them for not going through channeled areas.

The expense of "Auto kill" traps (falling rocks that block a passage) generally make them undesirable except for protecting escape routes.
Likewise a hidden 10' pit trap with a secret tunnel makes for a great escape route that attackers generally won't see.

Now that you've got a better idea of what the rogue should be facing, you realize that auto success that slows a party to a crawl should be a bad option for the party. Likewise missing a trap every now and then can easily tip off monsters. As such, a good rogue will be doing a lot of sneaking in to try and take care of traps prior to the big, loud members of the party coming up, but this leaves the rogue exposed to random monster patrols.

The PCs now get to choose what strategy meets their goals in dealing with traps. They also have to play a guessing game when to use each method of clearing. Choose the wrong one and bad things happen.

Only at high levels can you get "Auto success+done quick", the point where traps become much less effective. Up until then, its a logic game for the players to decide if they go slow and safe or take more risk.

HighWater

2014-04-14, 03:03 PM

I'm not "I disbelieve the air" bad. Not even close. My traps (at least so far) make sense in their context. What I am bad at though, is trusting the common sense of my players, and now that I think of it: that's unjustified! Out goes the "I'll occasionally warn-ya (with a % chance that it's true)"-rule. Upon a re-read of the search section, players don't have to be in the "square" they are searching (they can be within 10 ft) and, now that I think of it, I haven't even let a trap trigger on a failed Search so far. Still, a failed search generally means a set-off trap (just not immediatly after the roll) as you can't disable what you didn't find.

@ryu & Chronos: Trapfinding has been specifically pulled into the Rogue's domain, non-Trapfinding classes even have "no chance" finding magic traps! (Unless they use magic, but lets not get into that...) On the one hand, the PHB is saying to the Rogue "Dude, you're good at trapfinding!" and on the other hand the DMG is saying (when you roll, rather than take 20) "Nope, you suck!", I agree that that's wonky game design, more so when poking things with sticks (the non-silent approach) is an option. The Rogue sure does have other skills that can be very useful, so skillmonkeying can still be nice and GlassCannon(tm) is also pretty nifty, but a rolling-Rogue won't be good at Trapfinding DMG traps straight out of the box, in spite of what it says on the box.

@Deophaun: Dropping a MW-tool should alleviate some of the problems (an extra 10% success is quite a bit). The Rogue already carries a magnifying glass and a mirror, I'll just tell her that if she uses those, she gets the bonus, makes enough sense to me. I'm currently considering allowing "Aid Another", as the max range on a search is 10ft. Actually, that gives the Ranger something extra to contribute...

@Techwarrior: Thanks for the Bad Traps 1 & 2, reading that helped me realise just why I am so uncomfortable with traps and their peculiarities, i.e. lack of interaction. Food for thought.

@John Longarrow: Thanks for the suggestions, your breakdown of traps helped me realise that my trap-placement is logical, except for one I'm currently relocating. I'll definitely use some of those BFC traps to spice up the battlefield if combat ever turns into a boring slugfest!

I still feel that Rogues having a fixed search result (be it through take20 or take10) on every search-check is mechanically not in line with other dangerous encounters in DnD (ruled by the Holy D20). Low-op, the Search and Disable values are pretty steep, but I guess they should be if they really rely on take20 (which still strikes me as odd). It feels weird, but then again, most of the suggested traps in the DMG are kindah bland once you get past the health damage, is it really that bad if somebody takes their time?... It's just the guaranteed outcome that bothers me.

I guess an obstacle isn't really an obstacle without covering fire.

jedipotter

2014-04-14, 03:41 PM

RavynsLand

2014-04-14, 03:46 PM

Super hard to find. I mean, elves are generally supposed to be pretty androgynous but I don't think the elf men dress femme enough to be considered proper traps.

Chronos

2014-04-14, 04:01 PM

Well, there is still some uncertainty in knowing where to look. Very few players call for a Take 20 search on every single 5' square of floor, walls, and ceiling, every step they take in the dungeon (and if they do, then the DM is more than justified in applying more time pressure). So you've got to develop the knack of knowing where to expect traps, and then only search where you think they might be. Of course, this is a player skill, not a character skill, so it might still rub some folks the wrong way, but if you don't mind that, it can be a lot of fun. I've seen cases where the party stopped because "there's just got to be a trap here", had the rogue search and find nothing, but still went around another way because there just had to be a trap... Followed by dirty looks from the DM, because it turns out they were right.

HighWater

2014-04-14, 04:48 PM

@jedipotter: Maybe, but that's the average CR1 trap, and a level 4 Rogue. That trap should be a cakewalk by challenge-level (4 level4 PCs versus 2 unaltered Orcs without terrain advantage-easy), yet the example-Rogue would botch even finding it 50% of the time, worse against the higher search-DC ones. Although the average of the DMG CR4 traps comes out at a ~23 Search DC (35% chance of finding it with the example Rogue, youch), this is deceptively low as a few of those traps have surprisingly low Search DC's, while quite a few others have 28 (10% chance of finding it). As a separate Disable Device check is required to knock the traps out, the actual successrate is considerably lower. This concerned me. With Mw Tool and Aid Another, all mentioned odds increase by 20%. That still leaves a 70% chance the high-search trap will do its thing, without even counting the chance of setting it off on a failure-by-5-or-more on the Disable Device check if it does gets found.

With take20, however, all DMG CR4 traps will be found (even without the new boosters and provided the PCs bother to look, but they generally bother), which is also quite undesirable I'd imagine.

My point really was that it's unclear (at least to me) against what the Search and Disable Device (also generally high) DC's are weighted. Rolling delivers low odds on CR appropriate traps (and remember, one to find it, one to kill it, so that's exponentially low odds), while Take20 guarantees success against any example-trap deemed "level appropriate", by only putting in max ranks and having a +2 on the ability modifier. (Still need to disable it, true, but then why include Search as a requirement anyway...)

@Chronos, for take20 the DMG traps aren't very suited (guaranteed find, see above), at least not on the Search DC. That'd mean the Disable Device check is the only thing that might keep a trap from being free xp (as long as the trap is placed with logic, rather than in a weird place just to screw with the players)... Your story is nice, but it doesn't change at all if the take20 for traps is replaced with a single (secret) roll: the party can still decide not to trust the search because it just -has- to be trapped...

@RavynsLand, it's a good thing there are no full-blooded elves in the party, or the Rogue might go "trapfinding" all the time...

RavynsLand

2014-04-14, 04:50 PM

@RavynsLand, it's a good thing there are no full-blooded elves in the party, or the Rogue might go "trapfinding" all the time...

Someone gets it! ^-^

<3

ryu

2014-04-14, 05:25 PM

And the direct response comes out with the worst designed class in core. Fighters don't just have the problem of hyper focus on one thing to the exclusion of all else. They're also pretty lackluster at their focus barring optimization to the point of base competence. For those wondering the monk only escapes my ire, because of some legitimately nice things obtained from non-core that can bring them up to tier 3 without simply picking a different class entirely as the focus of the build.

jedipotter

2014-04-14, 05:30 PM

Coidzor

2014-04-14, 05:33 PM

Yes, the rogue class is designed to focus on skills, and so its other abilities (combat, for instance) are lower than most other classes. By the same token, the fighter is focused on combat, and its skills are lackluster. How is either of these a problem?

Largely because the lack of skills as well as a lack of anything to make up for it causes Fighters to be neutered in any situation that isn't combat that comes up, even guarding or keeping watch because they don't even have Spot and Listen as class skills. Really, the failures of the Fighter class are fairly well documented. Fortunately for the Fighter, combat is a major component of D&D at least.

Rogues mostly suffer from a less than intuitive role in combat, because they don't actually have the resilience to act as secondary melee damage output and Fighters and other more beefy classes lack the ability to actually "tank" for them like the designers seemed to think they could and should, and it's much less acceptable for them to just sit on their thumbs in combat than it is for Fighters to twiddle their thumbs uselessly during social encounters due to how large of a component of the game combat is by the default expectations and culture.

:smallconfused: I mean, there's workarounds, but the shortcomings (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?269440-Why-Each-Class-Is-In-Its-Tier-%28Rescued-from-MinMax%29)of the classes are fairly well known.

Granted, this is a bit tangential by nature.

Super hard to find. I mean, elves are generally supposed to be pretty androgynous but I don't think the elf men dress femme enough to be considered proper traps.

Technically I think they all are (http://youtu.be/HNrLMob39qI) if we're going to use such a vulgar term. After all, they cause cancer and they're all witches...

Well, that or they can't be because they're all actually hermaphroditic, possessing both sets of functioning reproductive organs. Oh, the things that come up.

Well the whole CR system is a bit weird to say the least. And it is made for characters that are not just not optimized, but for characters that tone themselves down (like that rogue taking skill focus in profession fishing).

You need to play with the numbers to keep traps in the 40-60 percent chance range. That is the sweet spot.

I have to admit, I'd prefer 40-60 to be the usual range that they run when dealing with the traps that are scaling with the party/trapfinder(s). Granted, I'd prefer to stay in that range for those who are doing the expected things rather than those who are milking everything for what it's worth. XD

Though with the CR system, traps are even weirder since, especially at low levels, it's usually really just one member of the party actually engaging with it, which does wonky things to Encounter Level calculations to boot as well.

It takes a 1/4 CR trap to not be Very Difficult and instead be Challenging to a single level 1 character, amusingly enough, but with 2 level 1 characters it drops to Easy, though that's largely separate from the actual difficulties involved, of course.

cricricri13

2014-04-15, 01:29 AM

Well I should tell you how the traps (and every other part of the game) works here in spain, as some kind of cultural exchange:

Well. Basically, there's a rule that has extended from the most "role-focused" rpg to the rest, and this is: you only make ONE DICE ROLL. So that pretty much ends the "taking twenty" Now don't get me wrong, on the more casual games you can take twenty, if the master is a nice guy, wich makes more casual games good for that. But if you go to one of the events here in spain and tell your master you'll take twenty, he'll probably laugh in your face. The logic behind this is pretty simple: You don't see a fighter taking 20 to impact. You don't see a caster taking 20 to make a ritual, heck you don't see anyone else taking 20. As I said it comes from the most role-bassed rpgs where the manuals state pretty clearly that the character only makes one roll.

Again there's the issue of some masters doing the rolls behind the screen so that you don't know if you had a 20 and there were no traps or a 1 and are going to die. And one person said "Then I'd tell them to roll 40 times" Well as I said, he'll rol ONCE, because if he's using that rule he sure is one of the strict ones. I think this rule comes concretelly from the "call of cthlhu" rp, but I might be wrong on that last part.

Now of course what we do to make more rolls is that you can make more of pretty much all the detecting skills rolls every time the master says you hear something or see a shadow/quick move etc. So the most lethal the trap is and the nicer your master is the more sudden noises there will be, allowing you to roll a lot of times. What is funny because it ends with some of the higher level traps making so much noise you wonder if they are in a good state.

Now also you should take on account most traps can be deactivated after being activated, so even if you miss them you have a chance of ending with it with only some scratches, and if not you can allways start throwing stuff if the dice gods are particularly angry that day.

And there's one more thing to take on account here. As I said before the traps on the manual are STANDALONE, that's why they are so hard to find. If you want to throw in some lower traos: just homebrew them. In fact here in spain a 90% of the traps you'll find are homebrewed or from one of the forums.

Oh and yeah, as a player that tends to end being either artificer or some other skillmonkey class, I can tell you our skillmonkeys are absolutelly paranoid. Or dead. And then the new character is paranoid.

Heliomance

2014-04-15, 03:11 AM

YOU ONLY ROLL ONCE is not a rule that actually makes sense.

Taking 20 represents going slowly and carefully, taking your time to be sure you're doing it absolutely right. Funnily enough, that's not an option in combat. The fighter can't take a long time to carefully line up his strike, because his opponent is moving constantly. The wizard can't do that in a ritual because every bit has to be completed at a certain speed, and so going slowly and carefully - and maybe even making multiple attempts - ruins the ritual itself.

There's no reason the rogue can't take 20 on searching though. It just means she takes a long time about it, carefully poking into every crack and crevice to make absolutely sure she's found everything that might be there to find.

Sliver

2014-04-15, 03:21 AM

I made a Spirit Shaman for one game and he can safely handle most traps, as long as he doesn't care about traps that alarm the big boss: Summon Elemental reserve feat. Let an earth elemental glide through the floor, walls and ceiling.

WrathMage

2014-04-15, 04:41 AM

Super hard to find. I mean, elves are generally supposed to be pretty androgynous but I don't think the elf men dress femme enough to be considered proper traps.

RavynsLand, I was reading this thread as a sneaky look at work, whilst enjoying a coffee... got to your response and promptly laughed loudly, snorted and coughed coffee everywhere, so... Thanks for that, best response I've seen to a thread all year! Just brilliant :D

Deophaun

2014-04-15, 05:39 AM

Again there's the issue of some masters doing the rolls behind the screen so that you don't know if you had a 20 and there were no traps or a 1 and are going to die. And one person said "Then I'd tell them to roll 40 times" Well as I said, he'll rol ONCE, because if he's using that rule he sure is one of the strict ones.
No, he'll roll 40 times. Because we're playing D&D and his house rule was just "no taking 20." That alone is a sign of someone that doesn't quite understand the skill system, but it can be worked around. "You only roll once" is a sign of a DM that has no clue on how to introduce a sense of urgency into his games, and so I wouldn't be sitting at his table.

Chronos

2014-04-15, 08:19 AM

Alarm traps aren't the only ones not foiled by summons. Maybe the trigger for the trap is 20' in front of the trap itself, so your elemental goes forward, trips it, and it squishes you. Maybe the area of effect of the trap is large enough that it gets you and the elemental, like a lightning bolt down a long hallway. Maybe the trigger is based on body heat, so the earth elemental doesn't trigger it, or on weight, so the fire elemental doesn't-- Are you sending two elementals to scout every time? Maybe it's based on Detect Good, and so no sort of elemental would trigger it. Maybe the trap summons a monster, and the monster then decides what to attack.

Taffimai

2014-04-15, 11:24 AM

Taking 20 represents going slowly and carefully, taking your time to be sure you're doing it absolutely right. Funnily enough, that's not an option in combat. The fighter can't take a long time to carefully line up his strike, because his opponent is moving constantly. The wizard can't do that in a ritual because every bit has to be completed at a certain speed, and so going slowly and carefully - and maybe even making multiple attempts - ruins the ritual itself.

There's no reason the rogue can't take 20 on searching though. It just means she takes a long time about it, carefully poking into every crack and crevice to make absolutely sure she's found everything that might be there to find.

What you describe, to me, is taking 10. Taking 20 means doing it over and over again until you get it right, so it makes sense that you'd only get to do that when there's no consequence for failure. My personal rule of thumb is that you get the 5 before the 20.

So, if someone draws two lines in the sand and you can join their game if you can jump across, you can jump, land in the middle, then try again and again until it works and they give you the new nickname "Determined Kangaroo". If, on the other hand, you're trying to jump across a river of actual lava, you don't get to try over and over because failing once means "Deep-Fried Kangaroo".

Search checks are similar: sometimes taking 20 will be okay, but other times you might set off the very trap you were hoping to avoid. Only with traps, you won't be able to tell in advance which scenario you're in.

John Longarrow

2014-04-15, 11:25 AM

HighWater,
Do you have any traps that don't fall into one of those general categories? If so, you may want to change them around, unless there ONLY to make people paranoid. When used properly the rogues SHOULD be able to find them with at take 20, but then they are wasting time checking for traps when they really need to be doing something else OR they are sneaky enough to pull it off...

From and adventure I was running, as the party enters the main hall of a crypt they see two thrones on the far side. There are traps in the ceiling, but if at least 50 lbs is on each throne the traps deactivate. Rogue should be doing everything they can to find them (Crypt, so no time pressure to begin with PLUS something that screams "you've got traps"). Further in, there is a door at the end of a hall. Open the door and you face a blank wall. Yes, its a trap but it closes/locks the door that leads to this section of the dungeon. Another door has a fire trap (burn marks on the wall) but is near an encounter that the party may need to run from. Final "Boss fight" has a 10' deep covered pit in an alcove at the back of the room. In the back of the pit is a secret door. 20' down the passage is a trap that closes the secret door when crossed. Fantastic escape tunnel!

Another fun trap is an animate object trap that animates a guardian if anything larger than "Small" gets within 60'.

RavynsLand
Is there a difference? Oh, your talking about what they wear! Gotcha. Butch or Fem, but as far as I can tell they don't differentiate otherwise.

Jedipotter
From my experience (both sides of the DM's screen), if your traps are not part of a system, there not being used very well. Because of this, I don't try to force a 50/50 for out of combat since that makes them overly lethal when the players don't have time to take 20.

cricricri13

If that is true for most games in Spain, does that also mean the fighter makes ONE attack roll for all of combat? Just wondering as one of the core rules is Take 20.

hymer

2014-04-15, 11:32 AM

Search checks are similar: sometimes taking 20 will be okay, but other times you might set off the very trap you were hoping to avoid. Only with traps, you won't be able to tell in advance which scenario you're in.

Can you point to an official trap which goes off on a search check? Because I don't think such a trap exists, except if people homebrew it. Traps are supposed to go off not when you look at them, but when you trigger them. And when you try to use Disable Device you might set it off despite all intention. But when you look for it? Them's not the rules.
I'll take that back if there are actual traps that go off on search checks.

Chronos

2014-04-15, 11:53 AM

Most Symbol (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfDeath.htm) spells create a magical trap which can be triggered by looking at it.

Sliver

2014-04-15, 11:53 AM

hymer

2014-04-15, 11:57 AM

Most Symbol (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/symbolOfDeath.htm) spells create a magical trap which can be triggered by looking at it.

Presumably you'll see them well before you're within the 10 feet you need to be to to search for them? If there is a problem of noticing them, it's hardly Search, but Spot, you'd use to see them.

HighWater

2014-04-15, 12:55 PM

Do you set up traps that logically can't be found without triggering? For example, a trap that is triggered by the door opening, with the trigger (and trap) being from the other side of the door. Would you allow a search check to find them anyway? Would you allow them being disabled from the other side of the door? Would the rogue player feel cheated if you don't allow him to find/disable the trap?
#1 No, that's just mean. Or not a "Trap" as the game treats it, but rather a plotpoint that only looks like a trap.
#2 If I intended it to be a trap, rather than a plotpoint, then yes, you get a chance of finding it before it blows up. I also try to avoid "plotpoints" that look like traps.
#3 Yes, and damn right he'd be. That's like making the fighter fight an unstatted opponent that can't be hit/never misses...

Killer Angel

2014-04-15, 01:04 PM

There's no reason the rogue can't take 20 on searching though. It just means she takes a long time about it, carefully poking into every crack and crevice to make absolutely sure she's found everything that might be there to find.

That's debatable.
you can take 20 only if the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure. IMO, failure in searching for traps, means that they can snap on you (it's possible: i'm thinking to a magical trap triggered by proximity... the rogue doesn't know what kind of traps there will be).

Must be said that examples on “take 20” skills, include Search...

HighWater

2014-04-15, 01:15 PM

Must be said that examples on “take 20” skills, include Search...

An actual normal no danger search though.

killem2

2014-04-15, 01:31 PM

Here is how I see it.

In the rules of the skill it states:

Action
It takes a full-round action to search a 5-foot-by-5-foot area or a volume of goods 5 feet on a side.

This is going to need a bit of common sense here. If you are search an area that carefully, and it happens to be for a trap, it doesn't really matter if they take 20 or not. If the DC of the trap to find is 40 and they only have +10 to their search skill, the max is 30. They will never find it, but this doesn't mean they get to walk around a trap riddled room or hall way with out issue.

No, that's bull****. Be cause if they do find it, then they can proceed to disable it. I see no issue with springing a trap if they are searching for it and not find it. That is a perfectly good example of the rules working well.

Dawgmoah

2014-04-15, 02:06 PM

Question to you guys... Do you set up traps that logically can't be found without triggering? For example, a trap that is triggered by the door opening, with the trigger (and trap) being from the other side of the door. Would you allow a search check to find them anyway? Would you allow them being disabled from the other side of the door? Would the rogue player feel cheated if you don't allow him to find/disable the trap?

Short answer: No, if the trap is there it can be opposed/discovered/disarmed.

If the person searching for traps makes the DC I will let them discover the trap is there. The searcher may feel just a slight bit of difference in the way the door is hung, notice that it has an odd pull to it not caused by rusted hinges, etc. There will almost always be a way for the party know recognize a trap is there; even if they cannot get to it to disarm it. One exception to that rule is knowing they are going into the lair of a person or creature which is very good at traps or well known to have lots of traps. Nothing on the lines of the Tomb of Horrors though.

A trap can be as simple as a rock balanced on top of a door slightly ajar, or something as complicated as something that reacts to the presence of light, heat, vibration, or even pressure change. With the knowledge the character has based on their rank they may not know the exact nature of the trap: but they'd know it's there.

Heliomance

2014-04-15, 05:56 PM

What you describe, to me, is taking 10. Taking 20 means doing it over and over again until you get it right, so it makes sense that you'd only get to do that when there's no consequence for failure. My personal rule of thumb is that you get the 5 before the 20.

So, if someone draws two lines in the sand and you can join their game if you can jump across, you can jump, land in the middle, then try again and again until it works and they give you the new nickname "Determined Kangaroo". If, on the other hand, you're trying to jump across a river of actual lava, you don't get to try over and over because failing once means "Deep-Fried Kangaroo".

Search checks are similar: sometimes taking 20 will be okay, but other times you might set off the very trap you were hoping to avoid. Only with traps, you won't be able to tell in advance which scenario you're in.

A little from column a, a little from column b. They're both valid explanations, and which one I'd choose to describe it as would depend on the situation. Taking your time to make sure you do it right definitely isn't taking 10 though, as taking 10 doesn't take any additional time. Taking 10 represents putting in an average amount of effort. It's "I know I can jump this far reliably. If I try to go further I might screw up the launch and come down too soon, but if I don't overreach myself I know I can always get this far."

Deophaun

2014-04-15, 06:16 PM

What you describe, to me, is taking 10.
Taking 10 takes no more time than rolling, so it can hardly be described as "going slowly."

lunar2

2014-04-15, 08:18 PM

in fact, i have used a trap that couldn't be searched for. it was at the end of a dead end hall, blocked by a locked door. anyone supposed to be there wouldn't open the door. anyone who opens the door gets a polar ray to the face. the trigger is not on the door, but on the polar ray trap itself, which went off because of the shift in air pressure from opening the door. the door itself had an alarm attached to it, that could be disabled.

because you know why? the wizard's college full of super geniuses is going to have a trap specifically set up for dealing with nosy intruders going places they shouldn't be going. and they are going to know that some people are really good at finding traps, so they're going to account for that.

i build traps and design encounters based on what the residents would actually do. that includes traps that specifically can't be searched for in out of the way places, because you can't get close enough to search for them without triggering them. that includes locks that specifically can't be knocked, because they have a spring in them that automatically locks them if nothing is actually in the keyhole. and yes, i know the knock spell says locks don't lock themselves. but it's also an instantaneous spell that does not damage the locking mechanism. since there's no magic holding the lock open, it closes itself back, no matter what the spell says. specific beats general.

TuggyNE

2014-04-15, 08:57 PM

Well. Basically, there's a rule that has extended from the most "role-focused" rpg to the rest, and this is: you only make ONE DICE ROLL. So that pretty much ends the "taking twenty" Now don't get me wrong, on the more casual games you can take twenty, if the master is a nice guy, wich makes more casual games good for that. But if you go to one of the events here in spain and tell your master you'll take twenty, he'll probably laugh in your face. The logic behind this is pretty simple: You don't see a fighter taking 20 to impact. You don't see a caster taking 20 to make a ritual, heck you don't see anyone else taking 20. As I said it comes from the most role-bassed rpgs where the manuals state pretty clearly that the character only makes one roll.

False equivalence, and bad RAW. Not sure what you mean by a caster's ritual, but you could in theory take 20 on spells that require d20s to succeed (dispel magic etc), along with attack rolls. The reason you don't is twofold: first, it would be useless, since you would get exactly one automatic success and 19 failures in 20 times the usual period and (with spells) for 20 times the slots expended, which is of no value to any sensible combatant who could in twenty tries almost always get more successes than that; second, only skills and ability checks are allowed to take 20 in 3.x.

Taking 10 takes no more time than rolling, so it can hardly be described as "going slowly."

Well, except insofar as you're not rushing the job. But taking 10 takes so little extra time and effort that it's abstracted as the same action; the difference is mainly that it requires the sort of super-concentration that even a successful Concentration check cannot provide, much like preparing spells. (If there's a storm or a battle nearby, you simply cannot prepare spells, no matter how well you roll.)

Coidzor

2014-04-16, 12:07 AM

Hurnn

2014-04-16, 02:10 AM

No, but locks are way to hard to pick.

Coidzor

2014-04-16, 02:41 AM

No, but locks are way to hard to pick.

Especially as a separate skill investment from disable device. XD

HighWater

2014-04-16, 05:14 AM

in fact, i have used a trap that couldn't be searched for. <snip>

Congrats, you just gave the role of reliable trapfinder&buster to the wizard (detect magic + most simple spells will take that one out), enforcing a game-imbalance that already exists. Do this more than once and the Rogue will probably just give up (or literally die trying).

i build traps and design encounters based on what the residents would actually do. that includes traps that specifically can't be searched for in out of the way places, because you can't get close enough to search for them without triggering them.
Can't be searched for? How exactly do the residents themselves get passed them? There is no realistic trap in an "alive" dungeon that doesn't have some way for the dungeon-owner to not-get-hit-by-it himself, even if it's "out of the way" (if only to check whether the trap is still operational). Taking a spear to the eyeball each time you need to walk the corridor to your vault gets annoying -really- fast. There should be some way to bypass it, and if there is some way to bypass it, just why can't the Rogue find it?... Remember, this is in a game where you can get your own plane of existence if you so fancy, so be aware of the guy at the gym...

@Hurnn&Coidzor, Indeed they are, but once you've made certain the lock contains no traps (provided you found them), you can try and try again at picking that pesky lock. I'm strongly considering declaring "Open Lock" and "Disable Device" to be one and the same skill. "Skill-classes" are generally charged double for their skills anyhow...

Edit:
@John Longarrow, well the upcoming dungeon is unmanned, so they mostly serve as discouragement for roaming plunderers (explaining why the party is the first to get to the goodies). (Unknown to them), there is some time pressure involved, so I guess taking 20 will be okay.
The traps you describe in your most recent post aren't very trap-like though, but more "automated mechanisms" that pose no direct threat. These are of course nice, but also a long way from DMG traps. :smallwink: That said, without forcing players into the "single roll paradigm", or always having them chased by something they should run from (which is something most PCs aren't good at anyway) using traps for direct danger is pretty difficult.

Sith_Happens

2014-04-16, 05:35 AM

Can't be searched for? How exactly do the residents themselves get passed them? There is no realistic trap in an "alive" dungeon that doesn't have some way for the dungeon-owner to not-get-hit-by-it himself, even if it's "out of the way" (if only to check whether the trap is still operational). Taking a spear to the eyeball each time you need to walk the corridor to your vault gets annoying -really- fast.

Based on this line:

anyone supposed to be there wouldn't open the door.

I get the impression that this was an out-of-the-way closet containing the trap and only the trap. In other words, burglar-bait.

HighWater

2014-04-16, 06:24 AM

I get the impression that this was an out-of-the-way closet containing the trap and only the trap. In other words, burglar-bait.
And in most cases the burglar-bait would not be triggered by a burglar, but by someone who's supposed to be in the complex, but is having an off-day, gets confused and accidentally opens the wrong door.

Edit: It's also locked, making the chance of a f-up very small, so the above point is much weaker (though still not an impossible event), the rest still stands though.

Besides, even burglar-bait needs checking to see if it's still operational (wouldn't want a burglar to open the door and find your trap non-functional, only to laugh at you and steal all your stuff right?) Security-measures are worthless if you can't check whether they are still in working order. More so if they also pose a health-risk.

Air-pressure traps also require that the room is pretty sealed, or high-pressure events outside the room will still trigger it. A Rogue searching the door would notice this... Disabling from outside is also not too difficult, especially if the door is able to block the trap.

Sure, it's probably possible to set up traps that can't be found outside of magic, which brings up the question from gamedesign-perspective if you really want to troll the Rogue by not only disappointing him that there's no treasure to be had, but also by having him triggger an auto-fail trap in the first place.

Deophaun

2014-04-16, 08:54 AM

False equivalence, and bad RAW. Not sure what you mean by a caster's ritual, but you could in theory take 20 on spells that require d20s to succeed (dispel magic etc), along with attack rolls. The reason you don't is twofold:
Actually, Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts would have cause to take 20 on the CL checks for dispel magic, seeing as they can have unlimited use SLAs. Not useful in combat, but useful for getting past that high-CL wall of fire that's blocking the way forward.

Well, except insofar as you're not rushing the job.
This is assuming that rushing is what's causing the problem, as opposed to the unpredictability of the environment. If you're tying your shoe on the ground, you can take 10 on the Use Rope check. If you're tying your shoe on a pitching ship, you have to roll, regardless of whether you are "rushing" the job or not. Same thing for combat: you aren't swinging a sword at a static person (if you were, you can essentially take 20 with a full-round action), but at something actively trying to avoid it and hit you back.

Without external factors, the roll is your character choosing to take a risk for the chance to exceed his level of competence; you're rolling your Spot check because your character believes he's got a bead on where intruders will approach from. If he rolls high, his hunch is right. If he rolls low, his hunch mislead him.

I think the only time choosing to roll a skill check can be considered an attempt at rushing is with a Craft check.

Slipperychicken

2014-04-16, 10:38 AM

Question to you guys... Do you set up traps that logically can't be found without triggering? For example, a trap that is triggered by the door opening, with the trigger (and trap) being from the other side of the door. Would you allow a search check to find them anyway? Would you allow them being disabled from the other side of the door? Would the rogue player feel cheated if you don't allow him to find/disable the trap?

Rogues can find and disarm traps which trigger by looking at them (which, "logically" can't be found without triggering), and their reflexes are so good that they can dodge attacks they literally didn't know about (which, "logically" is not possible), so I feel pretty confident that such a character could reasonably determine that opening the door is going to trigger a trap.

It's kind of like asking if a rogue could detect a trap only triggered by opening a chest: Of course he can, that's what trapfinding is all about. If you're trying to argue that a rogue, with all his training, expertise, and near-supernatural talent, couldn't possibly detect such a trap, you're really just looking for an excuse to pull one over on the players.

lunar2

2014-04-16, 10:51 AM

And in most cases the burglar-bait would not be triggered by a burglar, but by someone who's supposed to be in the complex, but is having an off-day, gets confused and accidentally opens the wrong door.

Edit: It's also locked, making the chance of a f-up very small, so the above point is much weaker (though still not an impossible event), the rest still stands though.

Besides, even burglar-bait needs checking to see if it's still operational (wouldn't want a burglar to open the door and find your trap non-functional, only to laugh at you and steal all your stuff right?) Security-measures are worthless if you can't check whether they are still in working order. More so if they also pose a health-risk.

Air-pressure traps also require that the room is pretty sealed, or high-pressure events outside the room will still trigger it. A Rogue searching the door would notice this... Disabling from outside is also not too difficult, especially if the door is able to block the trap.

Sure, it's probably possible to set up traps that can't be found outside of magic, which brings up the question from gamedesign-perspective if you really want to troll the Rogue by not only disappointing him that there's no treasure to be had, but also by having him triggger an auto-fail trap in the first place.

it was a simple polar ray trap. the door was well made, and fitted into the frame (like the rest of the college, since it was an active wizard's college constructed through magic), but otherwise not specially sealed. if the trap ever accidentally went off, it would just blast the back side of the door, which was treated to resist cold. if any of the wizards in the college ever needed to check on it, they just cast protection from cold on themselves, and take the hit. the bypass to the trap is a 3rd level spell carried in the head of the maintenance guy, not a physical object that could be searched for.

also, on the "only a wizard can find it" front. it was CL 16. that gives it a 65 foot range. detect magic only has a 60 foot range. seriously, if someone makes a trap they don't want found except the hard way, there are ways to make sure it won't be found except the hard way. also, i forgot to specifically point it out, but (since, again, wizard's college) all the locks on all the doors were of the spring loaded variety. the wizard isn't opening that door without cross class ranks in open lock. yes, all the obstacles in the college were specifically designed to shut down the wizard trying to be a rogue. because they were in a city full of magic users (based on Neo Vane, from Lunar 2: Eternal Blue).

anyway, main path traps, or traps with important items behind them, can't be built that way, because, as you pointed out, the residents have to be able to get past them. but there is nothing wrong with the occasional burglar bait.

and the point of that trap was literally to troll the rogue. they weren't supposed to be doing anything inside the wizard's college in the first place, so the only way to get hit by that trap is if they go murderhobo. i was dealing with a party that included a sorcerer that charmed everyone and their mama, a rogue that couldn't leave any locked door closed, a barbarian who constantly used threats of violence to get his way, and a cleric who would back up any of the other 3 (he was the sorcerer's player's second character, and mainly just a heal and buffbot. barely more than a glorified cohort, since there were only 3 players, and nobody wanted to play a cleric). so yes, Vane was designed specifically to punish all their usual tricks, and they figured out eventually that in this specific city, they had to behave, because they had an army of wizards, sorcerers, clerics, adepts, druids, bards, and rangers/paladins (of 4th level or higher) that all acted according to their above average mental ability scores, inside a floating city designed by such people.

Deophaun

2014-04-16, 11:23 AM

if the trap ever accidentally went off, it would just blast the back side of the door, which was treated to resist cold.
And that's what the Search check would pick up. Even if only the back of the door was treated (which I don't think is rules-legal), the fact that the door was a composite piece could be discerned through tapping and listening.

Seerow

2014-04-16, 11:36 AM

Reading Bad Traps 1 (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/90/bad-trap-syndrome/) and Bad Traps 2 (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/91/bad-trap-syndrome-curing-the-bad-trap-blues/) can go a long way to making life easier for your trapper, you as a DM, and the entire party as a whole.

These articles started out strong, but at the end the "solution" they come up with is going totally old school, throwing out the skill system and making the players roleplay out finding/disarming traps. This is a system that most of us who actually played during that time period discarded nearly 2 decades ago for being incredibly disruptive and unfun.

I have yet to see a system I actually like for handling traps, which is sad because I do like the concept of traps. I do think a lot of the advice from Dungeonomicon about where/when traps are appropriate is helpful. Traps as a stand-alone rarely present a real challenge to a party and should not be treated as such, but traps acting as a delayer in a time crunch situation, or as a complication in a real fight can be useful. But it doesn't make the act of disarming a trap any more engaging, and that's the real trick. Making disarming something fun that a person could reasonably want to contribute to, while having it be structured enough to be translated into useful game mechanics rather than straight up magic tea party.

Right now the best I can think of is something like after you identify a trap is present, you can make a skill check (search? knowledge[dungeoneering]? disable device?) to identify components of the trap, and what they do. Then let the players use other skills/abilities to remove/disable those trap elements. Basically taking the old school solution, but letting players use a skill check rather than reading the GM's mind about what is relevant. The main issue with this is that introducing a trap suddenly requires a lot more work, as you have to identify several elements of the trap, their relevant DCs, how they might be disabled, and what happens when they're disabled. Which is fine for a big encounter trap style encounter, but for the little "zap traps", that's a lot of work to put in for something that's ultimately a minor part of (what should be) a larger encounter.

pwykersotz

2014-04-16, 01:20 PM

lunar2

2014-04-16, 03:23 PM

And that's what the Search check would pick up. Even if only the back of the door was treated (which I don't think is rules-legal), the fact that the door was a composite piece could be discerned through tapping and listening.

ok, search check turns up that the door is composite. then what? you still can't disable the trap. the composite nature of the door still doesn't tell you what's on the other side. all you know is that the door is made of two materials. you don't even know what the other material is for, since you can't interact with the back side of the door without opening the door.

in the end, telling them it is a composite door would have the same effect as the alarm trap i actually did put on the door. it makes opening the door more tempting, because players are curious, and have a burning need to find out what's on the other side.

as for having different sides act differently. the rules say you can generally do whatever the rules don't cover, as long as you have the DM's permission. well, i was the DM, and i decided you can alchemically treat just one side of the door to be resistant to cold. it's the same thing as painting one side red and the other side blue. there is no rules against it, and there is no reason to assume it can't be done. if it had come up, i would have granted that maybe the alchemical treatment would have changed the properties of the back side enough that knocking on the door would allow you to tell (with a really high search or listen check), but it never came up, and like i said, it would have served my purpose anyway, which was to get the rogue to stop compulsively opening every locked door he found. he had gone beyond being a rogue to being a caricature of a rogue.

the worst part of it is, these 3 were the good players available at the time. anyone else that wanted to play was the type that was so stupid that when they were flat out told to do a coup de grace, they would charge and attack normally, instead. or after being shown where the door was marked on the map, they would try to tumble through the wall. both of those were the same guy, btw. he didn't last long, and i wasn't DM for either of those two campaigns, although i was DM when the other guys finally chased him off by PKing him while he was stuck in a force cage/summon monster trap. and then PKing his replacement character as soon as they saw him.

yeah, i played with a mean group, and they deserved everything i threw at them.

HighWater

2014-04-17, 02:46 AM

ok, search check turns up that the door is composite. then what? you still can't disable the trap. the composite nature of the door still doesn't tell you what's on the other side. all you know is that the door is made of two materials. you don't even know what the other material is for, since you can't interact with the back side of the door without opening the door.
Happens to be how most of the rogue's trapidentifying skills work, they find minimal hints and somehow figure out how the magical trap works. *shrug*

the worst part of it is, these 3 were the good players available at the time [...] when the other guys finally chased him off by PKing him while he was stuck in a force cage/summon monster trap. and then PKing his replacement character as soon as they saw him.

yeah, i played with a mean group, and they deserved everything i threw at them.
This is an entirely different beast, which explains the unfindable trap: it's essentially a less extreme "Rocks Fall" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies). Which is something that merits mentioning when letting someone know that it's "acceptable" to spring unfindable traps on rogues.

Sith_Happens

2014-04-17, 03:04 AM

ok, search check turns up that the door is composite. then what? you still can't disable the trap. the composite nature of the door still doesn't tell you what's on the other side. all you know is that the door is made of two materials. you don't even know what the other material is for, since you can't interact with the back side of the door without opening the door.

in the end, telling them it is a composite door would have the same effect as the alarm trap i actually did put on the door. it makes opening the door more tempting, because players are curious, and have a burning need to find out what's on the other side.

Did the door open in or out? If it opens out, you take cover behind it as you open it. If it opens in, you take cover in the corner next to it and immediately withdraw your hand after pushing it so it swings open. Either way, the trap doesn't have line of effect to you at the time that it's triggered.

lunar2

2014-04-17, 10:02 AM

Did the door open in or out? If it opens out, you take cover behind it as you open it. If it opens in, you take cover in the corner next to it and immediately withdraw your hand after pushing it so it swings open. Either way, the trap doesn't have line of effect to you at the time that it's triggered.

that only works if you know a trap is going to be there. the trap itself is at the other end of a 65 ft (or was it 60 ft + the 5 ft past the door. it was out of detect magic range, but at the edge of the trap's range) hallway. nothing you can do to the door short of carefully cutting large holes into it is going to affect the activation of the trap at all. but you have no way of knowing to use the door as cover (and even if you did, i'd only give cover, not total cover), or that opening the door is going to set off any trap besides the already found alarm trap to begin with.

ryu

2014-04-17, 10:20 AM

that only works if you know a trap is going to be there. the trap itself is at the other end of a 65 ft (or was it 60 ft + the 5 ft past the door. it was out of detect magic range, but at the edge of the trap's range) hallway. nothing you can do to the door short of carefully cutting large holes into it is going to affect the activation of the trap at all. but you have no way of knowing to use the door as cover (and even if you did, i'd only give cover, not total cover), or that opening the door is going to set off any trap besides the already found alarm trap to begin with.

You don't see it as good practice to block line of sight and effect when entering rooms if possible? The default assumption of the rogue is stealth. Opening a door while standing in the easily targeted frame space is the kind of stupid I wouldn't expect from a normal person let alone a trained professional sneak and stab jockey.

ace rooster

2014-04-17, 02:34 PM

lunar2

2014-04-17, 06:22 PM

Finding a trap with search doesn't usually mean you find the mechanism of the actual trap, as it is fairly easy to make this completely inaccessable. What a rogue can spot is the lack of wear on the door handle, indicating that the door is not used by the regular patrols, or the spot of blood from the last victim that the goblins missed when cleaning up, or even just that there is a door in a slightly nonsensical place. Maybe there are marks on the floor that show the patrols lingered in this area for a few seconds with no obvious reason, suggesting that they were taking time to make the door safe before proceding. There are a huge number of cues that trapfinding picks up on that does not rely on finding the trap itself. This is why rogues can find magic traps despite not having direct access to magic.
Personally I would never use a trap that could not be found. The best burglers will not fall for burgler bait, as they will see it for what it is. This is trapfinding. If a rogue scored high on his search for the ice trap already talked about, as a DM I would respond with "This is a strange place for a door, and there is faked evidence of use.".

except that trapfinding is, by definition, finding the trap. not the evidence that there is a trap nearby (that would be a spot check that anyone can make), but the trap itself. there was no faked evidence of use, it was not a strange place for a door (there was leftover space in the floor plan between two rooms, so i took advantage of it). the only thing a spot or search check would turn up is "it's a door made of composite material that hasn't recently been opened. there is an alarm trap on the door. the door is secured by a masterwork spring lock that you think even you would have difficulty opening." in other words, it is exactly the kind of door a rogue would want to open. one that is very well secured, and not often used. the exact type of door people hide important stuff behind. you, already knowing what is behind the door, may think that that is a sign the door is burglar bait. a normal player (and especially these players) would never think of a trap a simple search check wouldn't find, because they have the metagame idea that traps get searched for.

because that is what the arguments against this trap tend to be, and in fact the exact argument the rogue in question used. "dude, you can't have a trap i can't search for. that's the whole point of the search skill is to find traps." which fell apart when i pointed out the whole point of the wizard's college was to give quests, not to be robbed. the game mechanics allow for traps that can't be searched for without activating them (you have to be within 10 feet of a trap to search for it, and some traps can affect you from more than 10 feet away), just like they allow the rogue to rob buildings he's not supposed to rob.

TuggyNE

2014-04-17, 11:24 PM

because that is what the arguments against this trap tend to be, and in fact the exact argument the rogue in question used. "dude, you can't have a trap i can't search for. that's the whole point of the search skill is to find traps." which fell apart when i pointed out the whole point of the wizard's college was to give quests, not to be robbed.

Ummmm. "Wizard's college" has little or no default mechanical representation, no mechanical or fluff reason to assume it's there for quests and not for robbing, and is in general a lot broader a concept than "Search checks to find traps". So no, your counterargument does not really work all that well, as they are pretty incomparable.

lunar2

2014-04-18, 12:42 AM

Ummmm. "Wizard's college" has little or no default mechanical representation, no mechanical or fluff reason to assume it's there for quests and not for robbing, and is in general a lot broader a concept than "Search checks to find traps". So no, your counterargument does not really work all that well, as they are pretty incomparable.

nah. generally, the non-evil big important organization in the city is the quest giver for the non evil party, not the robbery target. just like generally, the non-evil barbarian isn't supposed to threaten the mayor's life if he won't kick the residents out of a house the barbarian happens to want. and the chaotic good sorcerer really shouldn't be ignoring all the blatantly evil stuff the rest of the party does, much less charming every woman on the street into his bed.

what's worse is, when they do play evil characters, they just play generic mercenary type characters (beyond killing their boss just because he was a jerk). they usually end up doing things like destroying a tribe of frost giants that had been breeding with a captive red dragon to create supersoldiers, or breaking into lolth's domain to steal an artifact for an elven kingdom (i didn't have the epic level handbook at the time, so i didn't know about thing's like lolth's omniscience within her domain). the most evil thing they did was kill a champion of pelor that was hunting them for being uberpowerful, famous undead.

in other words, i was playing with a bunch of metagaming trolls who deserved every little thing they got, and i did the best i could to control them without breaking the rules (rule 0 didn't fly at that table). there is, funny enough, no rule that states you have to get a search check to find a trap just because that trap exists and can affect you. at least i managed to make them respect one city out of 3 separate campaign worlds.

TuggyNE

2014-04-18, 01:50 AM

nah. generally, the non-evil big important organization in the city is the quest giver for the non evil party, not the robbery target. just like generally, the non-evil barbarian isn't supposed to threaten the mayor's life if he won't kick the residents out of a house the barbarian happens to want. and the chaotic good sorcerer really shouldn't be ignoring all the blatantly evil stuff the rest of the party does, much less charming every woman on the street into his bed.

None of those are rules. Those are all conventions, and can all be broken under certain circumstances. As such, they are qualitatively different from how skill checks work, since those are all examples of roleplayed choices, not something that is covered by the rules. :smallsigh:

HighWater

2014-04-18, 03:15 AM

in other words, i was playing with a bunch of metagaming trolls who deserved every little thing they got, and i did the best i could to control them without breaking the rules (rule 0 didn't fly at that table). there is, funny enough, no rule that states you have to get a search check to find a trap just because that trap exists and can affect you. at least i managed to make them respect one city out of 3 separate campaign worlds.

Trapfinding

Rogues (and only rogues) can use the Search skill to locate traps when the task has a Difficulty Class higher than 20.

Finding a nonmagical trap has a DC of at least 20, or higher if it is well hidden. Finding a magic trap has a DC of 25 + the level of the spell used to create it.
There is no rule in RAW anywhere that allows for "unsearchable traps", your argument is basically "well it didn't say I couldn't", which is not a strong argument. RAW is very much geared towards using search to find traps before they screw you up. As a matter of fact, no RAW trap is unsearchable. However, this discussion is entirely besides the point and that's why it could go on forever.

I'll repeat a previous post of mine, but with different wording.
D-bag players is why you had an "unfindable trap". Not because the Wizards college was so darn awesome. Not because "some traps are unfindable". It was really because you had a serious metagame problem, for which you came up with a metagame solution. You then developed an ingame justification for applying that metagame solution. You can argue about your mechanical and ingame justification for why it worked and people who never needed this particular metagame solution will keep arguing against you, but the prime reason it worked is because you're the DM, and you said it worked. That's okay. Apparently some players are d-bags and if out-of-character comments on their in-character-out-of-character-behavior do not work, it may be time for a case of the Rocks Fall (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies). You chose for a lesser version of that, and apparently it worked "for this city", which is at least something and I'm glad it did cause it sounds like a pain to DM for those players. Please don't go around suggesting it's okay to do the same to non d-bag players though.

An unsearchable trap is not a trap. It's either a plotpoint, or a metagame statement (in your case disguised as a plotpoint, disguised as a trap).

Deophaun

2014-04-18, 03:53 AM

Yeahd, Dungeons & D-Bags is a whole different game than Dungeons & Dragons. In the later, all traps are Search-able, because otherwise, none of them would be.

OldTrees1

2014-04-18, 04:18 AM

Happens to be how most of the rogue's trapidentifying skills work, they find minimal hints and somehow figure out how the magical trap works. *shrug*

Even intuition sometimes.
"The floor tiles of this dungeon have been trapped with extremely easily noticed traps since the entrance to the dungeon. But I can't find any traps in the room where the mcguffin is proudly on display. Hmm, what would the trap be? Magically seal all the doors from here to the entrance and summon some of those special warriors from the walls?" [Paraphrased from the novel Silverthorn]

ryu

2014-04-18, 04:43 AM

Even intuition sometimes.
"The floor tiles of this dungeon have been trapped with extremely easily noticed traps since the entrance to the dungeon. But I can't find any traps in the room where the mcguffin is proudly on display. Hmm, what would the trap be? Magically seal all the doors from here to the entrance and summon some of those special warriors from the walls?" [Paraphrased from the novel Silverthorn]

Even basic player intuition reads: Okay I don't trust it. We are using teleport effects from outside the dungeon to get that thing off its pedestal without being subject to the consequences we all know are going to happen.

pwykersotz

2014-04-18, 01:20 PM

Fair points, Chronos.

Question to you guys... Do you set up traps that logically can't be found without triggering? For example, a trap that is triggered by the door opening, with the trigger (and trap) being from the other side of the door. Would you allow a search check to find them anyway? Would you allow them being disabled from the other side of the door? Would the rogue player feel cheated if you don't allow him to find/disable the trap?

After pondering for a couple days, I'm starting to think that running traps in a bit more of an interactive way might be fun (sometimes). What if Disable Device let you figure out exactly how to disable it, but let the rogue (or party) decide how to do it?

For a grand scheme, think Ocean's 11. Under this same train of thought, they rolled successful disable device checks against all the security systems they knew about and had a plan for dealing with them. Then when surprises hit because their search checks found new problems or something changed, they rolled again and once again made a plan for how to deal with it.

The rogue stays necessary because they would never have even known about the traps in the first place without it (making escaping from each singular part FAR more deadly/difficult) but it also doesn't turn a grand trap-filled labyrinth into "I roll a disable device check with my stupidly high numbers and win everything".

I clarify 'sometimes' above because the "I find and disable the trap to fill the room with poison gas" has it's place. But letting the players know about the more nuanced option leads to more possibilities. Also, this way you could treat the Rogue's Toolkit like a spell component pouch for disabling minutia. "I pull out a piece of cork to jam the nozzle" or "I pull out three steel pins to jam in place". It makes the 'how' actually relevant and fun. Maybe. I might have to try this.

lunar2

2014-04-18, 06:36 PM

There is no rule in RAW anywhere that allows for "unsearchable traps", your argument is basically "well it didn't say I couldn't", which is not a strong argument. RAW is very much geared towards using search to find traps before they screw you up. As a matter of fact, no RAW trap is unsearchable. However, this discussion is entirely besides the point and that's why it could go on forever.

I'll repeat a previous post of mine, but with different wording.
D-bag players is why you had an "unfindable trap". Not because the Wizards college was so darn awesome. Not because "some traps are unfindable". It was really because you had a serious metagame problem, for which you came up with a metagame solution. You then developed an ingame justification for applying that metagame solution. You can argue about your mechanical and ingame justification for why it worked and people who never needed this particular metagame solution will keep arguing against you, but the prime reason it worked is because you're the DM, and you said it worked. That's okay. Apparently some players are d-bags and if out-of-character comments on their in-character-out-of-character-behavior do not work, it may be time for a case of the Rocks Fall (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies). You chose for a lesser version of that, and apparently it worked "for this city", which is at least something and I'm glad it did cause it sounds like a pain to DM for those players. Please don't go around suggesting it's okay to do the same to non d-bag players though.

An unsearchable trap is not a trap. It's either a plotpoint, or a metagame statement (in your case disguised as a plotpoint, disguised as a trap).

you are right that it was mostly a metagame arms race. however. the PHB says you need to be within 10 feet of a surface or object to search it. a CL 16 polar ray trap has a 65 foot range. so whatever method you have of searching for a trap, you have to get 55 feet inside its range (or 5 feet with detect magic) before you can search for the trap itself. yes, as has been pointed out, you could spot evidence of the effects of a trap from further off. but in this particular case, they were in a building that was less than a year old, dealing with a trap that had never been used before. there simply hadn't been time for those clues to build up, like there would have been in a more typical dungeon. so, in game, the trap was justified within the rules. i wouldn't have been able to use it at that table if it wasn't, because as i said, rule 0 didn't fly at that table (think table full of jill/dan hybrids from Another Gaming Comic, with less of a fire focus, and just a dash of doctor whatshisname thrown in for kicks).

now, i'll admit that the spot checks for evidence, or even the search check revealing the composite nature of the door, never came up in game, because we had never even thought of things like that. we were the type of group that even after you saw a trap get activated, you had to make a search check before you could disable it, and you had to disable it to get past it without getting hit, with the exception of pit traps, which you could jump over.