Explosive Runes inside locked spellbook

[MerakSpielman]

OK, here's the scenario. The PCs have discovered a Boccob's Blessed Book, which is itself locked. The previous owner has inscribed an Explosive Rune on the first page.

The rogue searches the book for traps, rolling quite well. But he has not yet picked the lock on the book.

He then picks the lock, opens the book, and scans the first page.

BOOM.

The player argues that this was an undetectable trap, and that his initial search check should have covered finding the runes, whereas the DM (myself) ruled that it would be impossible for him to find the trap by searching while the book was locked. If he had unlocked it and THEN searched, he could have found it. (Out of guilt for the nasty trap I allowed the book not to be destroyed by the blast. Eh, call me a softie.) A nasty trap - who would think to search for traps TWICE? The kind of thing a wizard with a 26 intelligence would do, is it not?

So what do you think. How should this have been played out, by the rules?

 

[Seravin]

I probably would have run it the same way.
Though being a somewhat bigger softie I might have allowed a DC 15 Wisdom check for a prompt to ask the Wizard about any common traps for spellbooks. This would then generate a DC 18 Spellcraft check or Knowledge Arcana check to figure out Explosive Runes (or Sepia Snake Sigil, or...etc).

 

[Rostek]

OK, here's the scenario. The PCs have discovered a Boccob's Blessed Book, which is itself locked. The previous owner has inscribed an Explosive Rune on the first page.

The rogue searches the book for traps, rolling quite well. But he has not yet picked the lock on the book.

He then picks the lock, opens the book, and scans the first page.

BOOM.

The player argues that this was an undetectable trap, and that his initial search check should have covered finding the runes, whereas the DM (myself) ruled that it would be impossible for him to find the trap by searching while the book was locked. If he had unlocked it and THEN searched, he could have found it. (Out of guilt for the nasty trap I allowed the book not to be destroyed by the blast. Eh, call me a softie.) A nasty trap - who would think to search for traps TWICE? The kind of thing a wizard with a 26 intelligence would do, is it not?

So what do you think. How should this have been played out, by the rules?

That one's going into the scrapbook for future use
It's a cheapie, but the kind of thing that a (insanely?) brilliant wizard would do, just to mess with people. If you didn't destroy the book, then he's got little room to be too upset.
As far as rules go, a second searching once the book is unlocked would cover the requirements IMO to find such a dastardly trap.
(My compliments, by the way ).

 

[Plane Sailing]

Actually I would have allowed the rogue to have detected the presence of the magical trap (had he rolled high enough, of course). You know, those rules about abjurations in close proximity causing noticeable effects and stuff, and just how does a rogue detect magical traps anyway? presumably be intuition and being really sensitive and stuff.

If the book was in a locked chest, then sure I'd require a separate search check. But the search for traps mechanic, IMO, enables a thorough search of the object.

Otherwise what's next? "Sorry, you couldn't find the traps on that chest because the triggering mechanism was internal to the chest, there was no way it could be detected until the chest was opened".

I don't think the rules support micro-managing the trap finding process as happens in your Boccobs Blessed Book scenario, and I don't think usability of the trap detection process does either.

Cheers!

 

[Peter Gibbons]

So what do you think. How should this have been played out, by the rules?

There are no "undetectable" traps (for rogues), only very high Search DCs. He should have been able to detect the trap.

 

[Arc]

The Search skill description doesn't specifically require line of sight to the object being searched, if you read it by the RAW. It just requires being within 10' of the object, which the rogue obviously was. If reading directly from the RAW, then the rogue would definitely have found the trap, since he was searching a book, obviously smaller than "a volume of goods 5 feet on a side."

Don't nerf a rogue's skillset more than necessary. Rogues are meant to find traps, let them do so. A good trap isn't necessarily one that has a high DC, but rather is in a place where a rogue won't think to search.

 

[irdeggman]

Let's see how you have affect future game play.

The rogue checks for traps at a locked door. Rolls real high and you tell him he's sure there aren't any.

He picks the lock.

Now he looks for more traps before he opens the door.. . .

The rogue comes to a chest.

Checks for traps - again rolls high and you tell him he's sure there aren't any.
He picks the lock.

He then checks for more traps before opening up the chest.

And so on and so on. .

You have just introduced a future behavior in your game that is most likely undesireable and most definitely time consuming (real time and game time - a whole more opportunity for those ansty wandering opponents to show up now with that second trap search being done).


I don't think the rules specifically address the situation you did but I beleive it is against the spirit of the them in the fact that it requires a special check without any indication that it may be required. heck will it require a check for each individual page in the book now? Your players have to be thinking that - I know I would be.

 

[Grogtar]

Its a cheap shot, thats for sure.

If searching for traps only discovers the obvious traps then its a dead skill. People who make traps are smart, and you know they dont ofen put signs up --- "Trap HERE"

Traps are hidden, thats kinda the point. Magical traps are totally hidden, the only signs of their existance is the magical whoosits and ding-a-lings that they leave behind. Hense the ability of only Rogues to find Magical traps. You saying "Well gee, it was so well hidden nobody could ever have seen it" its a huge blow to the Rogue's abilities.

 

[Kilroy]

Definantly a cheap shot.

Rogue Search skill is intentionally abstracted because searching for traps, picking the door, searching for traps, opening the door, searching for traps, going through the door is really tedious.

 

[werk]

Explosive Runes text says:
Note: Magic traps such as explosive runes are hard to detect and disable. A rogue (only) can use the Search skill to find the runes and Disable Device to thwart them. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level, or 28 for explosive runes.

It seems that this type of detection is only possible if the searcher is not 'reading' the runes. I think I'll join the dogpile, he should have found the trap if he was over 28 on his check, but I don't know how I would have ruled without this thread to make me look into it.