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

hong said:
This must be a very strange world of yours, where the incidence of traps in ruins is high enough to mandate such a paranoid approach to adventuring. I surmise it is related to the spectrum of the ambient solar radiation, which coincidentally also results in 1) a different colour of the sky, and 2) reduced levels of testosterone among players.

Since searching also covers a number of other things (such as telling if stepping certain places or pushing against said wall might cause bad things to happen) then I think searching pretty much any unknown location with at least a minimum of 2 minutes per major intersection sounds completely reasonable.

In fact, I think it sounds completely unreasonable to 'not' spend time searching just in case the old mine shaft might be a bit unsteady or those kobolds one is hunting might just have laid out a few noisemaker traps and poisoned darts.

Unknown area = travel with care and check everything as much as possible.

Unless of course one is not fond of life.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Scion said:
Since searching also covers a number of other things (such as telling if stepping certain places or pushing against said wall might cause bad things to happen) then I think searching pretty much any unknown location with at least a minimum of 2 minutes per major intersection sounds completely reasonable.

In fact, I think it sounds completely unreasonable to 'not' spend time searching just in case the old mine shaft might be a bit unsteady or those kobolds one is hunting might just have laid out a few noisemaker traps and poisoned darts.

Unknown area = travel with care and check everything as much as possible.

Unless of course one is not fond of life.

While I agree being cautious is important, I don't see how realistic it is to take 20 searching everything in a dangerous location.

Let's say the PCs in my game did take 20 to search the cavern in which the hatches were located, as you suggested. The cavern itself was large enough to contain approximately 50 5-foot squares. If they took 20, each 5-foot square would take 2 minutes to check for a total of 100 minutes to search the caven top to bottom. That's almost 2 hours! I think there's a fine line between caution and paranoia. If the PCs took 100 minutes to search anything, I'd call that being paranoid.
 

reveal said:
While I agree being cautious is important, I don't see how realistic it is to take 20 searching everything in a dangerous location.

Let's say the PCs in my game did take 20 to search the cavern in which the hatches were located, as you suggested. The cavern itself was large enough to contain approximately 50 5-foot squares. If they took 20, each 5-foot square would take 2 minutes to check for a total of 100 minutes to search the caven top to bottom. That's almost 2 hours! I think there's a fine line between caution and paranoia. If the PCs took 100 minutes to search anything, I'd call that being paranoid.

If you are going to quote me at least read what you quote ;)

I said taking 20 for each major intersection is to be expected. In fact, if it isnt done I would be very surprised.

Also, searching every square at least somewhat is more than reasonable.

No where did I state to take 20 on every square, although with the right party that could be possible (4 people, each with the proper henchman means dividing that search time by 8, spending 12.5 minutes to search a new and likely dangerous place is a no brainer. With less people obviously less will be searched, or less thouroghly, but still done, it is foolish not to).

In any event, being in a world where just about everything could kill you and walking through an area known to be dangerous and 'not' taking appropriate precautions sounds suicidal.

So, if taking time to search is 'paranoid' and not doing so is 'suicidal' then I'll go with paranoid.

A simple 6 second check of every square done by most of the party, which can be done all at the same time, is a good precaution. Taking 20 at parts which seem more important may very well be necissary.

Never doing any searches because 'that takes time' is a good way to have a dead party.
 

Look out, world: Scion and Nail are on the same side of a discussion. Egads!
reveal said:
Let's say the PCs in my game did take 20 to search the cavern in which the hatches were located....
Actually, that's not what's been suggested.

It's been suggested that the PCs "take 20" to search the hatches. Four hatches, 2 minutes per hatch.....sounds like 8 minutes to me. Not at all unreasonable. (Scion went a bit further and said "each intersection". Either way, we're not talking about every inch of floor space.)

Searching suspect areas is prudent. I think even you would agree. If so, and if there is no time constraint, then why not take 20 on each of those checks?

Anything else is just being sloppy, lazy, or cocky.
 

Nail said:
Look out, world: Scion and Nail are on the same side of a discussion. Egads!

you know, this does happen pretty often ;) There are a few issues here and there which we feel strongly, and oppositely, about, but everyone has their own way of viewing how things 'should' work.

As far as on topic goes (more or less), the party I am currently in does not have a heavy searching character and it is going to come back to hurt us big time. We all expect it, we all know it is going to happen, and we are all worried. One guy is actually thinking of taking a level in rogue simply to help with this problem. Obviously at least my group thinks it is a big deal, big enough to give up a level to help the problem.
 

When I'm a player, I always (politely!) ask someone in the group to take up the mantle of "search/spot" type. Even if it's only the Ranger, or (in a pinch) the Monk. Someone in the party had better be pretty good at both of those skills. (Disable device/Open Lock is optional, IMHO.)

I don't know how many times our trusty Rogue (now Rog 12!) has saved our bacon. As I play a Cleric in that game, you can imagine my Search check is....not useful. :)
 

Well, without knowing the numbers (the search DC the Disable device DC and the bonuses the rogue had to those skills, as well as his HP and his reflex save) I can't really judge if it was a 'fair' encounter. But, that's not really the question.

In the original question, you asked if the Rogue's trapsense would come into play. The short answer is no (because you have eliminated the two things to which it applies, namely a save or an attack roll).

But, if you want to get a feel if this is fair, think of it like a monster and use the party's frontline PC as an example. Let's (wildly) assume the rogue has 20 HP so 3D6 damage will on average put him at about half. Let's also assume the front-liner has maybe 40.

Ok, would you allow this situation?

---

The party is advancing down a long tunnel cut into the stone below an old wizard's keep. They think there is a secret escape tunnel into the keep and are trying to find it. As they turn a corner a gate falls from the ceiling, isolating the Paladin (who happened to be in front). At the same a sidewall opens and reveals a large mechanical man carrying a huge axe. The thing is mumbling to itself confusedly.

Now, in game terms the mechanical thing is a golem of some variety, and it is holding an axe that does on average 20 points. If the paladin must make a sense motive check to know that it's master has died and that it is waiting for orders. If the Paladin doesn't make this check he will not be able to make a diplomacy check to convince the beast that he is the new master.

Of the Paladin fails the sense motive check, or fails the diplomacy check he will be attacked. There is no attack roll and no save, the monster just automatically hits the paladin for on average 20 points and then goes back to standing there.

---

So, in this example, the automatic hitting is revealed as excessive. Not imagine that there are three of these things (though only two will attack). It's getting harder isn't it?

It may be that you think this is fine, and that's a judgment call. I, for one, would allow some kind of save / attack roll or would up the DC by a lot.

Notice that; the paladin can take 20 on the sense motive check (as the rogue can take 20 on the search). I mean BY THE GODS folks, Knifespeaks actually posted recommending taking 20! The seas, they are boiling!

Also notice that the Paladin can't take 20 on the diplomacy check, just as the rogue can't take 20 on the disable device check.

Ok, there's one flaw, the rogue doesn't have to deal with the traps, he can just leave them. So let's add that the Paladin is fairly sure he can beat down the gate separating him from the group.

Anyway, what do you think? Would you allow this situation?

-Tatsu
 

hong said:
This must be a very strange world of yours, where the incidence of traps in ruins is high enough to mandate such a paranoid approach to adventuring.
How many ruins have you ever been in hong? Given that you live on the underside of the globe, it's quite possible that the total number is zero.

2 minutes is NOT a long time. 2 minutes in a place you've never been in before is not that long to spend looking around. I've been in ruins, that have been excavated, renovated and safety approved. I still easily spend a couple of minutes just looking around for things of interest.

Certainly 2 minutes in a place you've never been in, that might be dangerous is a negligable amount of time.

I'd suggest you find a movie where some individuals go looking around a ruin or something similar, which you see as being representative of a possible D&D dungeon crawl.

Now time how long the actors spend just looking around an area.

I guarantee that when the words "hey, they're searching the room!" pop into your head, they haven't just spent 6 seconds looking around.
 

2 minutes sure, but 2 minutes searching every 5' X 5' square? That is a bit much if you don't think there are traps or things to find.

For a typical good sized room (say 30' X 20') we're not talking about two minutes looking around, we are talking almost an hour dutifully searching every square foot. That's a bit much if there is nothing expected.

Then again, the first time a door exploded and almost killed me, I think I would start searching every door I found for a while. The same way you never forget to lock your door for a while after you get robbed.

-Tatsu
 

Tatsukun said:
I mean BY THE GODS folks, Knifespeaks actually posted recommending taking 20! The seas, they are boiling!


Shhhh - I got a rep to maintain :)

But, funnily enough, this is one scenario where taking 20 just really makes sense - if you don't take 20 here, then you deserve all you get imho.

I have quite warmed to the whole taking 20 thing actually :)
 

Remove ads

Top