Rogues v. Traps

I think it is just a 1e/2e mindset that some DMs will not let go of -- those good old days where the player can anticipate exactly where the trap is but his PC gets to walk on it because the Rogue failed his 65% change of Finding Traps.

The Take 10 and Take 20 rules work very well. It is the logical consequence of the skill system that, time allowing, a character will be 100% effective at certain tasks.

A show of hands please for everyone out there in ENWorld who rolled a natural one on their Get Out of Bed roll this morning and fell flat on their face... I thought so.

Saying it is more "fun" to guarantee Search attempts fail is a totally phoney baloney argument. The fun traps are the ones you locate and you are not sure you dare attempt to disable...

Is this a real problem? Has anyone actually seen the game become unfun because of Take 20? Or does the DM just feel cheated because one of the PCs is competent at its class specialty?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian said:
Um, yes, I think you have ...

(PH 3.5 pg. 81)

To search an area for a proximity trigger, you don't have to be in the square. You don't generally have to be in an adjacent square. (Subject to line of sight, etc.) From 10' away, you can make as many Search rolls as you like trying to detect a proximity-triggered trap and stand no chance whatsoever of setting it off ...

Yes, I spotted that as soon as I logged off, went home and cracked open my PHB. So there was a house rule involved in my ruling, just not the one you guys were suggesting.

Interesting, right after the paragraph with that sentence in, the first example it gives is ransacking a chest. From 10 ft away? Really?


glass.
 

If a rogue just checks the points he thinks that "may contain trap", his party can walk most of the dungeon corridors at their local movement speed (say, hustling at 40ft. per round, or 400 ft. per minute).

If a rogue checks every 5 ft. squares of the dungeon corridors (maybe taking 10), assuming those corridors are 10 ft. in width, they can walk at 5 ft. per 2 rounds, or 25 ft. per minute.

If a rogue checks every 5 ft. squares of the same dungeon corridors and always taking 20, they can walk at 5 ft. per 40 rounds, or 5 ft. per 4 minute.

Of course it is much safer to spend enough time to find traps. But spending much time may cause a lot of trouble such as found (or heard) by guards or encountering a bunch of wondering monsters. And PCs relying on buff-spells want not to spend much time between important encounters.

That is all players choice IMHO. Time is the key. Let PCs do whichever way they want.
 

Belbarrus said:
Right, but the whole idea of "searching" for a trap is to find the trigger *before* walking into the trigger square. You are stating that one cannot search for a trap unless they actually walk into the trigger area. Which is like saying that someone cannot recognize that they walked into a house, until they were actually in the house.

For example, let's say a door opens to a 20'x20' room. The whole floor is the lid to a pit trap. If a Rogue searches the floor from the doorway, they could notice signs such as the seam of the lid or scratch marks or that the floor slightly dips in the center. These are clues the Rogue is trained to look for (hence Trapfinding being a special ability limited to the Rogue class) *without* having to actually step onto the floor. If the Rogue *failed* to find the trap, the trap does not *just go off* for no reason. It would still only activate when someone stepped on the floor. Also, even if you DID state that the person had to walk onto the floor to check for traps, the ACT of searching is *not* what triggers the trap, it is the act of 'walking onto the floor'.

Hope that makes more sense.

Let me explain my reasoning (which I now have to accept is not supported by the letter of the rules):

Our (normal medium size or small) rogue comes to search a particular square for traps. He starts in the next square, and can reach a foot, maybe two, into the square. So he searches the first foot or two, then has to move forward, into the square, before he can complete his search of it. As soon as he does that, the trap goes off.

If he had made his search check, he would have spotted the trap trigger in his initial foot or two of search, before he actually had to step into the square.

Of course, if he was incorporeal, too light or too short to set off the trap, had reach (with eyes at the end of his reach, like a sharn), or searching using mage hand and wizard eye from 100 ft away, he could take 20 to his hearts content.

All of which is consistent with the description of the search skill as a careful and details examination.

glass.
 

Btw: Could someone explain to me how a rogue can find a trap with a proximity trigger? I mean, that trap shoots a fireball if the rogue enters a certain area... but he's still far away from the trap?

Same for the Alarm spell... how can the rogue find it without triggering it?
 

Ridley's Cohort said:
The fun traps are the ones you locate and you are not sure you dare attempt to disable...

Rogue: "Well, there's some kind of trap here. Near as I can figure, that stone is on top of a pressure plate that attaches to a wire running into... crap, some kind of box. I was always bad at wire/box traps. So I don't know. I could give it a shot, but I say we just send the gnome in first."
 

The biggest problem/complaint/hang-up I have with 3E is that it tries to be *too* consistent. People have started treating it like a big Magic game...where the rules always work, all the time, always the same way...

In this debate, it sure seems to me that it is (in general) allowed to take 20 on a search check for traps. OTOH, it isn't *always* going to work that way. Some traps may be such that I decide that taking 20 is no longer an option. (of course, I would handle that aspect secretly...but details aren't really needed of that.)

We are smart enough people that we can create scenarios that will make any set of rules seem inappropriate.... but that is not the point.

.
 

I think one really has to consider the balance considerations of not allowing rogues to Take 20. Changing this around is a BIG deal. Consider, for instance the insane search DCs of most magic traps. Take an eigth level rogue with maxed search skill and decent INT: They have about +14 on their search checks. As listed in the DMG, we have a CR8 Destruction trap with a search DC of 32. Considering that the average D20 die roll is going to be 10.5, we see that our rogue has virtually NO chance of detecting it without taking 20.

"So make a DC:20 fort save. If you're LUCKY you get to take 10d6 damage." Also a particular party favorite are CR10 Mordenkainen's Disjunction traps...minimum save DC of 23.
 
Last edited:

I posted on this subject on page two, and I some of the assertions I made were a little off. Take it as a good example of not researching your post before you make it. Sorry :(

I took a little time to look over the relevent sections, and have some observations:

1) The search skill does not have a try again listing. This means you get ONE chance to search for something. IMO you should be allowed to search again if you have new information or the situation has changed enough to allow a new try. Example: Thief says, "The door's not trapped." Fighter steps up and turns the knob. Poisoned darts fly out and hit the fighter. Thief says, "Oops! Let me look again!"

2) Taking twenty requires that the person performing the check is under "no threats or distractions" (PHB pg 65) and that "the skill being attempted carries no penalties for failure, ..." (ditto). This seems pretty clear, but every GM needs to think about the following:
a) Could you ever call a dungeon enviroment free from threats or distractions? What with monsters potentially around the next corner, and the posibility that the next floor tile is trapped and you may not find it? I think that anyone would be a little roughed up about these things, and concentration may be a little off.
b) While there is no penalty for failing a search check, there is a penalty for not finding one. If I fail to find a trap in the next 5ft square, my failure has no immediate consequences. But when I take my next step... :eek: This goes to the explict/implict nature of the rules. There is no explicit penalty for failing a search check, but there is a pretty big implicit one. This may not be enough to qualify as a penalty for failing under the rules, but, IMO, may go toward 2a above as a distraction/threat.

These rule considerations aside, I have a dilike of allowing thieves to take 20 on something I feel is a dangerous job. I understand that finding traps can be difficult, but I have some suggestions to lessen the difficulty without resorting to taking 20.

1) Most traps in a living dungeon will have been set off at some point in the past. Wandering monsters and opposing factions in the dungeon would have set the traps off a couple of times before learning to avoid the area. This will probably have left some telltale signs, especially in the case of the more dangerous magical ones. Blacken walls point to a fire or electrical trap, a lack of dust on the floor is a good sign of a pit trap, etc. I give thieves a spot check to see if they get a 'weird feeling' about an area, with the DC determined by the obviousness of effects of a previously triggered trap. Forewarned is forearmed.
2) Circumstance bonuses. This is a bit of a house rule, but only because I disagree with the GM being able to only provide a bonus of +2 or lowering the DC by 2. I ask the thief how he will go about search the area for traps. How much time will he take? Will he take special precautions? For each thing the thief does that would lead to locating the trap, I give a +2 bonus to the roll. This gets more toward roleplaying and away from roll-playing.
Example 1:
Thief: I'm going to search the door for traps.
GM: How are you going about it. (DC for trap is 23)
Thief: I'm just going to roll. (search of 10)
GM: OK. (Rolls a 10. adds bonus for a 20) Nope, nothing.

Example 2:
Thief: I'm going to search the door for traps.
GM: How are you going about it? (DC for trap is 23)
Thief: I'm pretty sure the door is trapped, so I'm going to take my time. Say a full minute? (+2 bonus for taking time) And since we saw scorch marks in the hallway, I'm going to sniff the doorway for the smell fo brimstone fo something, and if its electrical, I'm going to pass the back of my hand over the doorway and watch for the hairs on the back of my hand to stand up. (+2 for using a smart approach with evidence at hand). I have a search of +10.
GM: OK. (rolls a 10. adds bonuses for a 24) You smell the distinct odor of achelchemist's fire coming from a series of hidden holes in the doorframe. The knob seems to have an extra catch built in that appears to activate the trap.

This gives players an incentive for getting into their role in the game.

I hope this gives GMs something to think about, and, I hope, some illumination on the subject. :)
 


Remove ads

Top