Traps but no rogue?

[atemu1234]

I want to have traps in my games, but the party doesn't have a rogue. In fact, they have basically no one who can -disable- traps, just people that can survive them. And they have a few people who can't. Any ideas?

[Blackhawk748]

Simple, give them a "Warning" trap, like a 10 or 20 ft pitfall, its a low Ref save and low damage if they fail, after that they can use a 10' pole to trip traps ahead of them, or the rubber ball from Dungeonscape . Personally i enjoy circumventing traps.

[Venger]

why do you want to have traps in your game?

[weckar]

I assume it is because they would realistically be there, or to add another basic adventure element to the game.

[atemu1234]

why do you want to have traps in your game?

Flavor, mostly. It makes more sense.

[Blackhawk748]

why do you want to have traps in your game?

Also they are a lot of fun to design, that and they can make great obstacles.

[Curmudgeon]

I wouldn't change the game. If someone dies, suggest that the player might want to remedy this party weakness when creating their new character. The new trapfinder would likely be greatly appreciated.

[2xMachina]

There's 2 alternatives to rogue.

Wizard summoning to trip all the traps.
Or a high HP guy & healer to trip all the traps.

There's also the bypass traps method.

All wear gloves. No contact poison.
Don't touch anything if you don't have to. If you have to, try to use it from far away (like tie a rope to a lever, go far away before pulling)
Use a 11' pole and press along the floor of every step 11' away from you. Trips trip wire and pressure plate traps.
If you can modify the pole, add a razor on the top side of the pole tip to cut trip wires instead.

There are some traps you'd miss (magical triggers), but good enough. You can also permanency Arcane Sight to help with these.

But well, might as well not have traps then?

[weckar]

(...)
But well, might as well not have traps then?If it can be overcome, it shouldn't be there? By that philosophy, wouldn't the most go for nearly all combat?

[Psyren]

You didn't specify, so I'll ask - 3.5 or Pathfinder?

In PF, anyone can detect any trap. Only rogues (i.e. classes with trapfinding) can disable a magic trap using a skill check, but anyone can still dispel one, or trigger it with a disposable summon, or buff up and facecheck it etc.

Though you can also get trapfinding with a trait.

[Gwendol]

I'm with Curmudgeon on this one. Not being able to deal with traps at all is a major weakness.

[Ettina]

What about traps that don't need Disable Trap to disable? Say, if you push the three levers in the right order, the trap is disabled. Or, if it's a magical trap, have Use Magic Device work to get past it (if you have someone with that skill).

Also, keep in mind that a Strength check can disable many traps.

[Ferronach]

Grant a party member the leagership feat and give them a rogue cohort.
Or you could use the rules for hirelings (DMG?) and railroad them to a tavern with a rogue for hire in it. Party takes turns playing the rogue along with their character so a different person plays the rogue each session or each hour etc.

[DeltaEmil]

Use the Encounter Traps template in Dungeonscape, and make sure each trap has one or more destruction elements, so that it's obvious which parts can be smashed or disintegrated. If necessary, use the disadvantage to reduce the Search check DC to 20 or below.

Use low-level traps in conjunction with monster encounters, so that it allows the player characters to also use them in battle against the monsters themselves.

[Blackhawk748]

Use the Encounter Traps template in Dungeonscape, and make sure each trap has one or more destruction elements, so that it's obvious which parts can be smashed or disintegrated. If necessary, use the disadvantage to reduce the Search check DC to 20 or below.

Use low-level traps in conjunction with monster encounters, so that it allows the player characters to also use them in battle against the monsters themselves.

Yes channel your Dark Messiah. Kick all the Minions into Spike Walls!!

[dascarletm]

Yes channel your Dark Messiah. Kick all the Minions into Spike Walls!!

This reminds me of Chivalry: Medieval Warfare

[Blackhawk748]

This reminds me of Chivalry: Medieval Warfare

In that respect those games are pretty similar, Dark Messiah just had mages

[Curmudgeon]

Grant a party member the leagership feat and give them a rogue cohort.
That way (anything involving Leadership) madness lies.

[A Tad Insane]

This reminds me of Chivalry: Medieval Warfare
I got more 'orcs must die' feelings from it

[Extra Anchovies]

Make traps that are easy to not get hurt by, but hard to bypass. Clearly visible fire jets in the floor (the trick is timing, leaping from one grate to another before the one you're standing on lights up). A room full of spinning blades coming out of the wall/ceiling (pressure plate is right inside the doorway, and is the only square in the room that doesn't have any blades in it). A 40 ft. deep, 70 ft. long, uncovered pit with sheer walls (how do you get across? There's a lever that drops a rope bridge in from the ceiling, but the lever's on the other side...). That sort of thing. Puzzles rather than traps. They can still have the feel of traps, but instead of taking 20 to search every little 5-foot square, it's timing your jumps, figuring out how to disable a fast-moving blade, or even just figuring out how to get a grappling hook to catch on a lever 80 feet away.

[Ferronach]

That way (anything involving Leadership) madness lies.

hahaha true....
maybe just a groupie then?

[Drackstin]

Bag of Tricks, its all you need to deal with traps.

[geekintheground]

try reading "another gaming comic". chapters 40-49 deal with non-rogues finding traps. though theyre playing "2.5e" similar actions should work

[Psyren]

try reading "another gaming comic". chapters 40-49 deal with non-rogues finding traps. though theyre playing "2.5e" similar actions should work

Isn't that the MS Paint monstrosity that makes my eyes bleed with every panel?

[Biffkinbot]

you could always pick up an extra body at the table that's willing to roll rogue.

I'm making my first rogue-type character now.

[Ferronach]

You could also convince one of the arcanes (if you have them) to play an artificer....

[Gemini476]

try reading "another gaming comic". chapters 40-49 deal with non-rogues finding traps. though theyre playing "2.5e" similar actions should work
The standard assumption in pre-3E (and possibly also pre-2E, maybe?) was that anyone could find and disable traps through roleplaying, it's just that the Rogue got abilities to just roll to find/disable them when the players were stumped.

(Similarly, anyone could climb a wall but the Rogue could climb a sheer one, and anyone could try sneaking through the standard surprise rules but the Rogue basically had a lesser version of Hide in Plain Sight.
Pre-3E Rogues get a lot better when you take those things in mind. Not enough to not multiclass, but better.)

If you want to make traps actually interesting, don't just make them a roll for perception followed by one for disable device. Make players actually pay attention to your descriptions, and try to puzzle out solutions for how to disable things.
And then roll perception and disable device if they can't figure anything out.
Don't feel constrained by the rules as written, in other words.

[OldTrees1]

A) Dungeonscape has some nice Encounter Trap rules. Most of those do not require a Rogue

B) I make Trapfinding a universal ability and Listen/Search/Spot universal skills when I run the Tomb of Horrors.

[Urpriest]

Flavor, mostly. It makes more sense.

No it doesn't. There's a reason why real-life military bases aren't full of traps. Traps only really "make sense" in very specific situations.

If you restrict your traps to places where traps would actually make sense, then various stopgap methods (detect magic/dispel magic, poking around with a stick) should suffice. The "rogue to search for traps" thing is only really necessary in games where traps show up in places where they wouldn't be feasible or cost-effective.

[thematgreen]

We recently had a group that had a rogue, but would fail every disable device. Every single one.

So my Paladin, with his crazy high saves and healthpool would just throw people past the trap (literally) and then try and get through it. 9 times out of 10 it would spring, he would either avoid it or get hurt and continue on, and that was how my Paladin was the person in the groups who would get the rest of the groups through the traps.

[OldTrees1]

No it doesn't. There's a reason why real-life military bases aren't full of traps. Traps only really "make sense" in very specific situations.

If you restrict your traps to places where traps would actually make sense, then various stopgap methods (detect magic/dispel magic, poking around with a stick) should suffice. The "rogue to search for traps" thing is only really necessary in games where traps show up in places where they wouldn't be feasible or cost-effective.

Depends on the kind of trap. I have never been in a secure building but I would be surprised if they did not have sealing doors triggered by alarms.

Basically traps are unmanned defenses. They would normally be used to the same end as defenders. If intruders are meant to be captured for questioning, then non lethal containment traps that are hard to find but easy to bypass(password protected) would be ideal.

[Psyren]

No it doesn't. There's a reason why real-life military bases aren't full of traps. Traps only really "make sense" in very specific situations.

They're full of surveillance/detection equipment, electronic locks, even sealable bulkheads in some cases. Those would count as "traps" in D&D terms.

Besides which, "military base" is hardly the only permutation of dungeon out there. Tombs and other resting places (both for powerful figures and artifacts) can easily be littered with the things, and then have various predatory denizens find other ways in later. You can also have a continual series of "traps" which are actually the workings of a giant machine or factory. And some places are just intentionally lethal for no other reason than to be lethal, like an obstacle course to prove one's worth, or the creation of a madman.

And any/all of the above can be the innards of a Genius Loci of some kind. (The trope, not the colossal ooze.)

[Urpriest]

They're full of surveillance/detection equipment, electronic locks, even sealable bulkheads in some cases. Those would count as "traps" in D&D terms.

Besides which, "military base" is hardly the only permutation of dungeon out there. Tombs and other resting places (both for powerful figures and artifacts) can easily be littered with the things, and then have various predatory denizens find other ways in later. You can also have a continual series of "traps" which are actually the workings of a giant machine or factory. And some places are just intentionally lethal for no other reason than to be lethal, like an obstacle course to prove one's worth, or the creation of a madman.

And any/all of the above can be the innards of a Genius Loci of some kind. (The trope, not the colossal ooze.)

In each of those cases, though, you've got some idea of what you're looking for. Traps in a military base/fortress/den of orcs/evil temple are going to be alarms at entry points, ways of sealing off chokepoints (and other "active defenses" where the inhabitants trigger them), and other things that don't interfere with the day to day operations of the group. Traps in an undead-filled tomb are going to be the sort that the original buyer would have installed and that the undead wouldn't have already triggered (or if resetting, there would be evidence that the undead are staying away from it). Traps in a lunatic's obstacle course are only going to be the sort of thing a rogue could even find if it's specifically designed for a rogue's guild or something, otherwise the worst ones are probably built to screw over trapfinding. In each case, being smart gets you pretty far.

[ace rooster]

There's 2 alternatives to rogue.

Wizard summoning to trip all the traps.
Or a high HP guy & healer to trip all the traps.

There's also the bypass traps method.

All wear gloves. No contact poison.
Don't touch anything if you don't have to. If you have to, try to use it from far away (like tie a rope to a lever, go far away before pulling)
Use a 11' pole and press along the floor of every step 11' away from you. Trips trip wire and pressure plate traps.
If you can modify the pole, add a razor on the top side of the pole tip to cut trip wires instead.

There are some traps you'd miss (magical triggers), but good enough. You can also permanency Arcane Sight to help with these.

But well, might as well not have traps then?

Arguably the gloves thing doesn't work. Contact poisons are delivered with a touch attack, so even full adamantine plate does not get in the way of a contact poison. Gloves would provide an amour bonus (of +0, but still armour), so are ignored. No, it does not make sense, but when has that mattered.

I like how your definition of 'miss' is to not set off a trap. Safer than just wandering it I will certainly give you, but hardly ideal. In many cases the most dangerous trap is an 'Alarm' trap, which doesn't care whether you use a pole, a summons, a bouncy ball, or the party fighter to trigger it. If you are dealing with kobolds, you will rapidly find that they have caved in the entrance behind you, and are ready for you :smalleek:.

To the OP, I would suggest that you stick to summon monster and alarm type traps mostly, with the idea being that they are much easier to deal with for a rogue, but not strictly catastrophic for a party without. You don't get parties ploding along at 5ft per round if these are your primary trap types too, as 10ft extra is rarely a help, and moving faster is safer if the enemy knows you are coming.

A summoning circle that constantly spawns low level creatures can be a real headache for a party if they have to remain in the area for a prolonged time. Summon undead for zombie kobolds with crossbows is a favorite of mine. Put the 'mechanics' of the actual trap out of reach (because why wouldn't you. Note that this only stops the trap being broken, not disarmed, the 'alarm' is still within reach of a rogue. It has to be, or it cannot be triggered) and the party will have an incentive to leave, the faster the better. Putting a more violent trap just in front of the door out is then ok, because this is now a secondary trap, that is not randomly placed. A pole can reveal it, but using the pole now has a cost in terms of time spent fighting the summons. If it has an auto reset, or an effect like 'wall of force', then revealing it doesn't help much anyway.

There is no point in doing things like having treasure in chests that is destroyed by a trap, other than as a hint that the party should get a rogue, but it can be a strong hint.

[eggynack]

Use the Encounter Traps template in Dungeonscape.
Oh gods yes, very much this. Encounter traps solve basically all of the problems inherent in standard traps. First, they're a group affair, so you don't end up with the rogue problem where large sections of the table are left out, but rogues still have an advantage so it's not a thing especially harmful to them. Second, you gain a benefit from early detection, but the trap isn't all or nothing so that benefit isn't the direct difference between life and death. Finally, and maybe most important, they're not just boring skill checks which could be trivially done by a computer. Traps are a terrible mechanic, basically acting as a boring rogue tax on parties. Encounter traps, by contrast, are awesome, basically acting as combat encounters, except with a trap.

[geekintheground]

Isn't that the MS Paint monstrosity that makes my eyes bleed with every panel?

most likely yes. the art is pretty bad for a long time, but it gets better... not by much though

[Psyren]

In each of those cases, though, you've got some idea of what you're looking for. Traps in a military base/fortress/den of orcs/evil temple are going to be alarms at entry points, ways of sealing off chokepoints (and other "active defenses" where the inhabitants trigger them), and other things that don't interfere with the day to day operations of the group. Traps in an undead-filled tomb are going to be the sort that the original buyer would have installed and that the undead wouldn't have already triggered (or if resetting, there would be evidence that the undead are staying away from it). Traps in a lunatic's obstacle course are only going to be the sort of thing a rogue could even find if it's specifically designed for a rogue's guild or something, otherwise the worst ones are probably built to screw over trapfinding. In each case, being smart gets you pretty far.

You can't "screw over trapfinding" - that's the whole benefit of having it. No matter what the trap is, rogues have a way to use spit, twigs and duct tape to get around it. Even a trap specifically designed to go off if you disarm it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0867.html) can still be disarmed by a sufficiently-skilled rogue. Your only hope is "get as high a DC as possible" - but as CharOp will proudly tell you, anything with stats can be beaten in this game.

And yeah, you're right - traps that don't interfere with the day-to-day operations are the kind you'd normally expect to see in any kind of base. But that's the point of triggers based on observable characteristics, like alignment and creature type. A drow catacomb can certainly have all kinds of lethal and nasty stuff that triggers on seeing a normal elf or human, and do so withouti nterfering with the staff at all. There are also traps that take specific passwords or traps that are only active at certain times, e.g. after-hours. In short, there are many ways to create conventional, roll-to-detect-and-disable traps that won't interfere with the minions' day-to-day.

So to sum up - yes, traps only make sense in "specific situations" - but those situations are both easy to engineer and perfectly reasonable to expect. Ergo, traps should be too.

So rather than advocate for removing traps entirely, I think there are ways to make them engaging for the entire group, without removing the advantage in having a "trap guy." Like "healer," there are some party roles people just like to play, and if they can be easily accommodated, why shouldn't they be?

[Urpriest]

You can't "screw over trapfinding" - that's the whole benefit of having it. No matter what the trap is, rogues have a way to use spit, twigs and duct tape to get around it. Even a trap specifically designed to go off if you disarm it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0867.html) can still be disarmed by a sufficiently-skilled rogue. Your only hope is "get as high a DC as possible" - but as CharOp will proudly tell you, anything with stats can be beaten in this game.

Two pretty standard options:

Do something that isn't actually a trap. Use a creature, or a spell effect that's not covered by the "rogues can find this specific list via trapfinding" or just a magic item (custom or otherwise). You can even couple these with things that are traps, but are the only way to bypass the aforementioned hazard, if you're a particularly evil loon. The fact that rogue trapfinding is a (particularly boring) minigame means that anything not statted within the bounds of that minigame isn't a "trap" and can't be found/disabled.

Don't put the trap somewhere the rogue can reach it.

I'm not saying these are things a DM should do, by any means. But if you're going by the "this guy is out to make the most annoying dungeon possible" justification for including traps, that same justification leads to the rogue being exactly as irrelevant as everyone else.



And yeah, you're right - traps that don't interfere with the day-to-day operations are the kind you'd normally expect to see in any kind of base. But that's the point of triggers based on observable characteristics, like alignment and creature type. A drow catacomb can certainly have all kinds of lethal and nasty stuff that triggers on seeing a normal elf or human, and do so withouti nterfering with the staff at all. There are also traps that take specific passwords or traps that are only active at certain times, e.g. after-hours. In short, there are many ways to create conventional, roll-to-detect-and-disable traps that won't interfere with the minions' day-to-day.

So to sum up - yes, traps only make sense in "specific situations" - but those situations are both easy to engineer and perfectly reasonable to expect. Ergo, traps should be too.

So rather than advocate for removing traps entirely, I think there are ways to make them engaging for the entire group, without removing the advantage in having a "trap guy." Like "healer," there are some party roles people just like to play, and if they can be easily accommodated, why shouldn't they be?

In general, traps that are sophisticated enough to be safe in a populated area (remember, a Drow outpost is likely to have slaves, so just race or alignment may not even be sufficient for all but the most secret areas) are going to be magic traps. Magic traps can be dealt with and detected by casters in a pinch, and suffer from the problem that CR-appropriate ones generally involve rather high level spells, at which point the PCs start asking how the heck your NPCs got access to a spellcaster of that level.

It's definitely possible to play with plausible traps, don't get me wrong. But plausible traps are unlikely to kill off the entire party and/or doom the mission if you happen to lack a trapfinder. Like lockpicking, trapfinding can make things smoother, but it's almost never going to be something you can't live without outside of Gygax-land.

[Dornith]

My group has no rouge either. They found a very cleaver way to circumvent traps after they discovered that Chickens only cost 1cp.

[Psyren]

Do something that isn't actually a trap. Use a creature, or a spell effect that's not covered by the "rogues can find this specific list via trapfinding" or just a magic item (custom or otherwise). You can even couple these with things that are traps, but are the only way to bypass the aforementioned hazard, if you're a particularly evil loon. The fact that rogue trapfinding is a (particularly boring) minigame means that anything not statted within the bounds of that minigame isn't a "trap" and can't be found/disabled.

Thing is, it's quite possible to make it not boring. And there are those who enjoy having that aspect to their characters, both for its iconic status in roleplaying games and for the feeling of being a valuable member of a party that results.


But if you're going by the "this guy is out to make the most annoying dungeon possible" justification for including traps, that same justification leads to the rogue being exactly as irrelevant as everyone else.

There's a major flaw in your logic - You're assuming "planning for a thief" somehow makes thievery impossible. Anyone who works in security of any kind will tell you they are trying to keep the crooks out.

In other words, yeah obviously they'd be planning to screw rogues. But the answer to that is actuallly pretty straightforward - be a better rogue than they were expecting. And just by virtue of being a PC you have that chance, quite plausibly.



In general, traps that are sophisticated enough to be safe in a populated area (remember, a Drow outpost is likely to have slaves, so just race or alignment may not even be sufficient for all but the most secret areas) are going to be magic traps. Magic traps can be dealt with and detected by casters in a pinch, and suffer from the problem that CR-appropriate ones generally involve rather high level spells, at which point the PCs start asking how the heck your NPCs got access to a spellcaster of that level.

So the slaves go in one door (heavily guarded/manned) and, due to limited manpower, the traps are depended on to guard the other way in. This is a reasonable/plausible thing that can happen.

Note that disabling the traps isn't the only option either. Knowing they're there, a really skilled rogue can avoid half of them, repurpose the other half, and trigger one in such a way that the guards come running. And while they are minced up by their own traps, the party either has a much smaller force to deal with, or the other way in is now a lot more lightly staffed. Either way is a win.

As for casters detecting magic traps, there are some you actually don't want being detected that way. For instance, detect magic is a 60ft. cone. Guess what the range on a Symbol is? But rogues have no maximum range - it's all up to their Perception check. Also, a rogue can tell exactly what a trap is [url=http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0855.html]just with a move action[./url] (at least, they can in PF - I guess the Giant was going for PF-style pacing there.)



It's definitely possible to play with plausible traps, don't get me wrong. But plausible traps are unlikely to kill off the entire party and/or doom the mission if you happen to lack a trapfinder. Like lockpicking, trapfinding can make things smoother, but it's almost never going to be something you can't live without outside of Gygax-land.

Nobody said anything about dooming the mission or killing the party. You can live without a healer too - but that doesn't mean it's not a role people like to play, and one that can be made useful and fun for everyone involved, DM included. I'm a firm believer that traps should make the non-trapfinding party's life a lot harder, but not impossible (unless they're really being dumb, e.g. sending the unbuffed wizard down the hall first.)

Generally when I see people opposed to traps, I believe it's because they've been exposed to some pretty unimaginative ones. Yeah, if you just do a corridor of spike trap-arrow trap-tripwire, and everyone else sits around doing nothing while the rogue rolls some dice, then I agree that's boring - but there's so much more to the system than that.

[Abithrios]

You can't "screw over trapfinding" - that's the whole benefit of having it. No matter what the trap is, rogues have a way to use spit, twigs and duct tape to get around it. Even a trap specifically designed to go off if you disarm it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0867.html) can still be disarmed by a sufficiently-skilled rogue. Your only hope is "get as high a DC as possible" - but as CharOp will proudly tell you, anything with stats can be beaten in this game.

And yeah, you're right - traps that don't interfere with the day-to-day operations are the kind you'd normally expect to see in any kind of base. But that's the point of triggers based on observable characteristics, like alignment and creature type. A drow catacomb can certainly have all kinds of lethal and nasty stuff that triggers on seeing a normal elf or human, and do so withouti nterfering with the staff at all. There are also traps that take specific passwords or traps that are only active at certain times, e.g. after-hours. In short, there are many ways to create conventional, roll-to-detect-and-disable traps that won't interfere with the minions' day-to-day.

So to sum up - yes, traps only make sense in "specific situations" - but those situations are both easy to engineer and perfectly reasonable to expect. Ergo, traps should be too.

So rather than advocate for removing traps entirely, I think there are ways to make them engaging for the entire group, without removing the advantage in having a "trap guy." Like "healer," there are some party roles people just like to play, and if they can be easily accommodated, why shouldn't they be?

Alternatively, if nobody wants to play that role, I see no reason to punish them for it. To OP, it sounds like nobody really wants to deal with finding and disarming traps. If you insist on using environmental hazards, I suggest hazards that are easy to detect and avoid, but in situations where there are also other active threats. Look at what your PCs are good at. That is probably a decent indicator of what they want to focus the campaign on.

Listen to player preferences.

If I found a DM whose catchphrase is"Zap, shoulda brought a rogue". My reaction would not be to drop my cool character concept to play a rogue I care nothing about. I would instead enjoy the game less and maybe even leave.

[Psyren]

If I found a DM whose catchphrase is"Zap, shoulda brought a rogue". My reaction would not be to drop my cool character concept to play a rogue I care nothing about. I would instead enjoy the game less and maybe even leave.

Depends on what the "zap" does. If it's dealing a little extra damage your group has to heal through, or alerting enemies to your presence and making the fights harder, or dropping the occasional debuff on the group that needs to be removed or endured, I would say that's a reasonable price to pay for not having a subtle team member. But if it is outright killing member(s) of the party or destroying the dungeon's treasure, I would say that is too onerous.

[Curmudgeon]

If I found a DM whose catchphrase is"Zap, shoulda brought a rogue". My reaction would not be to drop my cool character concept to play a rogue I care nothing about. I would instead enjoy the game less and maybe even leave.
So if you're all set to play a character who can't deal with Undead and the DM occasionally features Undead opponents, you're going to blame the DM for not tailoring the game to your preferences? Creating and running the world is supposed to be fun for the DM, and it sounds to me like you want to take that fun away. Traps, Undead, and all sorts of other things that your character might not be good at handling are regular parts of a D&D game. Sometimes you can find clever ways of coping. Other times you need to take a step back and rely on another party member to handle what you can't. And sometimes your character can't do anything but run away. It's D&D, and it oughtn't come with an Easy button. Challenges to your character are a big part of what makes the game exciting.

[Urpriest]

Thing is, it's quite possible to make it not boring. And there are those who enjoy having that aspect to their characters, both for its iconic status in roleplaying games and for the feeling of being a valuable member of a party that results.



There's a major flaw in your logic - You're assuming "planning for a thief" somehow makes thievery impossible. Anyone who works in security of any kind will tell you they are trying to keep the crooks out.

In other words, yeah obviously they'd be planning to screw rogues. But the answer to that is actuallly pretty straightforward - be a better rogue than they were expecting. And just by virtue of being a PC you have that chance, quite plausibly.


That's because in reality, being a thief gives you lots of relevant skills. In this context, being a "class with trapfinding" only gives you the ability to find "traps". Any other security won't matter. If the "trap" is anything other than "something the rules say is a trap", then being "a better rogue" is something you can do whether or not you're a rogue.



So the slaves go in one door (heavily guarded/manned) and, due to limited manpower, the traps are depended on to guard the other way in. This is a reasonable/plausible thing that can happen.

Note that disabling the traps isn't the only option either. Knowing they're there, a really skilled rogue can avoid half of them, repurpose the other half, and trigger one in such a way that the guards come running. And while they are minced up by their own traps, the party either has a much smaller force to deal with, or the other way in is now a lot more lightly staffed. Either way is a win.

As for casters detecting magic traps, there are some you actually don't want being detected that way. For instance, detect magic is a 60ft. cone. Guess what the range on a Symbol is? But rogues have no maximum range - it's all up to their Perception check. Also, a rogue can tell exactly what a trap is [url=http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0855.html]just with a move action[./url] (at least, they can in PF - I guess the Giant was going for PF-style pacing there.)

In 3.5:


Search (Int)
Check

You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched.


But yes, in PF no such rule exists.



Nobody said anything about dooming the mission or killing the party. You can live without a healer too - but that doesn't mean it's not a role people like to play, and one that can be made useful and fun for everyone involved, DM included. I'm a firm believer that traps should make the non-trapfinding party's life a lot harder, but not impossible (unless they're really being dumb, e.g. sending the unbuffed wizard down the hall first.)

Generally when I see people opposed to traps, I believe it's because they've been exposed to some pretty unimaginative ones. Yeah, if you just do a corridor of spike trap-arrow trap-tripwire, and everyone else sits around doing nothing while the rogue rolls some dice, then I agree that's boring - but there's so much more to the system than that.

That's exactly what the OP is asking about, though. The OP's party doesn't have trapfinding, the OP is worried this will bite them in the ass in dramatic fashion.

[Darrin]

Required reading: Bad Trap Syndrome (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/90/bad-trap-syndrome/). Also, Part 2 (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/91/bad-trap-syndrome-curing-the-bad-trap-blues/).

In a nutshell: Don't make the PCs "search for traps". Make them obvious to spot. The most interesting part of the trap is watching the party interact with the trap to try and circumvent it. Otherwise, you're just inflicting an arbitrary "HP Tax" on the PCs.

[the_david]

Zap traps are boring. (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/90/bad-trap-syndrome/) If you're gonna do traps, do them right.

Edit: Nevermind...

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm with Curmudgeon on this one. Not being able to deal with traps at all is a major weakness.

Likewise, that this party is apparently going to fail in their attempt to loot whatever treasure these traps were set up to protect simply speaks to the wisdom of using traps and their efficacy as a defense.

Saying the DM shouldn't have thought to place traps to protect valuable items in D&D is like saying the NPCs shouldn't lock their doors because then strangers can't just waltz in to steal everything.

As for what a party who didn't hire a trapfinder can do, the other methods are listed in "Other Ways To Beat A Trap":
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disableDevice.htm

[Psyren]

That's because in reality, being a thief gives you lots of relevant skills. In this context, being a "class with trapfinding" only gives you the ability to find "traps". Any other security won't matter. If the "trap" is anything other than "something the rules say is a trap", then being "a better rogue" is something you can do whether or not you're a rogue.

That definition encompasses many defenses that are inaccessible any other way though. For instance, there is no way to create "magic symbol on the wall that automatically does something detrimental to individuals who meet these criteria" without it intersecting with the trap rules, unless of course you resort to homebrew.


In 3.5:




But yes, in PF no such rule exists.

Indeed - I've asked the OP to clarify/tag the thread. And yes, in 3.5 I agree - "traps" are far too much of a pain to bother with, due to the time-consuming difficulty of locating them and the arbitrary "you must be this much rogue to detect/disable" thresholds.



That's exactly what the OP is asking about, though. The OP's party doesn't have trapfinding, the OP is worried this will bite them in the ass in dramatic fashion.

Being overly lethal/debilitating is not an intrinsic quality to traps though. You can make them inconvenient or challenging but still beatable/survivable without a rogue.

Some traps can even summon monsters. Without a rogue, if you trigger the trap, you simply fight the defenders normally - that's all. Some players may not even notice until/unless they try to leave the dungeon by that same route and trigger it a second time.

[Judge_Worm]

I've seen this issue dealt with by an evil party- hire hirelings (preferably commoners because they cost less) and have them walk ahead of the party and deactivating all the traps the old fashioned way. It also works well to discover the dungeon's inhabitants.

[ramrod]

I personally find it a lot easier to simply give the most relevant person in the party access to and the relevant skill points for trap finding/disarming. I do find it a tad daft that with all of the specialization that you can do in 3.5 that so few classes have access to these abilities without going out of your way.

If you don't like this solution then you can always have non lethal/puzzle traps. Traps that require role playing or intelligence to solve. Not all traps require nimble fingers and special tools to disarm. Traps that are triggered (if not identified) that do not have an immediately negative effect also makes sense. Owners of keeps wouldn't want to blast themselves or poison themselves by taking one wrong step.

Example - stepping on a pressure plate triggers the start of a release of gas, falling ceiling or collapsing floor unless the party can identify the trigger to stop it. Awful film, but not a bad example if you have seen it. In the dungeons and dragons film the 'thief' has to infiltrate a puzzle dungeon. Each of the puzzles are overcome by wits and not thievery skills. One room fire jets of fire whenever he stands on the wrong colour eyeball (and so becomes a balance/jump check to pass). In the final room a lock needs picking but is difficult to access due to quickly moving grinding plates around it, the spiked ceiling starts to come down as well and a sand timer turns. The thief realises the puzzle has no solution, the timer needs to be smashed.

No thievery skills required, no penalty for immediate failure and you can even use a real timer to put pressure on the party to find adequate solutions (always plan in more than one, what might seem obvious to you as a writer is not always so obvious).

Of course not all puzzles can be run this way, which is why I suggest my first solution. I also do a similar thing is there isn't a party face class in the party. I don't want lack of skills to hold back good role playing but I also don't want all outcomes of the party to be decided by skill alone... there is always an element of luck!

[thematgreen]

Whenever I build in traps I leave the solution open ended and base the results on what the players are doing. It gives flexibility to me, reacting to what the players are doing, and choices to the players, so they don't have to guess at what my solution is.

---------------------------------------

Kind of a "trap" story that was the players wits, not stats.

End of my home brew Pathfinder campaign. The group is in the casino vault. One vault door is blown open and an orb is sitting on a platform.

The fighter has been bitten by one of the zombies flooding the city and sees the orb as a wonderful and beautiful thing. Luckily the giant centipede shaped flesh golem is keeping her occupied. The summoner got stuck behind the golem and can't get around it.

The wizard figures that the orb is the cause of the dead raising in the city and instantly blasts it with lightning, which is absorbed with no effect, same with his sound burst custom spell, fireball, and even magic missile.

Whenever he approaches it the fighter is compelled to stop him. He finally gets a good idea and runs past the fighter, taking a pretty bad AoO from said fighter, and just smacks the orb with his staff, knocking it from it's little platform and shattering it on the ground.

It was really awesome to see the group run into a situation where the fighter couldn't protect the wizard and the wizard had to think outside the box and resort to WIZARD SMASH! to win the day.

[atemu1234]

No it doesn't. There's a reason why real-life military bases aren't full of traps. Traps only really "make sense" in very specific situations.

If you restrict your traps to places where traps would actually make sense, then various stopgap methods (detect magic/dispel magic, poking around with a stick) should suffice. The "rogue to search for traps" thing is only really necessary in games where traps show up in places where they wouldn't be feasible or cost-effective.

Because the military bases aren't the highly-guarded and low-staffed tombs of ancient heroes in a mystical world?

[Kane0]

If you can use Pathfinder content then two levels of Slayer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/slayer) using the trapfinding talent will get you there, as will many 3.5 classes that you can dip for a level or two (rogue included).

There is also the various spells that can be used to locate and disarm things that a rogue should be doing (knock, find traps, etc).

[Abithrios]

So if you're all set to play a character who can't deal with Undead and the DM occasionally features Undead opponents, you're going to blame the DM for not tailoring the game to your preferences? Creating and running the world is supposed to be fun for the DM, and it sounds to me like you want to take that fun away. Traps, Undead, and all sorts of other things that your character might not be good at handling are regular parts of a D&D game. Sometimes you can find clever ways of coping. Other times you need to take a step back and rely on another party member to handle what you can't. And sometimes your character can't do anything but run away. It's D&D, and it oughtn't come with an Easy button. Challenges to your character are a big part of what makes the game exciting.

If the party consists of a rogue, a beguiler, and a crit-fisher, and all the players are emotionally invested in their characters, the DM should think very carefully about how many undead to send against the party. The DM should probably avoid making the entire campaign undead-based.

If the entire party is focused entirely around killing things and taking their stuff, political intrigue is probably not the best direction to take the campaign, and if the DM tries anyway, they may find the experience akin to pushing on a rope.

There are plenty of ways to make fun campaigns without undead. There are plenty of ways to make interesting combat encounters. There are plenty of fun ways make dungeons without the doors, walls, floors, and treasure exploding in the PCs' faces.

D&D is modular enough that there are plenty of parts that can be stripped away to make more room for the parts the people at the table find most interesting. If the entire party specializes away from a particular aspect of the game, I think it is safe to say they do not want to deal with it. Challenge the players at the parts of the game that you all find fun.

[Psyren]

D&D is modular enough that there are plenty of parts that can be stripped away to make more room for the parts the people at the table find most interesting. If the entire party specializes away from a particular aspect of the game, I think it is safe to say they do not want to deal with it. Challenge the players at the parts of the game that you all find fun.

Definitely agreed. Of course the key word there (well besides fun of course) is challenge, which means that you can and should have some encounters that emphasize their weaknesses.

[paperarmor]

Dungeoncrasher Fighter and wands of vigor. Absolutley anything that summons anything from anywhere. Zombies and various other undead made from the monsters that inhabit the place. Or a wizard with an INT penalty that runs through them like the Dungeoncrasher Fighter.

[atemu1234]

Dungeoncrasher Fighter and wands of vigor. Absolutley anything that summons anything from anywhere. Zombies and various other undead made from the monsters that inhabit the place. Or a wizard with an INT penalty that runs through them like the Dungeoncrasher Fighter.

A wizard with an INT penalty? Isn't that like a commoner with the iron will feat?

[paperarmor]

A wizard with an INT penalty? Isn't that like a commoner with the iron will feat?

Yeah... it wasn't my character but part of a large scale campagin that featured two parties and PVP between them it... was not my favorite

[Venger]

Required reading: Bad Trap Syndrome (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/90/bad-trap-syndrome/). Also, Part 2 (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/91/bad-trap-syndrome-curing-the-bad-trap-blues/).

In a nutshell: Don't make the PCs "search for traps". Make them obvious to spot. The most interesting part of the trap is watching the party interact with the trap to try and circumvent it. Otherwise, you're just inflicting an arbitrary "HP Tax" on the PCs.

Pretty much this. This is why I don't believe in traps, they're just sort of a waste of everyone's time when played by the book, as the article says.

[Psyren]

Yeah, part 2 of that article is basically what I'm advocating for - particularly Door 1, where the trap involves everyone but the thief gets to shine a bit by being the "trap tank." (Mitigating its DPR and other nasty effects, or alleviating the party's stress.)

[Fax Celestis]

Isn't that the MS Paint monstrosity that makes my eyes bleed with every panel?

Yes, but it's worth every drop.

[Psyren]

Yes, but it's worth every drop.

That might very well be the case. I'll never know, because I'm so repulsed that I find it impossible to sit through even one page. (Nor do I want to encourage that kind of aesthetic even with the pageviews.)

[Fax Celestis]

That might very well be the case. I'll never know, because I'm so repulsed that I find it impossible to sit through even one page. (Nor do I want to encourage that kind of aesthetic even with the pageviews.)

You could try the transcript.

[Urpriest]

Because the military bases aren't the highly-guarded and low-staffed tombs of ancient heroes in a mystical world?

Neither are most dungeons. Tombs generally don't have a huge amount of time pressure, and if they do it's usually because someone has set up camp in them. Low time pressure works sometimes, but it tends to be problematic pretty frequently, encouraging 15min work days and the like. Most viable adventures involve some active group of enemies, whether they're a nest of formians or a den of cultists or the like, and active groups generally have to be pretty sparing with where they put their ridiculously deadly traps.

[Psyren]

You could try the transcript.

Is it hosted anywhere else? :smalltongue:


Neither are most dungeons. Tombs generally don't have a huge amount of time pressure, and if they do it's usually because someone has set up camp in them. Low time pressure works sometimes, but it tends to be problematic pretty frequently, encouraging 15min work days and the like. Most viable adventures involve some active group of enemies, whether they're a nest of formians or a den of cultists or the like, and active groups generally have to be pretty sparing with where they put their ridiculously deadly traps.

The part you keep glossing over is that maybe they don't take the same entrance in that you do. They may not even know about the alternate way in that has all the traps, or they tried to investigate it when they moved in and the traps were just as lethal to them, so they sealed it off (or so they thought,) or just concluded "nobody could survive that!" and considered it secure. Which allows your party to get the jump on them (since they don't expect anything coming from that way), but only if your party makes it through the traps. This is a pretty common trope.

[OldTrees1]

active groups generally have to be pretty sparing with where they put their ridiculously deadly traps.

Huh? Why would that be? Most traps placed in high traffic areas have bypasses that the denizens know about.
Step on this plate as you go down the hall.
Carry this stone in your pocket.
Say this prayer as you pass these statues.
Don't touch a crack.

That said, Encounter Traps are designed to avoid the Bad Trap problem and are designed to be compatible with an active group joining in the fight.

[Urpriest]

Huh? Why would that be? Most traps placed in high traffic areas have bypasses that the denizens know about.
Step on this plate as you go down the hall.
Carry this stone in your pocket.
Say this prayer as you pass these statues.
Don't touch a crack.

That said, Encounter Traps are designed to avoid the Bad Trap problem and are designed to be compatible with an active group joining in the fight.

For the most part, that seems like a list of things that would be really inconvenient in high-traffic areas. Someone is going to forget to step on the plate or say the prayer, or forget the stone in their other pants, or miss a crack. If the trap is just "alarms go off, walls close in, the security guy has to get you out after yelling at you for a while" then that's feasible, but if it's "you die a painful and random death" then yeah, it's not going to work.

Again, I'm not saying you can't have logically have ridiculously deadly traps, they just need to be protecting important things that don't get much traffic, at which point a party can reasonably anticipate them and take non-rogue-based precautions. And I'm certainly not opposed to Encounter Traps and the like, because as you say they're often the sort of thing that works with the defending forces rather than against them.

[Demidos]

Sentient weapon or magic item with the soul of a rogue trapped inside appears as part of the loot. The rogue item likes trapfinding since he's stuck in the sword/ring/dagger and cant really do much else.

You give the PC's a pet magic weapon, probably making their day, and now they can trapfind. Problem solved.

Maybe not find every trap though :smallamused:

[Psyren]

For the most part, that seems like a list of things that would be really inconvenient in high-traffic areas. Someone is going to forget to step on the plate or say the prayer, or forget the stone in their other pants, or miss a crack. If the trap is just "alarms go off, walls close in, the security guy has to get you out after yelling at you for a while" then that's feasible, but if it's "you die a painful and random death" then yeah, it's not going to work.

You'd be surprised what people can remember when the stakes are high enough. Factories for instance can be pretty dangerous places to work if you don't follow the right procedures.

But given that many of the triggers can be automatic and quite elaborate (e.g. "do not trigger for evil female drow wearing Lloth's holy symbol, and up to 1 individual escorted by one") it's quite possible for high-traffic areas to have traps that don't interfere with the minions' day-to-day tasks at all.


Sentient weapon or magic item with the soul of a rogue trapped inside appears as part of the loot. The rogue item likes trapfinding since he's stuck in the sword/ring/dagger and cant really do much else.

You give the PC's a pet magic weapon, probably making their day, and now they can trapfind. Problem solved.

Maybe not find every trap though :smallamused:

I like this idea because such an item/character could easily present a moral dilemma for the PCs. Rather than the soul of a burglar, he might be the soul of an assassin and subtly encourage the PCs to use lethal force more often, and as brutally or artistically as possible. Or it might be a pair of gloves that encourage the PC wearing them to steal anything that isn't nailed down.

[OldTrees1]

For the most part, that seems like a list of things that would be really inconvenient in high-traffic areas. Someone is going to forget to step on the plate or say the prayer, or forget the stone in their other pants, or miss a crack. If the trap is just "alarms go off, walls close in, the security guy has to get you out after yelling at you for a while" then that's feasible, but if it's "you die a painful and random death" then yeah, it's not going to work.

Again, I'm not saying you can't have logically have ridiculously deadly traps, they just need to be protecting important things that don't get much traffic, at which point a party can reasonably anticipate them and take non-rogue-based precautions. And I'm certainly not opposed to Encounter Traps and the like, because as you say they're often the sort of thing that works with the defending forces rather than against them.

People tend to not forget to swipe their ID card to get through ID card protected doors. Each of the things I described was a variation of an ID card/password.

Consider the 3rd Indiana Jones movie. There they had a password of kneeling/bowing to God. It is entirely reasonable for a religious organization with ritual habits to use those habits as passwords for their security.

However such habits/bypasses can be deduced without a Rogue (just as in the movie). I also agree that defenses should be working together rather than against each other (unless the designer was stupid, foolish or insane).