Rogues v. Traps

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.)

I would agree with that sentiment. I strongly believe that, in general, the Take 20 mechanics work. I also believe we have DMs to not only enforce the rules, but to bend them for good reason.

That said, the mere fact the Rogue is competent at his trade is not a good enough reason to bend the rules.

If you muck the Search mechanics you run real risk that the Rogue will become one of the least competent classes for dealing with traps. Why? Because the big hit point high Fort classes can walk right into most traps with no real risk. Why not play a Barbarian or Cleric for those dungeon crawls if the DM refuses to let the Rogue defeat level appropriate traps?

 

[Yokiboy]

What you'll find is that most parties (a) have members with decent Search check numbers split up most rooms for a cursory (one-roll) once-over, and (b) have rogues take 20 to Search specifically obvious sites for traps/secrets. When your locked treasure chests are trapped, the rogue will spend two minutes examining it and conclude that it's definitely trapped. So what? This is 'not fun' only if your idea of 'fun' is to never let characters demonstrate their superiority at their areas of expertise. A party with a cleric will handle undead with relative ease [barring the cleric being a dwarf with an 8 Charisma-voice of experience], a party with a bard will glide through social situations, and a party with a rogue will rarely have big problems with traps. Deal.

Actually Christian, I'm with Darklone, but my reason might be different. I simply don't like Take 20 because it's dull and boring. Plus players like to roll dice, not know that they will succeed at a given DC based on their skill level plus 20. The boring part also affects me as the DM, since I know beforehand exactly what DC trap the party's rogue will be able to find and the element of chance is taken out of the equation.

I'm not a big fan of Take 20, but like it for things such as searching a library for clues, or what have you.

TTFN,

Yokiboy

 

[Yokiboy]

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.

Hey it happens, but please don't make me explain...

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...

This is an excellent point, and one I will keep in mind. I am about to unleash a labyrinth full of traps on my party, and this will keep me focused on the good stuff, thanks.

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?

Nope, but my players hate Take 20, because they feel it's boring to know how well you perform prior to performing the task. There's just no chance of error, that last minute sneeze or hick-up that makes you jump, twitch or whatever. Simply put boring. My party's rogue just doesn't like the fact that the other players get to roll dice, while he gets to say "I take 20..."

TTFN,

Yokiboy

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by Ovinomancer

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.

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... 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.

Except that on page 65 of the PH it gives an example of taking 20 using the search skill.

The barbarian in the example in the PH could use search to find a simple trap (Page 81 of the PH "anyone can use Search to find a trap whose DC is 20 or lower"). If the threat of not finding a simple tripping chain trap (DMG pg 71, Search DC:15) that may or may not be present (the barbarian doesn't know) was a enough of a distraction that he couldn't take 20 or if the failure to find said trap was actually a penalty for failure as defined by the take 20 rules then they would not have created an example showing how a character can take 20 while searching.

The problem, as I see it, for some DMs is the on/off nature of take 20 with the search skill. The DC the DM sets will either allow the rogue to always or never find the trap (If the rogue searches in the right place). I don't see this as a problem. The chance and excitement comes into play when disabling or bypassing the trap (where the rogue can't take 20). If you want to add an element of chance in the finding of the trap in the first place, use a floating DC. Set a base DC with a +/- variable that is rolled everytime the rogue searches for that particular trap. So set the pit trap DC at 22 and roll a d10. If an even # is rolled add #/2 to the DC. I an odd # is rolled subtract #/2 (round down) from the DC. There you have it - a bit of random chance that doesn't always penalize the player.

 

[DarkMaster]

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

Because people don't have the same interpretation as yours it doesn't mean they didn't research

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!"

Basically you are saying there is no difference between searching a 5x5 area 6 seconds and 2 minutes. You are pretty good, in 6 seconds you can be sure that there are no secret door, no trap, no nothing.

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... 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.

a) if the rogue ass is well covered by the fighters of the group he can easily focus on the taks without worrying about getting his ass bitten by random monster. If a fight would occur nearby then agree he could not take 20 because now there are full distraction and risks.

b)the risk you are talking about the next tile is like I cannot take ten to drive my car because I might have an accident.

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.

The difficult job is disarming it.

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

All that is part of a thief taking its time to see all those details therefore taking 20.

I still don't understand how you can say that in 6 seconds you can see all that can be seen in a 5x5 area. you could make a great carrer in the police

 

[Spatula]

There's just no chance of error, that last minute sneeze or hick-up that makes you jump, twitch or whatever. Simply put boring. My party's rogue just doesn't like the fact that the other players get to roll dice, while he gets to say "I take 20..."

It's not like the rogue doesn't have to roll to disarm the trap (if one is found). Barring Skill Mastery, of course.

 

[Christian]

1) The search skill does not have a try again listing. This means you get ONE chance to search for something.

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

Try Again:... If this paragraph is omitted, the skill can be retried without any inherent penalty, other than the additional time required. (PH 3.5 pg. 66)

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, ..."

Taking 20: ... Common "take 20" skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search. (PH 3.5 pg. 65)

If you fail a Search check, you're in no worse a situation than if you hadn't tried it. This is not a 'penalty for failure'-just a lack of a 'bonus for success'. And if a character in a dungeon is never free of threats of distractions, then they can't take 20 or take 10 on any skill.

House-rule it how you like, but the rules are clear that retries and taking 20 are allowed for Search checks.

 

[Christian]

Nope, but my players hate Take 20, because they feel it's boring to know how well you perform prior to performing the task. There's just no chance of error, that last minute sneeze or hick-up that makes you jump, twitch or whatever. Simply put boring. My party's rogue just doesn't like the fact that the other players get to roll dice, while he gets to say "I take 20..."

The best way to deal with that is to add some time-pressure to your scenarios. Your trap-filled labyrinth is bound to inspire some excessive caution; add some spice with pursuing monsters, or a valued NPC in a time-delay deathtrap at the center of the maze. Or maybe the maze is slowly flooding ... when the water gets to about waist-high, they'll be less concerned with being absolutely sure they're not walking into a trap and more concerned with making sure they're walking out of one.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Because people don't have the same interpretation as yours it doesn't mean they didn't research



I was refering to myself on my first post to this topic way back on page two. I would never accuse someone with a differing opinion of not doing research unless I could prove it. I'm sorry if you misunderstood, but perhaps you jumped a little soon.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Good catch Christian, once again, I failed to research properly.

As far as having to take 20 to notice everything, the rules seem to support that you can do all this in 6 seconds anyway. My main problem is that a careful search, ie taking 20, allows a thief with good ranks in search to always find a trap in his CR range. Ask the fighter if he can beat every enemy in his CR range. That's my core problem with taking 20. In my most recent post, I never said that the rules didn't allow for taking 20 with search, in fact I said it was 'pretty clear.' I just provided some things to think about in relation to it. Call them houserules and accuse my of being in the wrong thread, but I thought they needed saying.

To reiterate: IMO the rules state that you can take 20 on search checks. Everything else was just my way of disagreeing and providing a logical, I thought, way of handling things differently.