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

[Saeviomagy]

For those of you who would have given him a save... I suppose you could give the rogue (just because he is a rogue) a REF save to pull his hand off of the sphere of annihilation he just decided to grab because he is a "dextrous and mighty adventurer (or whatever I read earlier)", but that just seems silly. Any character, no matter how experienced can still do something stupid whether they mean to or not or even know it or not.

Actually, I wouldn't be enough of a dick to put a sphere of annihilation in a game unless there was a really, really high chance that the adventurers would know what it was.

Why? Because it's simply not fun. It makes for a crappy gaming experience.

That said - there was a chance to avoid the trap in question, and 3d6 is unlikely to kill the rogue outright. There is another 3d6 damage trap in the book at CR 3, although it's nonlethal. I'd make this trap CR 3.

Just one last thing - your buddy did add his trap sense to the initial search rolls, right?

Finally - if he thought there were traps, why didn't he take 20 on the searches?

 

[reveal]

Just one last thing - your buddy did add his trap sense to the initial search rolls, right?

Finally - if he thought there were traps, why didn't he take 20 on the searches?

Trapsense does not add to your Search rolls.

Trapsense - At 3rd level, a rogue gains an intuitive sense that alerts her to danger from traps, giving her a +1 bonus on Reflex saves made to avoid traps and a +1 dodge bonus to AC against attacks made by traps. These bonuses rise to +2 when the rogue reaches 6th level, to +3 when she reaches 9th level, to +4 when she reaches 12th level, to +5 at 15th, and to +6 at 18th level.

Not sure why he didn't take 20. More than likely because it would have taken 2 minutes to do and the party didn't want to wait for him.

 

[sfedi]

I totally agree with giving a Ref save OR giving it a higher CR.

But note that this encounter IS challenging.

Maybe the rogue don't even search for the first trap. Fine.
But then again, he will receiver 3d6 damage (I'm asuming he's 3rd level), which could not possibly kill him!
So the next thing to do is to heal, take 20 on those other hatches, search those that have no traps, and open them.
I don't see how could a 3rd level rogue could be in any danger in this situation unless the party do something stupid, really stupid.

In fact I hate traps, they seem like free XP to me, without ANY risk at all.

 

[sfedi]

In fact, the next group I'm planning to play in, we're making the rogue not have any ranks in disable device AT ALL. It's simply not worth it. No trap can kill you outright. (unless really high level).

Even Open Lock isn't of much worth because of the crap spells like Knock and Arcane Lock that render the Rogues useless. Maybe just a low bonus to get past cheaply the easy ones.

Rant, rant, rant. Sorry.

 

[Shadowdweller]

In fact, the next group I'm planning to play in, we're making the rogue not have any ranks in disable device AT ALL. It's simply not worth it. No trap can kill you outright. (unless really high level).

There, you are are wrong. 7 damage per CR is pretty nasty in and of itself, and a Mordenkainen's Disjunction trap (not something I think any sane DM would actually use) equates to only about CR 9-- which means it might occur some 8 levels before the PCs would tend to encounter actual creatures that might cast it. The whole POINT of traps as a viable challenge is having an extremely nasty albeit unintelligent SINGLE attack versus the ongoing nature of monsters.

 

[Sejs]

No trap can kill you outright. (unless really high level).

I care to disagree.


Even a lowly 20 or 30' pit trap can easily kill a wide range of characters if you include a few basic modifications like filling it 2/3rds of the way up with water and adding a \ / shaped grate on a swing arm (gets pushed open by the falling character as they go down, then closes and locks into place once they're past), and put that grate a couple feet under the surface of the water.

Metal armor, huh? Bye.

 

[was]

I think you ruled correctly. He searched, failed his roll and set off the trap. It happens. It's part of being the rogue. As far as the touch attack goes, his argument is flawed because he chose to touch the object. If he grabbed a hot cooking pot from over the campfire, would the pot need to make a touch attack to see if it could do heat damage to him?

 

[hong]

Based on that, I ca see we are from 2 different ends of the spectrum. An intelligent monster doesn't place traps for people to get past - they are placed, in that example, to KILL.

3d6 points of damage is quite sufficient to kill the average schmuck, Reflex save or no Reflex save.

What, it's not sufficient to kill this particular rogue? Well, he isn't just an average schmuck, now is he?

 

[Nail]

In fact I hate traps, they seem like free XP to me, without ANY risk at all.

Depends on how the whole thing is set up, doesn't it?

Traps (in a designing adventure sense -- as distinct from "Bad guy protecting home" sense) are realy effective in 2 ways:

• create a "ambiance" for the area - increase the PCs sense of danger.
• reduce the party's resources in a time-limited adventure, or
• reduce party's resources or hamper party's mobility during a combat.

You'll note that just putting a stand-alone trap, without "monster support", and without a "time crunch" for the PCs is not in the list.

If the PCs are just walking along, and "BAM" a trap happens....and then they have plenty of time to fix any problems the trap caused....well, that's just a pointless trap, IMO.

Fortunately for the PCs, that distinction is irrelevant. If the PC survives or by-passes the trap, he/she gets XP for it.

 

[Bladesong]

Actually, I wouldn't be enough of a dick to put a sphere of annihilation in a
game unless there was a really, really high chance that the adventurers would know what it was.

Umm...you do recognize a sarcastic example when you see one do you not? Perhaps not. The point was: if a character CHOOSES to do something "stupid" that would hurt them, they SHOULD get hurt.