XP for Traps?

[Jack Simth]

I've cut the rest because I think everything hinges on this here. I have not said, even once, that it is impossible to find/bypass/disarm traps without a rogue.

If you'll note, I didn't say you said it was impossible to find/bypass/disarm traps without a rogue. The closest I came was saying that you implied it's not usually possible. You did this by way of the "even" wording, which, the way you used it, is usually used for reasonably low-probability events.

Put it to you another way: It is possible to cook soup with a flamethrower. Compared to, say, a stovetop, it's also pointlessly dangerous and inefficient. It is possible though.

Dude, it's first level spells and cantrips. Yeah - at 1st, it's very expensive. At 3rd, a little on the pricy side, but definitely doable. By the time you hit 10th, it's pocket change. People spend more on flavor-items at 10th than the party wizard spends on this.

With most (not all) traps, being 25 feet away from the trigger will mean you're safe - most spell radius are less than that (with exceptions), most mechanical traps are limited to a 10x10 area at their highest. At higher levels, where the larger radius effects come into play, 1st level spells are easy enough to come by that you can just have the party wizard cast Unseen Servant directly, and keep at max range - which will usually be sufficient.

It's more like cooking soup with a campfire than a flamethrower. Sure, you *might* get burned... but it's unlikely after you've done it a time or two, and it's very unlikely you're going to burn anything you didn't deliberately use for fuel (which is fairly cheap). Of course, the PC trapfinder will occasionally flub a roll and get burned, so it's not really meaningfully more dangerous.

If this is the case then we seem to be arguing the same point but differing on how worthwhile it is. I have not once said that trap encounters are impossible without a rogue. Take a second look at the first post on the board which says (with added emphasis)...

I never said you said it was impossible. Just not as bad as you think.

 

[werk]

But you have said that xp shouldn't be awarded for something that only 1 class can do - which is a contrary position, IMO. Since it is not impossible to get past traps without a rogue.

Since it is very possible to overcome the challenge presented by traps without a rogue.

FTFY

XP is the same regardless if a trap is disarmed skillfully or blindly walked through. Compare to disintigrating a dragon with one spell or hacking it to bits with a letteropener one hit point at a time round after round...it still pays the same.

 

[awayfarer]

Bolded emphasis mine.


And as most have pointed out to you that the "bypass" part is absolutely incorrect.

There are myriad ways of doing it, as have also been laid out.

All of which are more complicated, dangerous, expensive and time consuming. What is so difficult to get about this? Yes there are plenty of other ways. These will very rarely if ever be used.

It is easier to get past a trap with a rogue (since the party will take less damage/use less resources to accomplish this) but it is possible without one (even with one who either doesn't check or fails a lot of rolls {which I've had in parties I've run several times, he found every trap but. . .})..

Yes it is possible without a rogue. I said in my last post the possibility is not the issue here.. I never said it was impossible.

But you have said that xp shouldn't be awarded for something that only 1 class can do - which is a contrary position, IMO. Since it is not impossible to get past traps without a rogue.

Quit reading more into this than there is. Find me one place where I explicitly say "XP for trap encounters should only be awarded for rogues." My statements at the beginning of the thread were intneded to convey that...

1: It is rare that anyone other than a rogue/trapfinder will have to deal with a trap encounter.
2: It seems strange to award XP for an encounter in which only one person will contribute.

If I was convinced that XP should only be awarded to rogues/trapfinders I wouldn't have bothered posting a thread in the rules forum asking what others think. Yes I said I had a "gut feeling" that XP wasn't awarded to others for traps but if anything that indicates a lack of a decision one way or the other.

If you'll note, I didn't say you said it was impossible to find/bypass/disarm traps without a rogue. The closest I came was saying that you implied it's not usually possible. You did this by way of the "even" wording, which, the way you used it, is usually used for reasonably low-probability events.

Any "impossible" you're finding in my posts is whatever you're deciding to find there. At best I said it was improbable that anyone other than a rogue/trapfinder would have to solve a trap encounter. Whether or not anyone "could" was not even on my mind at the beginning of this thread.

[/QUOTE]Dude, it's first level spells and cantrips. Yeah - at 1st, it's very expensive. At 3rd, a little on the pricy side, but definitely doable. By the time you hit 10th, it's pocket change. People spend more on flavor-items at 10th than the party wizard spends on this.[/QUOTE]

At 1st it's very expensive and at best it's a drag on resources all the way through 5th. It continues to use GP that a party can be spending on other things.

Think of it this way. Every time you use thieves tools they get cheaper. Tools used only once would be 30 gp/use. Tools used 30 times are 1 gp a use.

1st level Wands are always going to be 7-14'ish gp a use (depending on crafted vs purchased items) and have a limited lifespan. 50 uses, using both a wand of unseen servant and a wand of summon monster 1 will cost 750-1500 per those 50 uses. The price never gets lower on an item with limited uses. Over time the "wands" method keeps getting more expensive while the "tools" method just keeps getting cheaper. Whats so difficult to get about this?

[/QUOTE]It's more like cooking soup with a campfire than a flamethrower. Sure, you *might* get burned... but it's unlikely after you've done it a time or two, and it's very unlikely you're going to burn anything you didn't deliberately use for fuel (which is fairly cheap). Of course, the PC trapfinder will occasionally flub a roll and get burned, so it's not really meaningfully more dangerous.

Once again, does your group not bother with hide or move silently? Someone without these is potentially inviting trouble on themselves. A "trapfinder" who will attract attention much more easily has a more dangerous job. A fighter who decides to tunnel through a wall is potentially attracting attention and making things more difficult. Setting off a trap will be more dangerous than completely disarming.

I never said you said it was impossible. Just not as bad as you think.

Somehting you have not convinced me of.

Let me go over a few things.

1: The main point which seems to have started all this was my claim that generally,a rogue/trapfinder will be the only one to encounter a trap.
2: Other methods of finding traps that are not reliant on trapfinding, investing in search/disable device, and having a particular item will be more complicated, more difficult and more expensive.

No one seems to be arguing against #1 and we seem to agree on #2. You've even said that you agree to #2. Your main arguement seems to be about the severity of the difference in effectivness between rogue-ish trapfinding and trapfinding using other methods. Severity is moot if we agree that the latter is less effective.

 

[udalrich]

Can we please agree to agree?

1. Using a rogue is the cheapest and best way to deal with traps.
2. If you don't have a rogue, there are a variety of other ways that are almost as effective, at least in some situations (scout, dwarf and stone traps, etc.)
3. If you don't have a rogue or a reasonable facsimile, it more expensive and probably more time consuming to deal with traps.
3a. This is a significant cost at level 1, and not entirely trivial even at level 5.

Does anybody disagree with any of this?

 

[Jack Simth]

All of which are more complicated, dangerous, expensive and time consuming. What is so difficult to get about this? Yes there are plenty of other ways. These will very rarely if ever be used.

Unless, of course, nobody is playing a rogue this session....

<snip of stuff addressed to others that I don't overly care to respond to...>

Any "impossible" you're finding in my posts is whatever you're deciding to find there. At best I said it was improbable that anyone other than a rogue/trapfinder would have to solve a trap encounter. Whether or not anyone "could" was not even on my mind at the beginning of this thread.

Err... did you even read the section you quoted? I just, flat-out, said you did not say it was impossible. Perhaps we have a communication issue here.

At 1st it's very expensive and at best it's a drag on resources all the way through 5th. It continues to use GP that a party can be spending on other things.

Oh, look - I said it's more expensive than the rogue.

[edit]Oh yeah - I also said that about the earliest it can be done that way is 3rd level....[/edit]

Think of it this way. Every time you use thieves tools they get cheaper. Tools used only once would be 30 gp/use. Tools used 30 times are 1 gp a use.

<snip>

1st level Wands are always going to be 7-14'ish gp a use (depending on crafted vs purchased items) and have a limited lifespan. 50 uses, using both a wand of unseen servant and a wand of summon monster 1 will cost 750-1500 per those 50 uses. The price never gets lower on an item with limited uses. Over time the "wands" method keeps getting more expensive while the "tools" method just keeps getting cheaper. Whats so difficult to get about this?

I have repeated, several times, that the Rogue does it for less. I'm starting to get the impression you're not really reading what I type.

Once again, does your group not bother with hide or move silently? Someone without these is potentially inviting trouble on themselves. A "trapfinder" who will attract attention much more easily has a more dangerous job. A fighter who decides to tunnel through a wall is potentially attracting attention and making things more difficult. Setting off a trap will be more dangerous than completely disarming.

Once again: Does your DM bring half the dungeon down on your head every time you get into a fight (look up the Listen skill - it's DC *-10*)? Does the DM have the entire dungeon come at you every time you fort up to take a nap (finding their buddies dead, and tracking down where the trail ends, then grabbing everyone available for justice/revenge/snacks)? Realistically, these would happen in any somewhat organized dungeon with intelligent denizens.

Do all your opponents always fail their spot and listen checks when the rogue goes scouting ahead? Does your rogue never get caught without the rest of the party?

At least if you're attracting attention in the hallway, those Large monsters still can't get at you, you're neigh-impossible to flank, and there's a sharp limit to how many can come at you at once. This possibility is a better one than that which your DM glosses over anyway.

Besides - with the +1 DC per 10 feet of distance, +5 DC for each door, and +15 DC for each wall on the Listen check (also +5 DC for being distracted if they've got things other than listening on their minds; -10 penalty on the roll if they're asleep), most things in a dungeon room are functionally deaf if you're in the hallway fifty feet away.

And, if you're still worried about it, the Cleric has a Silence spell for when you need to actually tunnel - provided you're at about level 3 or so, and you plan this out.

Somehting you have not convinced me of.

Oh yeah?

Go back to the first post where I quoted you - in the section I was quoting, you were going over the cost of using Dispel Magic (and the greater version, later on) for dealing with traps.

I've walked you down to being concerned about the expense of 1st level spells.

I think it's fairly clear I've demonstrated that, while it may not be as bad as you think now that I've shown you how to do it with 1st level spells, that it is not as bad as you thought then when you appeared to be thinking it required 3rd+ level spells.

Yes, the Wizard trap solution is more expensive than the rogue trap solution. But it's not as bad as you thought.

Let me go over a few things.

1: The main point which seems to have started all this was my claim that generally,a rogue/trapfinder will be the only one to encounter a trap.

No, this strand of argument was started because that you were estimating way too high on the cost, and way too low on the effectiveness, of non-rogue solutions. It doesn't take 3rd and 6th level spells, and deals only with magic traps - it takes 1st and 0th level spells, and gets the majority of traps.

2: Other methods of finding traps that are not reliant on trapfinding, investing in search/disable device, and having a particular item will be more complicated, more difficult and more expensive.

Yeah, but it's not as costly as you seem to have thought. And, you know - it's not actually all that difficult. Hey - a SPELL does most the work.

No one seems to be arguing against #1 and we seem to agree on #2. You've even said that you agree to #2. Your main arguement seems to be about the severity of the difference in effectivness between rogue-ish trapfinding and trapfinding using other methods. Severity is moot if we agree that the latter is less effective.

No, they're generally going to be equally effective. For that matter, you already admitted as much in a previous post - "It could be safely said that both suffer the same chance to miss a trap due to either of those things." (your words).

Mind you, I'm absolutely not going to convince you of anything. If that's the goal of my argument, then I've lost before I've begun - argument tends to cause the "opponent" to become entrenched, not to give up his position.

Fortunately, I'm in this because it amuses me. As a bonus, I might convince an onlooker that I'm correct.

Can we please agree to agree?

NO!!

I'm having fun.

 

[irdeggman]

Can we please agree to agree?

Yes, I was beginning to wonder what the arguement was about myself.

Oh and add 4. PCs get xp for getting past traps, regardless of the method employed.

 

[awayfarer]

Unless, of course, nobody is playing a rogue this session....

Err... did you even read the section you quoted? I just, flat-out, said you did not say it was impossible. Perhaps we have a communication issue here.

No kidding. My point is that if you see the word "impossible" implicit in anything I've said it's a result of whatever mental baggage you're dragging into this.

Oh, look - I said it's more expensive than the rogue.

[edit]Oh yeah - I also said that about the earliest it can be done that way is 3rd level....[/edit]

Erm...yes? I mentioned that you've noted this. The reason I mention it there is that I don't understand why you would continue the line of discussion if you believe that. Severity is moot.

I have repeated, several times, that the Rogue does it for less. I'm starting to get the impression you're not really reading what I type.

Ditto? I've acknowledged everything you've said.

Once again: Does your DM bring half the dungeon down on your head every time you get into a fight (look up the Listen skill - it's DC *-10*)? Does the DM have the entire dungeon come at you every time you fort up to take a nap (finding their buddies dead, and tracking down where the trail ends, then grabbing everyone available for justice/revenge/snacks)? Realistically, these would happen in any somewhat organized dungeon with intelligent denizens.

And once again you're overblowing this. A DM doesn't have to bring half the dungeon down on you in every fight. They don't even have to do something that isn't exaggerated such as, say, adding in one enarby encounter once in a while. So your line of thinking is that if something is only occasionally dangerous you don;t need to take precautions against it? Do you wear a seatbelt?

Do all your opponents always fail their spot and listen checks when the rogue goes scouting ahead? Does your rogue never get caught without the rest of the party?

Again, because something is only occasionally dangerous does that mean that you should never take precautions? If a situation has possibly dangerous result, and you have two options with which to proceed, one that reduces the possibility of danger, do you not go with that option?

And, if you're still worried about it, the Cleric has a Silence spell for when you need to actually tunnel - provided you're at about level 3 or so, and you plan this out.

Nice, lets waste everyones resources on this.

I've walked you down to being concerned about the expense of 1st level spells.

You have? I don't know why I would have caved to the idea that an expensive method of dealing with traps that only temporarily suppresses some kinds and has a significantly lower chance of doing so. I think I must have stopped acknowledgeing this as a worthwhile idea when i realized that it damages a caster versatility, is less reliable overall (max of +10 on the caster level check), and can only supress a trap rather than disarming it outright. What a bargain.

I think it's fairly clear I've demonstrated that, while it may not be as bad as you think now that I've shown you how to do it with 1st level spells, that it is not as bad as you thought then when you appeared to be thinking it required 3rd+ level spells.

No you haven't. The fact that you keep mentioning spells higher than lvl 1 seems to suggest otherwise. Didn't I just see Silence mentioned above?

Yes, the Wizard trap solution is more expensive than the rogue trap solution. But it's not as bad as you thought.

Oh you're right it isn...hey, wait a minute, thats right, you never made a convincing argument for that.

You acknowledge that making a wizard a trapfinder is more expensive, You acknowledge that it takes a significant number of spells to be effective. You've acknowledged that it isn't that particular classes expertise. I take the sum of that to mean "this is a bad idea."

No, this strand of argument was started because that you were estimating way too high on the cost, and way too low on the effectiveness, of non-rogue solutions. It doesn't take 3rd and 6th level spells, and deals only with magic traps - it takes 1st and 0th level spells, and gets the majority of traps.

1: Read the first post again. I started the thread with the notion that a groups trapfinding PC (generally a rogue) will almost always encounter and have to deal with traps alone. The entire point was that it isn't probable that a group will all contribute to these encounters.

You've paid no attention to this and your argument is actually meaningless in the context of the original point. Fine, a wizard can detect traps using your method, they will probably never get a chance to if there's a competent PC with the trapfinding ability.

Furthermore, even if a wizard can do all of this it doesn't address my primary point: that traps will generally be dealt with by one party member. Your "solution" relies heavily on one PC with a specific set of spells.

Yeah, but it's not as costly as you seem to have thought. And, you know - it's not actually all that difficult. Hey - a SPELL does most the work.

Pigeonholing a PC into selecting and preparing a specific set of spells or wasting a lot of GP on magic items.

No, they're generally going to be equally effective. For that matter, you already admitted as much in a previous post - "It could be safely said that both suffer the same chance to miss a trap due to either of those things." (your words).

Way to misquote me. You used two examples in which DM capriciousness might cause a rogue/trapfinder to miss a trap. I said that DM fiat is a poor way of gauging things. So, yes, if your DM is a jerk and refuses to let you find a trap no matter what, both have the same chance.

Honestly I'm not sure what your point is. If it's that it is possible for other members of a group to do things about traps, fine, you've made it. I've agreed to it. If your arguing about the gap between the ability of a PC with the trapfinding skill to find/bypass/disarm traps and the ability of a PC without said skill to do so, you haven't offered any arguments that suggest that the two methods are even close.

 

[awayfarer]

Can we please agree to agree?

1. Using a rogue is the cheapest and best way to deal with traps.
2. If you don't have a rogue, there are a variety of other ways that are almost as effective, at least in some situations (scout, dwarf and stone traps, etc.)
3. If you don't have a rogue or a reasonable facsimile, it more expensive and probably more time consuming to deal with traps.
3a. This is a significant cost at level 1, and not entirely trivial even at level 5.

Does anybody disagree with any of this?

What I don't get here is that it seems that we DO agree to this.

[Edit] I'd agree with 2 only if there were a half-dozen disclaimers.

 

[Jack Simth]

No kidding. My point is that if you see the word "impossible" implicit in anything I've said it's a result of whatever mental baggage you're dragging into this.

Seriously - where are you getting that I'm seeing impossible *anywhere*? The closest I've seen you come - which is pretty far from it - is implying that you can't usually bypass a trap. In most cases, you will be able to do so.

Of course, after posting that, you then posted "I'd agree with 2 only if there were a half-dozen disclaimers." with the referenced 2 being "If you don't have a rogue, there are a variety of other ways that are almost as effective, at least in some situations (scout, dwarf and stone traps, etc.)"

You appear to be contradicting yourself with those two posts.

Erm...yes? I mentioned that you've noted this. The reason I mention it there is that I don't understand why you would continue the line of discussion if you believe that. Severity is moot.

Severity is not moot. It's actually very important. Especially when the Wizard-3 is, for the most part, finding traps better than the Rogue (see below, in spoilers) and my first reply to you was that it's not as bad as you think.

Ditto? I've acknowledged everything you've said.

Yet you keep treating the cost difference as severe; at 3rd, it may be harsh... but at 5th, it's less than you'll spend on the Wand of Cure Light after the fights you get into, and at 10th, it's pocket change. The cost difference is only overly meaningful in a rather small window of opportunity (3rd, 4th, and 5th level).

And once again you're overblowing this. A DM doesn't have to bring half the dungeon down on you in every fight. They don't even have to do something that isn't exaggerated such as, say, adding in one enarby encounter once in a while. So your line of thinking is that if something is only occasionally dangerous you don;t need to take precautions against it? Do you wear a seatbelt?

My point here is that you're overblowing the issue with the noise. Sure, in the relatively limited circumstance that you have to do things quietly (in which case, you're basically limited to just bringing the rogue, and leaving the rest of the party behind, as almost nobody else has stealth skills anyway). You just said it yourself - you're really only expecting one, maybe two rooms to come at you - which is what you'd expect from a regular fight encounter. And when they do, they're forced to come at you in a confined environment (the hallway) where you essentially get to take them on one at a time. If you've cleaned out the area behind you, they'll only come from the front - oh yeah, and there's a good chance that whatever trap you found is still there, ready for them to spring (or, alternately, show you where to find the bypass). Have a simple combat-control spell handy for the rear, and you're good to go simply by virtue of marching order.

Okay, you'll have trouble with area effect spells sent your way - but you have issues with that type in a confined environment like a dungeon anyway.

You're overblowing the consequences of making noise when you bring it up as a serious reason to avoid the strategy.

Again, because something is only occasionally dangerous does that mean that you should never take precautions? If a situation has possibly dangerous result, and you have two options with which to proceed, one that reduces the possibility of danger, do you not go with that option?

See below - the lower-danger option is actually the Wizard, curiously.

Nice, lets waste everyones resources on this.

That's just an add-on for if you're worried about making a racket.

You have? I don't know why I would have caved to the idea that an expensive method of dealing with traps that only temporarily suppresses some kinds and has a significantly lower chance of doing so. I think I must have stopped acknowledgeing this as a worthwhile idea when i realized that it damages a caster versatility, is less reliable overall (max of +10 on the caster level check), and can only supress a trap rather than disarming it outright. What a bargain.

Interestingly, you dropped that from the table ... after I quoted you listing it as a resource hog, and listing a lower-level alternative.

I mean, just from the timing, it would strongly appear that I moved you from "wizard needs 3rd level spells" to "1st level spells will do it"

Sure looks like you moved.

No you haven't. The fact that you keep mentioning spells higher than lvl 1 seems to suggest otherwise. Didn't I just see Silence mentioned above?

Yeah - as a possibility for when you're worried about making a racket. Most the time, you really shouldn't be. If you're normally worried about it, you'll have to leave everyone with significant material armor behind anyway, due to the armor check penalty on Move Silently (and that most such don't have it as a class skill).

Oh you're right it isn...hey, wait a minute, thats right, you never made a convincing argument for that.

You acknowledge that making a wizard a trapfinder is more expensive, You acknowledge that it takes a significant number of spells to be effective. You've acknowledged that it isn't that particular classes expertise. I take the sum of that to mean "this is a bad idea."

To be effective, it takes two spells; the extras are just for when you're worried about particular, fairly low-occurence issues (like having to be fully quiet).

1: Read the first post again. I started the thread with the notion that a groups trapfinding PC (generally a rogue) will almost always encounter and have to deal with traps alone. The entire point was that it isn't probable that a group will all contribute to these encounters.

Read the first post where I quoted you; I'm responding to the impression you seem to have had that other classes can't handle traps reasonably well - the sparkcasters actually can, and the meatshields can reliably bull through most of them - between the two, that covers most the classes.

You've paid no attention to this and your argument is actually meaningless in the context of the original point. Fine, a wizard can detect traps using your method, they will probably never get a chance to if there's a competent PC with the trapfinding ability.

Which is, you know, a fairly big if.

Furthermore, even if a wizard can do all of this it doesn't address my primary point: that traps will generally be dealt with by one party member. Your "solution" relies heavily on one PC with a specific set of spells.

That one of my solutions that we're mostly focusing on does, yes.

You can also use a meatshield and a healer (or a healer with a high Con). Or someone with a very good AC and high saves and Evasion (like a Monk, or Paladin with a Ring of Evasion).

Pigeonholing a PC into selecting and preparing a specific set of spells or wasting a lot of GP on magic items.

Verses pigeonholing a PC into taking a particular role, and "wasting" a lot of skill points and GP on that role? The difference is one of a value judgment on what is worth how much, which will vary.

Way to misquote me. You used two examples in which DM capriciousness might cause a rogue/trapfinder to miss a trap. I said that DM fiat is a poor way of gauging things. So, yes, if your DM is a jerk and refuses to let you find a trap no matter what, both have the same chance.

Honestly I'm not sure what your point is. If it's that it is possible for other members of a group to do things about traps, fine, you've made it. I've agreed to it. If your arguing about the gap between the ability of a PC with the trapfinding skill to find/bypass/disarm traps and the ability of a PC without said skill to do so, you haven't offered any arguments that suggest that the two methods are even close.

Detailed analysis in spoiler:
[sblock]A rogue will occasionally miss traps due to random chance (if he's rolling) or will miss the ones that are outside his range for his choice of non-roll (if he's not).

The Unseen Servant dragging a 100 pound bag of rocks with a rat (or other easily-obtained animal - Chickens are cheap) attached, followed by a Wizard concentrating on Detect Magic will get quite a few traps.

Of the trigger types in the SRD, it will catch:
Location (someone's in the square)
Proximity (A creature is in the area)
Sound (always magical)
Visual (always magical)
Touch (Unseen Servant does touch things)
Spell (always magical)
All of this without a roll.

It will only miss the Timed trigger mechanism, and even then, only if it's a mechanical trap (magic traps are spotted, no roll required) - in the SRD, that's the Ceiling Pendulum (CR 3), Compacting Room (CR 6), and Whirling Poison Blades (CR 6) traps. All three of these are traps that don't trigger in response to the party - they just go off periodically. As you'll be traveling at 5 feet per round, if you've got a reasonable light source, they'll either be noticed or they will have a very low probability of catching the party in their range anyway.

The Wizard-3 doing this will find ALL the CR 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 traps listed in the SRD, without any roll at all, and most of the CR 3 and 6 traps (misses only one CR 3 trap, and two CR 6 - and those are merely damage-dealing traps).

With a caster level 1 Unseen Servant, he'll be about 20 feet behind his trapfinder for all the mechanical traps - and none of those in the SRD are that far away from their trigger. He finds Magic traps at 60 feet (range of Detect Magic) - and none of the ones in the SRD have an effect range beyond that.

The Rogue-3 with an Int of 16, max ranks in Search, taking 10, with a masterwork tool, finds all DC 21 or less traps safely - he misses the Camoglaged Pit Trap, Poison Needle Trap, Razor Wire Across Hallway, Wall Blade Trap - and that's just of the CR 1 traps listed in the SRD. If he takes 20 (and thus, takes 20 times as long at it as our Unseen Servant and Wizard combo) he gets all DC 31 or less traps safely - he starts missing things at CR 8 (spell traps, Search DC 32). If he rolls, he's got a chance to miss every trap on the list (minimum roll of 12 - all traps in the SRD have a Search DC higher than that). The Rogue-10 with max ranks, but otherwise identical to our Rogue-3, safely finds all DC 27 or less traps taking 10 (starts missing them at CR 4, with the spell traps at that level); 37 or less traps taking 20; rolling, he has a chance to miss traps with a search DC of 20 or better - which happens as early as CR 1 (basic arrow trap). Add in Goggles of Minute Seeing for another +5, and he's running at DC 32 or less traps taking 10 (starts missing at CR 9, with the spell traps at that level) and DC 42 or less traps taking 20; with a chance to miss DC 25 or higher traps when rolling (which starts happening at CR 3 - Stone Blocks from Ceiling). Now, that rogue-10, actually taking 20 (and as such, all the time in the world) will find every trap in the SRD (highest DC is 34).

If anything, the Wizard doing this is MORE reliable than the rogue at finding traps successfully without getting hurt, up until about . After that, it's just a matter of getting around them.
[/sblock]
Calling it about the same chance was me being generous to the rogue.

I'm afraid I have to officially retract my statement that the Rogue finds traps better than the Wizard does. A survey of the SRD traps shows otherwise. I apologize.

 

[Nail]

do you, or do you not dole out XP for encountering traps?

Yes, of course!

Be sure that the trap has the appropriate CR. If the trap is really no threat, and consumes few resources, then it's CR is much lower than the APL. The XP calc takes this sort of thing into account.