Running the Tomb of Horrors in 3.5

[Philotomy Jurament]

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

This seems key. Ask the player how he's searching, and modify the DC based on that. If he's performing a visual search from a distance, and the trap wouldn't be easily detected that way, modify his DC. If his description of how he's searching would set off the trap, then he sets off the trap.

Here's the writeup for the 3.5 version of one trap, and my comments (SPOILERS - highlight to read):

Spoiler

NOTE: The room description says the ceiling is 20' overhead and composed of 'badly fitting stones,' but is obscured by hanging strands/cobwebs.

Trap: If the roof (composed of badly fitting stones) is prodded with any force, or if the doors at the far end of the passageway are opened (onto a blank wall), the tunnel roof collapses.
Built-to-Collapse Ceiling: CR 10; mechanical; location trigger; no reset; no attack roll required (16d6, crush); multiple targets (all targets in a 20-ft.-by-20-ft. area); never miss (but DC 23 Reflex for half damage); Search DC 24; Disable Device DC 24.

I don't run d20, but here's how I'd approach it if I did. If the PCs conduct a visual search without burning away the webs, first, I'd modify the DC to make it more difficult (or maybe just impossible, depending on the how obscured the ceiling is). If the strands are removed, I'd give a bonus to a dwarf, based on his knowledge of stone construction. If a PC examines the ceiling closely with a visual search (fly, levitate), I'd give them a bonus. The DC as written would apply to a visual search with the webs removed; even a low level thief or dwarf that takes 20 would be really suspicious after a good look at that ceiling of ill-fitted stones.

I wouldn't allow a 'disable device' on this trap at all. IMO, that's for stuff like poison needles on springs, clockwork devices, and such, not collapsing ceilings. I'd only apply disable device to a large/construction trap if the PCs had located and could access something 'device-like' in the mechanism or trigger.

All that said, my preference would be to junk the 'search skill' approach and play the Tomb based mainly on descriptive search and actions. (Actually, I use the rules from OD&D[1974] or Holmes, where Thieves don't have "find traps" ability -- only "remove traps.")

 

[VirgilCaine]

Personally, the Tomb is memorable for the unique individual rooms and challenges, not the sort of traps you see elsewhere in other dungeons.

 

[roguerouge]

I did a thread on taking twenty earlier http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=205730. Searching for traps was not one of them. (You could take 10 on that skill, though.)

As was said previously, taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task.

The OP asked about how to fix taking 20 on search in this module. At the very least, a poster proves that there's good reason to argue that you can't take 20. Why would you strongly resist his argument, rather than say that that's one way to rule, here's another possible solution?

The list to follow is based on the assumption that you're not in combat, threatened, under a time crunch, or distracted:

Take 20 Skills:
* Gather Information (takes 20d4+20 hours and you draw attention to yourself)
* Handle Animals (not for rearing animals though)
* Listen (to an ongoing sound over 2 minutes)
* Open Locks (2 minutes)
* Search (2 minutes per 5' square, can't take 20 to look for traps)
* Sleight of Hand (when you have 2 minutes to hide something on your
body, for example)
* Spellcraft (2 minutes: to determine school of magic from aura while
using detect magic, and to identify materials created or shaped by
magic by looking at them normally; 20 days: decipher written spell
without using read magic)
* Spot (if you have 2 minutes to look for something you can't search)

 

[PeelSeel2]

I would rule that you cannot take 20 on searching for anything. The act of taking 20 implies failures. Failures, with search checks, have a negative consequence. Failure on a search check means that character fails to notice/find something, which is detrimental. If it is not finding the hidden treasure chest or finding the secret door, failure implies your character believes it is not their (and it may not in fact be their!).

Take a 40' long hallway with a dead end. In one scenario, their is a secret door at the end, in the other their is not. In the first scenario, the characters search for secret doors, and they fail to find it. They do not think a door is their. If they where allowed to take 20, it implies they go through repetitive failures of "it's not here, it's not here, oh wait, it's their suddenly!" In the second scenario they take 20 and get a bunch of failures "it's not here, it's not here, oh wait, it's not their!".

The two scenarios point something out. When a character fails to find what he/she is looking for, the character is convinced it is not their. Therefore, they cannot take 20.

In performing search checks I would rule how the characters describe they are searching will get bonuses to the roll. In the Village of Homlett, the characters had just defeated the bandit chief. The Bandit chief had hidden a chest of treasure under the rubble. Now the characters did not know it was their, they where just doing standard search checks to see if they could find something. It had a high search difficulty and normally the characters would have to get real lucky to find it. The player with the rogue said, however, "If I was a successful bandit chief and I had to hide my money from my men and interlopers, but I also need it fairly accessible instead of a pain in the butt to get to, where would I hide it being a sneaky person who thinks like that?" To him, I gave a +10 circumstance bonus. If it would have been a class other than a rogue who came up with the reasoning, I would have given a +5.

Along the same lines, I would rule you cannot take 20 on a spot check.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Whether it's by the RAW or not, if my players started using rules technicalities to say taking 20 on Search checks can't set off traps, I'd simply tell them hogwash, look what just happened to your character.

If you want the ease and certainty of taking 20, then I'd say you run the risk of setting off any trap that the taking 20 wasn't good enough to find. Maybe it wouldn't be automatic or maybe it would. But I certainly wouldn't let some smug rules lawyer totally neuter the threat of traps in what is otherwise a deathtrap dungeon.

 

[Glyfair]

If you want the ease and certainty of taking 20, then I'd say you run the risk of setting off any trap that the taking 20 wasn't good enough to find. Maybe it wouldn't be automatic or maybe it would. But I certainly wouldn't let some smug rules lawyer totally neuter the threat of traps in what is otherwise a deathtrap dungeon.

I would have no problems with this, as long as you tell the players in advance that you rule it that way. By the RAW, Disable Device has a chance of setting off the trap, but Search doesn't (after all, searching can just be looking without moving anything). Punishing players for assuming the rules work as written is almost always a bad thing in my experience.

 

[GlassJaw]

Whether it's by the RAW or not, if my players started using rules technicalities to say taking 20 on Search checks can't set off traps, I'd simply tell them hogwash, look what just happened to your character.

Since when is using the RAW a technicality? :\

As Glyfair stated perfectly, just keep in mind that changing the Search take 20 rules is a house rule and therefore should be explained to everyone beforehand.

 

[Squire James]

It seems to me that Search has a pretty direct consequence for failure: the user of the skill is convinced the thing being searched for isn't there. The consequence may not have a direct physical effect, but it certainly has a mental one. So, IMO, you cannot take 20 on a most Search checks. I'd generally disallow retries unless the target changes.

"I search for needle traps." (failure)
"Nope."

"I search for pressure plates." (success)
"No."

"I search for pit traps."
"I'd call that the same as a pressure plate. You already know there aren't any."

"I search for teleportation traps, especially ones that change gender and spit someone out that Sphere of Annhilation near the entrance." (success)
"Bingo! Now roll to disarm it!"

"Is it blocking our way out of this room?"
"No."

"Then I don't touch it!"
"Spoilsport."

The above is perfectly okay. While it resembles a "take 20" in many ways, it's actually a player looking at the same spot for many different things. And a lot more fun...

 

[GlassJaw]

The above is perfectly okay. While it resembles a "take 20" in many ways, it's actually a player looking at the same spot for many different things. And a lot more fun...

But now you are requiring player knowledge for character knowledge. How is the player going to know all the possible types of traps? Heck, this also would eliminate the chance for the character to find a trap he has never encountered before. No, I'd say that's a pretty poor implementation of the Search skill.

 

[Celebrim]

But now you are requiring player knowledge for character knowledge. How is the player going to know all the possible types of traps? Heck, this also would eliminate the chance for the character to find a trap he has never encountered before. No, I'd say that's a pretty poor implementation of the Search skill.

While I agree with your assessment of the particular implementation, I think that there are times when it is fine to test player skill and inventiveness. In particular, taking the notion that character skill should solve every problem, while realistic as a simulation, is rather pointless as a game.