Does the Trapsense ability, for a Rogue, come into play in this situation?

[reveal]

The player of the Rogue and I disagree on what happened last session involving a trap. He didn't make a big deal out of it but I want to make sure that, by the rules, I was being fair.

The situation: There is a cavern with 4 hatches. Each hatch is made of metal and all look identical. 3 of the hatches are trapped. When opened, a Shocking Grasp spell goes off and whomever is opening the hatch (each has a metal handle on the top of it) takes 3d6 damage.

Now, Shocking Grasp is a touch attack and does not allow for a save. The Rogue in question has Trapsense +1. The player thinks that, since it's a touch attack spell, he should have received a +1 Dodge bonus to AC and I should have rolled to hit him.

I think that, since he's physically holding onto a metal object, the Shocking Grasp trap would go off and the current would go through the metal, shocking him. No touch attack is made because he is actually holding on to the object that is shocking him.

Was I being fair? Should I have rolled an attack roll? Or am I correct in my thinking?

 

[Sejs]

No, you wouldn't have had to make an attack roll because the rogue has to say he's touching the object before it triggers. It can't miss because he touched it on purpse.

However, what I would have done would be to give the rogue a Search check against the traps DC to notice it before he touched it. He gets his hand close and notices the hairs on his hand and wrist are standing up slightly from the faint static charge of the trap. That sorta thing.

 

[reveal]

He did a Search check on the first one and failed to notice the trap. He did a Search check on the second one, I lowered the DC since he thought it was trapped and wouldn't be surprised if it was, but he still failed to notice it. On the third one, he did find it and disabled it.

 

[AuraSeer]

Auto-hit traps are generally a bad idea. You always want to give the player an out, and let the abilities of his character matter, rather than just randomly zapping him with damage that he cannot avoid. From a player's point of view, that feels like the DM is just arbitrarily applying damage rather than playing by the rules.

The spell shocking grasp doesn't allow a save, true, but it's balanced because it requires a touch attack. Making it automatically hit, while still not allowing a save, is not balanced; it's arbitrary and screwish. You're saying that the world's greatest epic rogue, a master trap-dodger and treasure hunter, veteran of a thousand expeditions, would get zapped just as easily as a first-level commoner. That's just not how D&D works.

If you're dead set against having the trap make an attack roll, you should at the very least have granted a Reflex save for half damage. That would represent the character snatching his hand back from the door just as the trap fired-- perhaps getting his fingers singed, but avoiding the full power of the electrical blast.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, here's what the SRD says about magic traps:

MAGIC TRAPS
Many spells can be used to create dangerous traps. Unless the spell or item description states otherwise, assume the following to be true.

• A successful Search check (DC 25 + spell level) made by a rogue (and only a rogue) detects a magic trap before it goes off. Other characters have no chance to find a magic trap with a Search check.

• Magic traps permit a saving throw in order to avoid the effect (DC 10 + spell level x 1.5).

• Magic traps may be disarmed by a rogue (and only a rogue) with a successful Disable Device check (DC 25 + spell level).

And, about the SG trap specifically, I'd go with Sejs. Touch spell, so no reflex save (also matches the Acid Arrow trap in the SRD).

Of course, such a trap is roughly equivalent to a CR 2 creature, assuming it was cast at 1st-level, so ...

 

[DanMcS]

I think that, since he's physically holding onto a metal object, the Shocking Grasp trap would go off and the current would go through the metal, shocking him. No touch attack is made because he is actually holding on to the object that is shocking him.

Was I being fair? Should I have rolled an attack roll? Or am I correct in my thinking?

He's physically holding onto a metal object, in a world in which, if a rogue ducks at the right time, he can completely ignore a fireball which burns to a crisp his buddy standing right beside him. Trap sense should have helped him.

You can't completely apply normal logic to the game. Yes, in the real world, if you touch something that's conducting a charge, you get shocked. In the real world, though, I don't have a good chance of evading an explosion.

You were being unfair; traps should offer some means of avoiding them, on the theory that auto-hitting is no fun for anyone. Either they make an attack roll to hit the target (this would be something like a spring-loaded crossbow or something), or a save to get out of the way. You should have allowed a reflex save to drop the handle before he got shocked.

 

[reveal]

The spell shocking grasp doesn't allow a save, true, but it's balanced because it requires a touch attack. Making it automatically hit, while still not allowing a save, is not balanced; it's arbitrary and screwish. You're saying that the world's greatest epic rogue, a master trap-dodger and treasure hunter, veteran of a thousand expeditions, would get zapped just as easily as a first-level commoner. That's just not how D&D works.

I disagree. I don't think he would get hit just as easily as a first level commoner because a first level commoner does not have the same Search capability as the "world's greatest epic rogue." The example rogue would have easily found the trap (Search DC 26) and disabled it (Disable Device DC 26).

In this respect, I see the trap as more of a reason the Rogue should practice his/her Searching (read: bump up those ranks!). This way, the skills a Rogue has really shine.

And it's not "arbitrary and screwish." It is allowed a Search/Disable Device just like every other trap.

 

[reveal]

He's physically holding onto a metal object, in a world in which, if a rogue ducks at the right time, he can completely ignore a fireball which burns to a crisp his buddy standing right beside him. Trap sense should have helped him.

You can't completely apply normal logic to the game. Yes, in the real world, if you touch something that's conducting a charge, you get shocked. In the real world, though, I don't have a good chance of evading an explosion.

You were being unfair; traps should offer some means of avoiding them, on the theory that auto-hitting is no fun for anyone. Either they make an attack roll to hit the target (this would be something like a spring-loaded crossbow or something), or a save to get out of the way. You should have allowed a reflex save to drop the handle before he got shocked.

Good points! I guess sometimes it's hard to balance logic in this game. True, you want to keep it somewhat realistic but considering your fireball example, it's really hard to in certain cases.

 

[Nail]

It's only arbitrary if the player thinks it is.

In any event, some traps in the SRD don't have either a save or an attack roll. It's "allowed" to have traps that work that way. I'll quote book-and-verse if you wish.

IMO, such traps should be higher CR (and thus XP!!!). You did give him XP for those traps, right???

 

[knifespeaks]

I'm always in the minority around here, so make of this what you will

As far as balance goes, it was balanced - the rogue had a chance to notice the trap.

After failing to notice the trap, allowing a reflex save sets a precedent for the same rogue to receive a reflex save when touched by an the caster of the same spell in combat - since he avoided it once with reflex, why not again? I would think that allowing a reflex save is an arbitrary ruling, not vice versa.

Also, traps don't exist for players to simply get past. They are placed by intelligent enemies to WORK. When they work, despite the best efforts of the players, they are doing what they are designed to do. I don't understand the fascination with success in 3.5 - that's what happens sometimes...you fail, and as a result you die. Although as the rogue didn't die, I don't see what he is complaining about....