Detecting magical traps

[Kalendraf]

According to the rules, it mentions that only rogues have a chance to find magical traps when performing a search check.

What I'm wondering is if other methods besides mundane search checks can be used to locate magical traps. For example, being magical in nature, I would suspect that these traps have some kind of aura, which is possibly detectable using Detect Magic. The trap itself would certainly not be understood, but the detect magic might show a suspicious aura someplace, and give the party a clue that there could be a trap there.

Does that seem correct, or is does this make Detect Magic too powerful. The reason I'm wondering is because recently the party has encountered a few strong magical traps which required approximately a DC 30 to detect, and the 9th level rogue was unable to detect them. I ruled in a couple cases that detect magic noticed a small aura, though their spellcraft checks were too low to figure out the school of magic. Still, they arrived at the correct conclusion that these were magical traps of some kind. Understandably, the rogue is starting to feel a bit useless as a result, since now it seems like one of his abilities (finding magical traps) has been largely replaced by a mere 0-level spell.

 

[Pielorinho]

Kalendraf, does the rogue have a maxed search check? If so, his search check should be at least +12, meaning that by taking 20 he can discover most (if not all) traps with a search DC of 30. (I happen to think there's a very rare class of traps that can't be discovered by a normal search check, but we shouldn't take the discussion there).

If he doesn't have search maxed, that's his fault .

Detect magic definitely can detect traps that are magical in nature. If this is a problem, you could always rule that certain traps contained an automatic Magic Aura cast on it. Or your bad guys could start using that spell to circumvent easy trap detection.

Daniel

 

[Nail]

Detect magic definitely can detect traps that are magical in nature. If this is a problem, you could always rule that certain traps contained an automatic Magic Aura cast on it. Or your bad guys could start using that spell to circumvent easy trap detection.

...although the duration is "only" one day per level, so none of these in ancient tombs.

Still, Pielorinho's point is sound: Take 20 on the search skill.....as long as you have reason to believe there is a trap in front of you. Since "taking 20" takes too long, it woudn't be a good idea to do this everywhere......for one thing: it's boring.

In our party, we've gotten to the point where we buff the rogue and just have him run around in an area. He sets off the traps, makes his saves (via Evasion or Death Ward), and then runs back. Much simplier and quicker.

 

[Thanee]

Yeah, remember, that the rogue can search over and over again, just because he rolls low, it doesn't mean he absolutely cannot find the trap, just that he didn't find it yet.

You might want to make those search rolls secretly, btw, since a low roll could tip the player off and lead to metagame another search. It's better to not know the roll, but only the result here.

Taking 20 works, but is kinda annoying, since it takes HUGE amounts of ingame time (2 minutes per 5' square).

It's a bit hard to find a decent middle way. When I play a rogue, I usually triple check any halfway suspicious areas, while taking 20 where I absolutely expect a trap (i.e some doors/chests).

Also to make the life of the rogue a bit easier I have introduced a house rule in my campaign, that allows the rogue to find traps automatically.

It works just like the elven detect secret door ability.

Whenever the rogue comes within 5' of a trap (i.e. adjacent to a square which the rogue could find a trap in, if searching the square), I make a secret search roll using the rogue's search skill and if it succeeds, tell the player, that a trap has been noticed.

So essentially, in my campaign, rogues automatically search every square once, while moving normally (not when running or being distracted, of course, then they don't get the chance, just when moving carefully, something that is to be expected in an unknown area of a dungeon, for example). Only if they want to search more thoroughly, they have to state it (i.e. take 10, take 20, or multiple searches).

It mostly saves a lot of time and makes the trapfinding ability more useful.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Kalendraf]

In each of these cases, the rogue did a normal 1 minute search and finding nothing, assumed there was no trap. Afterwards, the party began using the detect magic trick. I do the rolls in secret and was rolling very average (8's, 10's, 12's) and even with the rogue's maxed search, it wasn't quite enough to uncover these traps. IIRC, the rogue has 12 ranks in search and +2 for int, putting his search roll at 14, so he'd need a 16 or higher to find them. I think he did find one out of four or so, which is about right given that range.

I knew you could take a 20 on things like Open Lock, and that you can take a 20 on normal searches, but I didn't think you could take 20 on searches for traps because failure could have detrimental effects. Maybe we've been handling this wrong. If so, the rogue will be pleased to know this.

 

[Thanee]

IIRC, the rogue has 12 ranks in search and +2 for int, putting his search roll at 14, so he'd need a 16 or higher to find them. I think he did find one out of four or so, which is about right given that range.

Now, DC 30 is also pretty damn high at that level, so of course the rogue can't do much there.

I knew you could take a 20 on things like Open Lock, and that you can take a 20 on normal searches, but I didn't think you could take 20 on searches for traps because failure could have detrimental effects. Maybe we've been handling this wrong. If so, the rogue will be pleased to know this.

Yes you did. Search does not have detrimental effects. Searching does not trigger traps, regardless by how much you fail it. It can even be done at a distance of 10', so no poking around or whatever one might imagine normally in a search. It is a bit weird, definitely.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Nail]

Weird, but necessary, given the system. It's the Disable Device check that could kill you...Searching never hurt the curious rogue.....

We've thought about implementing the "rogue auto-detects traps" thing. A good idea?

 

[Nail]

IIRC, the rogue has 12 ranks in search and +2 for int, putting his search roll at 14, so he'd need a 16 or higher to find them.

So, given you can Take 20...the rogue will always find traps of DC < 35. THat's fine, really...it's the time issue that can be the problem. Time...and "wandering monsters".

 

[Thanee]

We've thought about implementing the "rogue auto-detects traps" thing. A good idea?

Well, of course!

- saves time, which is always a good thing
- makes trapfinding ability more useful without having to annoyingly search every square actively
- doesn't remove the need to search actively, since you never know when you didn't find a trap
- it resembles an actual mechanic in the core rules

My auto-search rule should be core, really!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Kalendraf]

While I'm thinking about it, I was wondering how the Take 10 rules apply to traps.

It's pretty obvious that a rogue can take 10 on his search, only spending 1 minute to give the spot a quick look. That may uncover simple traps, but the more complex ones would go undetected.

How about Disable Device? Can the rogue take 10 on that? Reading the take 10 rules makes me think you can, but since you can't take a 20 on Disable Device, I'm not sure if taking 10 is an option.