Running the Tomb of Horrors in 3.5

[Creamsteak]

You are confusing the issue and not understanding the implications of taking 20.

Taking 20 to search does not require the rogue to get any closer to the trap to set it off. Taking 20 to search does not risk triggering the trap you've chosen at all.

Look at another fairly obvious example: The same trap, but with a DC of a billion. The rogue searches, taking 20. Nothing happens. He was just searching. Now he can choose to get closer to the trap, or he can choose to go home. If he goes home, nothing happens.

 

[pogre]

I really do think the Tomb losing saomething in 3.5 due to the considerations/arguments above. Why not run it with the original rules? Afterall, the module was always more about the players than their characters.

 

[Crothian]

For us the 3.5 version killed off more PCs (3) then when I ran the original (zero deaths). I found the new version to be just fine. It made the players scared of what was coming and made them think as the encounters are creative and way different from the usual dungeon crawl experience.

 

[Lidgar]

I think the arguments above are reflective of the different versions of the game. Before 3.0, searching was a more more iterative process between the player and DM. The player would typically not only have to tell the DM where, but how he was searching, and what he was searching for (remember, we had to use Find Traps or search for Secret Doors). Now the typical 3+ session is pick a square and take 20, see what you find (although most DM still require the PC to state what they are looking for specifically with a particular search roll). I do think Tomb of Horrors Redux can be done in 3.5 if you integrate more specific requirements on the PC's - the "what" and "how". Encourage the players to rely less on simple skill check rolls and more on creativity and descriptive process on what they are doing, and I believe it may improve the experience.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I really feel that searching should get a new mechanic in 4E. Being able to take 20 reduces searching to a certainty.. the DM knows the PC search skill, so he either sets a search DC high enough that taking 20 won't get it (in which case why bother with putting the treasure in the adventure at all), or the PCs automatically find the items, assuming they clear out the lair and have plenty of time to search. Searching is really only interesting from a gamist perspective in time-critical situations.

It was more of a matter of luck and player skill in earlier editions. In my opinion, 4E should try to capture this element in some way.

3E compounds the problem with the character wealth by level guidelines. A player can't expect to get lucky and find better loot with a high search skill, because the 3E design paradigm dictates that a low level character can never get lucky and make a huge score , and conversely that a party should expect to have a certain amount of wealth at each level, regardless of how good it is at searching. So, assuming that the GM is adhering to these guidelines , searching becomes rather meaningless.

Ken

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

You are confusing the issue and not understanding the implications of taking 20.

Taking 20 to search does not require the rogue to get any closer to the trap to set it off. Taking 20 to search does not risk triggering the trap you've chosen at all.

Look at another fairly obvious example: The same trap, but with a DC of a billion. The rogue searches, taking 20. Nothing happens. He was just searching. Now he can choose to get closer to the trap, or he can choose to go home. If he goes home, nothing happens.

Actually, I'm not confusing the issue at all. It might come down to DM preference, which is why I said you're mileage may vary. However, allowing a player a Search of, say... a trapped lock from 10 ft. away is absurd and why I say that "in general" is exactly that; in general, Each case varies. For my trapped lock example, there's just no way for a PC to eyeball a 1/2" keyhole from 10 ft. away and say, "Yep, that puppy's trapped!" I would call for that PC to get up on that thing and look a lot closer. Maybe I'm just a RBDM that way. Dunno.

And, yes, I agree that Search could have been more spelled out in v.3.X. As it is, it leaves far too much room for interpretational differences like the one we're having now.

 

[Jin_Kataki]

I have always looked at search as hands on and spot as visual. So if I were DM and I know this is prolly not by the books rules. I would say taking 20 on a search to find traps whose DC's are higher than 20 could risk setting off said trap. If running an encounter like Tomb of Horrors I would house rule that when taking 20 on search checks you still need to role a d20 , not sure right now what a fair DC would be, but on a success it means you did not fail at any point during the time period it took you to completely search that area. If you fail that means that even thought you took 20 at some point during that extended period of time you messed with something you shouldn't and triggered the trap. Not however the DC for taking the 20 would not be the same as the DC for finding the trap. I am thinking something like DC 10. This keeps some of the benefit of taking 20 without making it abused as an automatic success. Another alternative would be to house rule right off the bat when running this module that you will inform the party when to make a search for traps and taking 20 won't be available. Explain though that while you will always let them know when to make a search check around traps sometimes you will also be asking them when there is not really a trap there. This will keep them guessing. Did I not find a trap cause it isn't there or did I not find it cause I missed the DC?

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Fortunatley my group didn't have a rogue with many ranks in search when I ran it for 3.5, so they had to rely on their wits.

 

[Eidalac]

Personally, a player wanting to take 20 on a search check for something like a trap can do it one of 2 ways:

The first way is a 'brute search', a slow and through search of a 5' square, taking about 20 minutes.

The second way is to RP it (using poles, sacks, etc.). This takes the standard amount of time.

So, in essence, you can take 20x the time, or 20x the effort. Unless they like to take all day to move through one room, it won't take long for the players to opt to do things the creative way.

 

[ThirdWizard]

With my above example, taking 20 to Search for a pressure plate, would entail the following:

Pressure plate in a 5-ft. square that activates a swinging pendulum trap when stepped on.
The Search DC is 30.
Rogue with a +anything modifier (even +20) takes 20 to Search that square. By the rules, taking 20 means that you will automatically fail before you succeed. Thus, the rogue takes a look from 10 ft. away, sees nothing... gets up to 5 ft. away... sees nothing... gets right up to the trap... thinks maybe there's something peculiar... Searches each part of that square inch by inch as he scoots forward, but still nothing until BAM! he is right on top of the pressure plate and activates the trap before having a success. Swing.... slash! Badly wounded or dead rogue.
That's how I see it. YMMV.

Remember that taking 20 is just a shorthand for rolling until a natural 20 is rolled. So there's no mechanical difference betweeen taking 20 and rolling (besides rolling having a random time component).

You can Take 20 without leaving a square. The real example should be: The rogue stands in one square with a trap in the adjacent square. If the rogue takes 20 then he spends 2 minutes checking for traps. At the end of that time, you check the DC against 20+modifier. If the rogue doesn't take 20 and just rolls the d20, say, 40 times, he just keeps rolling, over and over again, until getting succeeding or failing.

There's no chance of setting off the traps.