Rogues v. Traps

[tensen]

Trying Again
In general, you can try a skill check again if you fail ...
(PH 3.5 pg. 64)

Being able to try again is the default-skills have entries under Try Again when there are restrictions to or consequences of multiple attempts.

There is the issue that the DM should be making Search rolls behind the screen. But that doesn't stop a player from asking for ten, or twenty, or fifty Search checks on a door, even if he's not absolutely sure there's a trap on it. Avoiding that annoyance is sufficient reason to permit a take 20-that's what that rule is there for in the first place ... Not allowing take 20 on a Search check is a house rule.

Note, you didn't actually say anything different then me.. other than you last bit, which is a variation or at least a misinterpretation of what I said.
Lets go with an example instead:
Walking down a 10 wide by 60 foot long hallway.
Party A: (Rogue walking down the hallways not checking for traps.)
Movement 30. Takes 2 rounds to cross the hallway. And then probably proceeds to check the door at the end of the hallway for traps.
Note: Some would call this a foolhardy rogue, because he neither checked the hallway at all, and took a single check on the door.

Party B: (Rogue walking down the hallway searching for traps.)
Movement 30, however checking for traps he can only cover a 5 area per round.
Takes 12 rounds to cross the hallway, assuming everyone is walking single file behind the Rogue. He then promptly checks the door very very carefully, taking 20 on the door.
Note: This is probably the most usual occurance.

Party C: (Rogue walking down the hallway attempting to take 20 searching for traps. This is an anal retentive rogue and a very patient party.)
Takes 120 minutes to cross the hallway (still single file). Then another 2 minutes on the door.
Note: Generall I would call this form of Rogue a henchman, because the party is asleep waiting for the completion of the task. Wandering monsters tend to walk around the Rogue who is staring at a spot on the floor for such a time, they assume it is a statue.

Party D: (Rogue walking down the hallway attempting to take 20 searching for traps.)
After a minute, the party barbarian picks up the Rogue and tosses them down the hallway. Having set off no traps, the barbarian continues down the hallway, picks up the Rogue and promptly makes the rogue take 2 minutes checking the Door for traps.
Note: This variation may be called the fastball special. Highly valid method assuming the rogue has a high reflex save and the traps are targeted at the space the rogue is passing through, isntead of down the corridoor. After a few instances and assuming the Rogue is still alive, after the traps, or attempting to kill the Barbarian... they will have changed their method.

Hence.. the Rogue might take 20 on a door. But there is little chance that they will take 20 on anything else, unless they are RATHER sure there is something there. Not a house rule. A logical assumption under the rules. Anything else lacks common sense and playability. Unless the adventuring party is back playing cards for the duration they leave their Rogue to check a hallway.

You don't reroll search checks unless you expect to find something, because a failure isn't apparent. Not even a 1 will necessarily set off a trap, because a 1 is not an automatic failure with skill checks.

 

[NPC]

I played in a campaign where we had this exact debate. The DM used traps a lot, so I think he felt a bit annoyed that we could bypass his clever traps by simply being careful and taking 20 whenever we thought something was afoul.

When I DM, I allow the PC's to take 20 on Search checks whenever and wherever they want. But there must to be consequences for this.

I keep a random encounter table handy and roll on it every now and then when someone takes 20. Also, if there's something time critical happening, and the rogue is taking 20 all the time, then chances are the party will miss the event.

But I honestly don't see the problem in letting the rogue shine in these moments.

 

[glass]

Am I to understand that your house rule is that a missed Search check automatically sets off any trap?

No, being in a position to search for the trap set of the trap, usually. No house rules needed.

glass.

 

[glass]

It is a house interpretation, then.

There is nothing bad about rolling a 1 on a search check; it just means that you don't notice anything, and if there is a trap there, and you trigger it (a separate action, opening the door or hitting the tripwire or whatever), it will go off.

But we were talking about searching every square of a corridor. With that sort of trap, by definition, being there is enough, no separate action needed.

But that is different from Climb, where if you roll poorly enough on the roll, you immediately fall.

No, it is pretty similar. Failing a climb check makes you loose your grip on what you are climbing. Gravity makes you fall.

glass.

 

[DarkMaster]

No, being in a position to search for the trap set of the trap, usually. No house rules needed.

glass.

searching doesn't set the trap, disable device does. House rule is actually needed

 

[DarkMaster]

But we were talking about searching every square of a corridor. With that sort of trap, by definition, being there is enough, no separate action needed.



No, it is pretty similar. Failing a climb check makes you loose your grip on what you are climbing. Gravity makes you fall.

glass.

According to the definition of search in the rule it is different. Don't forget that before moving to the next square the rogue will make sure that there are not trap on the square.

 

[Christian]

No, being in a position to search for the trap set of the trap, usually. No house rules needed.

!? If being in position to search for a trap sets if off, why do they even get one Search check? What kind of traps are we talking about, here? Do you have any comments on Belbarrus's examples?

 

[NPC]

I'd actually lilke to to see a quote from the rules which states that failing a Search check triggers the trap . . .

 

[DarkMaster]

I'd actually lilke to to see a quote from the rules which states that failing a Search check triggers the trap . . .

me too

 

[glass]

I'd actually lilke to to see a quote from the rules which states that failing a Search check triggers the trap . . .

There isn't one, and I never said there was. You are constructing straw man arguments.

If being in position to search for a trap sets if off, why do they even get one Search check?

Well, the rules only imply that you get one, so one could argue that you don't, but I think that would be a little tough on the players.

What kind of traps are we talking about, here?

The kind the original poster asked about. The kind of large scale traps that go off if anyone walks into the trigger square.

Do you have any comments on Belbarrus's examples?

He scans the floor visually, then moves some moss/mud aside to reveal a pressure plate, which he purposely activates by pushing down on it with the stick.

But here we are talking about a much smaller trigger than a whole 5 ft square. Not sure how I would handle it, but this definitely would be in house rule territory, because the rules do not cover it (unless I have missed something).


glass.

EDIT: Really fixed quotes