Rogues v. Traps

[Kichwas]

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

Exactly:

PHB Page 72, under Disable Device:
If you fail by 5 or more something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you spring it.

PHB Page 81, under Search:
No such equivalent entry.

PHB Page 65 under take 20:
...if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that caries penalties for failure (for instance, a Disable Device check to disarm a trap), your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task (in this case, the character would most likely set off the trap). Common "take 20" skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

From the above we know that you can take 20 to search, and that failing search does not set off traps - disable device does.


As to the idea that a Rogue's vision is not good enough to spot those super hidden traps - it is. That's why only rogues can spot trap DCs above 20, and even that only if they have the ranks to do it. Ranks that represent special training and a different paradigm of thought and action than others possess.

As to the effect this has on play - it only lets the rogue -find- the trap. It does not guarantee she can disable it. Just ask Lidda (as seen on page 85 of the PHB). Having a Rogue on staff lets you avoid going around blind - but it does not ensure safety. The challenge of a trap is still there, it's just different.

In fact I would wager it's more challenging when you know the trap is there. Once you know it's present you have to come up with a plan. You have to either outroll or outthink it. When you don't know all a trap represents is random wandering hit point loss. While that's annoying and even threatening, it's not a challenge.

 

[Christian]

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.

Fair enough. There are certainly some good strategies for a DM to reasonably disallow or discourage taking 20 on Search checks. My personal experience is that the game is more fun for both DM and players when that is the exception rather than the rule ...

 

[shilsen]

As to the idea that a Rogue's vision is not good enough to spot those super hidden traps - it is. That's why only rogues can spot trap DCs above 20, and even that only if they have the ranks to do it. Ranks that represent special training and a different paradigm of thought and action than others possess.

As to the effect this has on play - it only lets the rogue -find- the trap. It does not guarantee she can disable it. Just ask Lidda (as seen on page 85 of the PHB). Having a Rogue on staff lets you avoid going around blind - but it does not ensure safety. The challenge of a trap is still there, it's just different.

In fact I would wager it's more challenging when you know the trap is there. Once you know it's present you have to come up with a plan. You have to either outroll or outthink it. When you don't know all a trap represents is random wandering hit point loss. While that's annoying and even threatening, it's not a challenge.

I completely agree. Last time I played a PC it was an elven ranger/rogue with phenomenal search scores. He would usually just take 10 on search rolls, only stopping to take 20 when he figured it was very likely that there was a trap (dealing with a locked chest in a powerful evil mage's room, etc.). It saved a lot of time during the game with not having to roll. And there were more than enough times when he would find a trap, take 10 on a Disable Device check and fail to disarm it, and the party would try to come up with a clever way to circumvent it rather than risk him trying to disable it and failing.

 

[Kichwas]

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.

In fact that's kind of how it plays out in my game:

Ranger: Come on man, they're back there... I can hear the drums... hurry it up will you?
Cleric: Perhaps we are fated to...
Rogue: Stuff it guys, this is art, and art takes time.
Barbarian: Tharnak bored, Tharnak find trap. Move aside little one.

Party: No! wait...

Barbarian: Tharnak open door.
<BOOM!>
Soot covered Barbarian: See. There's no trap here.
Half Dead Rogue: Not anymore at least...
Crispy Cleric: Fate has intervened...

Though of course, this isn't from me house ruling out take 20, but merely the players own tactics.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

If he's prepared for them, yes, he can. But that's not really important.

If a thief takes 20 on a trap, then he almost KNOWS the trap is right there, in that square. I honestly can't imagine a thief player taking 20 if he's not pretty certain there are traps about.

I suppose if you knew there was a trap somewhere you could always just have someone or something else set it off and then pass safely, rather than messing about with having a thief.

IOW, search isn't even all that good, even when taking 20. Summon monster I is a dime-a-dozen...

 

[James McMurray]

Ask the fighter if he can beat every enemy in his CR range.

He can't automatically beat every enemy of his CR. But if the GM puts them there he can most definitely fight them. All making your search check means is that you get a chance to fight (disarm) the enemy (trap).

How often do creatures spring out of nowhere, hit the fighter, and then leave. Are these foes also immune to sneak attacks and highly resistant to magic? If it is often, then a situation has been created where there is a foe that the fighter is the only one capable of defeating (not unlike a trap for a rogue) but all he can do is take the damage and hope it doesn't kill him, because he cannot find the foe to fight him (not unlike a rogue unable to take 20 with search).

 

[DarkMaster]

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.

Sorry, the thread is too long can keep track of everything. I actually jumped too soon.

 

[Ovinomancer]

S'okay.

 

[Spatula]

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.

Finding the trap is not beating the trap. A rogue needs disable device to beat the trap, and he/she can't take 20 on that roll.