Search and taking 20: the problem

[Majere]

Majere, I'll do you one better. Instead of your elaborate mechanical trap, I'll have a magical trap set to go off under the same circumstances as your mechanical trap, i.e. Cloudkill spell is cast in an airtight room once someone opens the door. The Search DC for a magic trap is 25+spell level or CR 30 in this case. If there are *any* traces of the spell, e.g. glowing runes, etc., they are on the other side of the door.

Tell me what you would do in the case of the mundane trap and the magical trap when the rogue PC says, "I search the door for traps. I take 20 because the Search skill has no 'Try Again' paragraph, and the rules say that if the 'Try Again' paragraph is omitted, the skill can be retried without any inherent penalty, other than the additional time required."

1) When did a stick on a table count as "elaborate" ?
How is it "elaborate" compared to most lock devices let alone the traps placed upon them

2) I wouldnt do that because the rogue has no chance.
Just because I COULD do it, doesnt means I will, I would look at your trap and never EVER write it into my campeign. Traps are highly specific situations and the DMG could never cover them all, so you have to use your own DM judgement for EACH AND EVERY ONE. In this case I would rule that as the rogue cant detect it its not a trap its just "hand of the DM" and not put it in.

OR
I would play the same as above, same DC, everything.
Except this time, when the rogue makes the search roll, instead of saying:
"As you carefully open the door to feel a slight change in the resistance, it feels like there is something on the side pressed to the opposite face."
I might say
"As you place your hands on the door you notice one or two of the hairs on the back of your hand stand up even thought you feel nothing; you get the feeling there is some magic on the door, possibly on the other side"

All I had to do was change the description of what alerted the rogue AFTER he intereacted with the trap.

Further
How exactly is the rogue going to disarm the trap you propose even if you let him detect it through the door. The runes are on the other side, so how can he possibly disarm them ?
I think you will find that in most of the cases I would advocate that you CANT take 20, you also cant disarm the trapfrom where you happen to be standing. The two often go hand in hand.

I hope that answers your qustion to your satisfaction
Majere

 

[Black Knight Irios]

First Majere I would maybe rule as a DM that the Rogue has to touch the door, in order to find any of the traps, the magical or the mechanic, but I still would not endanger him by telling him that he can spring the trap by searching for it.
It's like telling a wizard whoy dispells a magic trap that it could effect him if he dispells it, that's just ways to annoy players and I think it is a way how a DM can show his players how weak they are compared to him and his traps.
BAD IDEA!!!

You tell the Rogue your hairs on the back of the hand are standing, to warn him of the magical trap, it's kinda gettin' about a Six Senth, so first do you know the correct way how Rogues disarm magical traps, no, because it is stated nowhere, so how can you assume that he can't disable the trap without triggering it.
So maybe the Rogue draws some mystic runes on the door that allow him to open the door safely and then he can disarm it completely, but all of my assumptions are based on the Rogue using DD to do that all and I do like that idea pretty much. So a screwed DD check by more than 5 means opening the door triggers the trap.
Where is your problem with that version and I think I can come up with a version for your mechanical trap as well but I don't think that would do any good at all, thinking over traps that can't be detected and such ways of explaining how to allow a Rogue to find them without triggering it but still allowing T20.

We all have stated our opnions many times and nothing changed them as far as I can see. And I'm tired of telling over and over again my way and my understanding, so we should stop this it's getting boring and it brings nothing new up!!!

 

[drnuncheon]

2) What the rogue CAN see with just his eyes (and thus can find with a T20) is that the door is unusally sealed and impervious to gas.
-> A good rogue will INFER that there is something "wrong" with the door.

In other words, he finds the trap.

He doesn't necessarily know all the details of the trap. He doesn't necessarily know how to disarm it. But he's discovered its existence. Which is really all the Search roll is trying to do. Now he can say 'Hey guys, there's something wrong here,' and try the Disable Device roll to see if he can figure out how to get around it. Maybe it involves putting a probe through to see if the room is currently gas-filled or if it's just something that could happen...then investigating the door to see if it's the trigger mechanism, etc.

"But Doc, how does he know this door is a trap, compared to all of the other sealed, light-and-air-tight doors he encounters?"

This is something the DM needs to keep in mind when he sets the detection difficulty. If every door in the dungeon is like this, then the DC (and the price, and the CR!) should be raised significantly. If the rogue doesn't find it, so be it. If he does, then an explanation needs to be made. Perhaps signs indicate that this door, unlike the other sealed doors, hasn't ever been opened. Or he finds signs left over from the trapmaker testing the trap. (Something which all the 'if it was never set off it would leave signs' people should consider.) There's all kinds of possibilities.

J

 

[Saeviomagy]

Pielorinho Interesting question:

If I state "my character always opens doors and containers very cautiously, always tests the ground in front of his feet for movement before stepping down, and always takes note of the slightest sound", then apart from describing a quite paranoid character - do I automatically find every trap that is set for him without setting it off?

Or would I need spot listen and search skills for that?

 

[Majere]

"He doesn't necessarily know all the details of the trap. He doesn't necessarily know how to disarm it. But he's discovered its existence. "

No he hasnt, he has discovered that there is a sealed door. I can name you 4 things that might be behind the door off the top of my head.
1) A trap
2) A hazard (eg gass filled room)
3) An encounter (eg a gasous monster)
4) Nothing

There is NO way the rogue can know what is behind the door from the construction I described above. You are simply metagaming at this point if you tell me the rogue knows there is a trap from what he SEES.

"But Doc, how does he know this door is a trap, compared to all of the other sealed, light-and-air-tight doors he encounters?"

He doesnt and he cant.
UNTIL HE INTERACTS WITH IT
And with that interaction comes the chance of tripping the trap, ergo no taking 20.

My point is that you have to actually use your brain when writing traps if you want them to be fun and challenging. Without meaning to be rude it sounds as if for alot of people a trap encounter goes:

DM: You see a door
PC: I take 20 to search it
DM: You find a trap
PC: Ill disarm the trap
PC: I get 28
DM: You disarm the trap

Now for me the above is simply lazy and veryvery boring. But it is EXACTLY by the books. I would rather put some effort into thinking about how the trap works and how it is triggered. From that trigger you can quickly ascertain if there is a risk associated with searching for the trap.

"First Majere I would maybe rule as a DM that the Rogue has to touch the door, in order to find any of the traps, the magical or the mechanic, but I still would not endanger him by telling him that he can spring the trap by searching for it.
It's like telling a wizard whoy dispells a magic trap that it could effect him if he dispells it, that's just ways to annoy players and I think it is a way how a DM can show his players how weak they are compared to him and his traps.
BAD IDEA!!!"

Read erase, there is a risk inherant with that spell. Was it a BAD IDEA of the game designers ?
You have already said your rougue is touching the door, what if the door has contact poison that had invisibility and permanency cast on it.. now if the rogue screws up his search roll he is going to get a nasty dose of poison. And you just said yourself he is touching the door so how can you then justify letting him take 20 ?

"If I state "my character always opens doors and containers very cautiously, always tests the ground in front of his feet for movement before stepping down, and always takes note of the slightest sound", then apart from describing a quite paranoid character - do I automatically find every trap that is set for him without setting it off?

Or would I need spot listen and search skills for that?"

Spot is for monsters
Listen applies if there is anything to hear
You stated you are interacting with the door/floor carefully. You always get to make a search roll where appropriate. (In game terms I would assume any rogue was doing this anyway and simply note down their serch skill and roll for them insecret when it is appropriate)

And if you still disagree with me, than that is your perogative. I think if anything this thread proves how stubborn we all are
Id point out that the all the rogue-playing people in my group agree that taking 20 is simply silly when it comes to searching for traps.
YES THE PLAYERS DONT LIKE TAKING 20.
But our group is very heavy on rationalizing situations and less big on playing to the word of rules even when they dont seem to make sense- something that comes with a long term group. I would imagine for other groups (especially new or changing groups) sticking to the letter of the rules is the better option, or simply the one they enjoy playing more.

Majere

 

[Black Knight Irios]

"First Majere I would maybe rule as a DM that the Rogue has to touch the door, in order to find any of the traps, the magical or the mechanic, but I still would not endanger him by telling him that he can spring the trap by searching for it.
It's like telling a wizard whoy dispells a magic trap that it could effect him if he dispells it, that's just ways to annoy players and I think it is a way how a DM can show his players how weak they are compared to him and his traps.
BAD IDEA!!!"

Read erase, there is a risk inherant with that spell. Was it a BAD IDEA of the game designers ?
You have already said your rougue is touching the door, what if the door has contact poison that had invisibility and permanency cast on it.. now if the rogue screws up his search roll he is going to get a nasty dose of poison. And you just said yourself he is touching the door so how can you then justify letting him take 20 ?

Simple example:
Search DC Trap behind the door: 20
Search DC for Trap on the door: 27
the stated numbers are fictive!

My Rogue takes 20 to find a trap so first of all, if he can get a result high enough to find a DC of 27 he will not touch the door, so he finds your contact poison trap first, disarms it and can then safely touch the door.
Would you tell me where I did endanger him. If he can only get 26 on T20 I would tell him that there is a risk of springing a trap he might have missed.
But first of all I dislike those traps you can't find with search, the way it was written and thought of by the rules, so the Rogue would find the trap anyway without touching anything, just from a light tingle in his neck or the like. So if he wants do disable the trap behind the door but hasn't found the poison on the door he will get poisoned anyway, but that has nothing to do with wether he can T20 or not at all!

 

[Pielorinho]

Okay, my big red letters seem to have worked: nobody has since suggested that I'm arguing all traps are passable by a clever player.

Oh, wait:

If I state "my character always opens doors and containers very cautiously, always tests the ground in front of his feet for movement before stepping down, and always takes note of the slightest sound", then apart from describing a quite paranoid character - do I automatically find every trap that is set for him without setting it off?

Or would I need spot listen and search skills for that?

There are some big red letters on the previous page, Saeviomagy; I encourage you to peruse them.

I also encourage you to reread this part of my extended example:

Player: I want to open it a fraction of an inch and peek inside.
DM: Okay. (rolls another search check, looking for a very easy result now that the trap is visible) You do see some sort of mechanism inside....

Even on this trap, in other words, a search check is necessary when approaching it cautiously.

For more evidence, I'll just requote another section of my previous post:

If they'd only had a rogue in the party, they could've erased the symbols one by one -- and when they later faced the prison's guardians, they could've been in much better shape.

Due to the needs of the prison and of the spell's nature, of course, this was a trap with part of its components in view of the intended victims, and I would've certainly allowed visual searching of the doors.

Why is he chopping through anything at all? You miss my point: I'm not talking about finding this in a 'typical barbarian way'. I'm talking about him finding it and disarming it with your 'narrative gameplay' where the skills of the character don't matter.

Would you let him find and disarm the trap if he said the exact same 'right things' as the rogue has to say to do it?

Dcollins, I refer you to the red text above.

It's a bit frustrating when folks are arguing against me without having read my posts.

Tell me what you would do in the case of the mundane trap and the magical trap when the rogue PC says, "I search the door for traps. I take 20 because the Search skill has no 'Try Again' paragraph, and the rules say that if the 'Try Again' paragraph is omitted, the skill can be retried without any inherent penalty, other than the additional time required."]

What would I do? I would say, "First tell me what your character is doing, using no rules references." Assuming they said that they searched the door very carefully, I'd respond to them as I did in the narrative above, but I'd add on a caveat: "Be aware," I'd say, "that you're reading too much protection against harm into that lack of a 'retry' paragraph in the search skill section. We can discuss it further after the game if you'd like, but for now, if I were you I wouldn't base any actions on the assumption either that you can search anything within 10' or that the act of searching itself can never trigger a trap or other unpleasant results."

Majere, I agree with your conclusions about your trap entirely. Good job!

I don't know his objection, but I'll tell you mine: given yoru narrative, it's obvious that someone who out of character, int eh real world, is careful, methodical, and has a grasp of how things might be trapped, will fare veryw ell as a rogue, without even having to invest heavily in the Search skills.

Two responses.
1) The only care and method the person would have to have in my example is enough to open a door slowly. I'm not requiring them to say, "Okay, given the fact that the door is oak, my 3/16" drill bit is going to create the least amount of dust in drilling through the door. I apply 200 pounds of pressure/square inch on my drill bit in order to pierce the door with a hole." Nor am I responding, "Aha! Oak wood splinters under that much pressure, you fool! The cabinet collapses! Ahahahahahaha!" Try not to be melodramatic.
2) To some extent, you're right. I do require that the players in my game have a modicum of common sense, and they don't get to substitute dice rolls for common sense. I will note that you don't like this kind of game, and rescind any express or implied invitation to my gaming table that you may have received.

I don't mean to be overly snarky, but I've said again and again in this thread that different people like different game-styles, and what I've described is a game-style that I and my friends deeply enjoy. I would not like playing in a long-term game in which players regularly tried to substitute dice rolls for common sense: part of the thrill of the game to me is in finding clever solutions to problems.

One of the thrills in a recent game, for example, was convincing three huge rampaging fire elementals to stand down from an attack, playing a character with an 8 cha and no ranks in any social skills. But I spoke ignan and had a phenomenal wisdom, and I bluntly pointed out to the elementals that we were flying while they were landbound, and we could keep casting ice spells on them until the cows came home, and we'd rather not kill them but we could if we had to, and we also had the capability to transport them from the wintry hills they were currently in, to the elemental plane of fire.

If I'd had any diplomacy ranks the job would've been much easier; instead, I relied on playing a high wisdom effectively, setting out an airtight case for their surrender. Great fun for me (and, I think, for the DM, who unexpectedly got to roleplay the personalities of fire elementals).

A different style of play than what you like? That's fine. I'm certainly not telling you how to play your game.

Daniel

 

[drnuncheon]

"But Doc, how does he know this door is a trap, compared to all of the other sealed, light-and-air-tight doors he encounters?"

He doesnt and he cant.
UNTIL HE INTERACTS WITH IT

Yeah, nice. Read the rest of my example. Come back when you're done.

Done? OK. If you read carefully, you'll notice that I said two things:

1) If every door in the dungeon is sealed in this way then the trap is going to be harder to find, and

2) the discovery of the trap still doesn't depend on interacting with the door. My example was the lack of signs that the door had ever been opened, which the rogue could discover by comparing this with all the other sealed doors in the complex, and WITHOUT TOUCHING IT.

Now that we're through shouting past each other, back to the conversation at hand.

To go back to the first point - "he doesn't know it's a trap" - well, note that there is no penalty (except time) for trying a disable device where there is no trap. The "trap" could simply be a door that is sealed air-and-light-tight to make people think that there's a trap - a false trap, if you will. In addition, calling a sealed door with a poison gas behind it a "hazard" rather than a trap is kind of disingenuous. "Oh, no, it's a 'hazard', not a trap, so your Search skill can't detect it. But it can detect this other room filled with poison gas, because that's a 'trap'." Uh-huh.

So all we're left with is the gaseous monster vs. the trap. If there's a gaseous monster, then the rogue will never succeed on his Search check. If there's a trap, then it depends on the DC. If the DM has set the DC correctly, then things will work fine. What is correctly? A DC that reflects both the difficulty of finding the trap and the Challenge Rating of the trap. If you want to have an impossibly high DC, go ahead - just take that into account when you're assigning CR (and therefore XP). (Surely an undetectable or nigh-undetectable trap is worth more than one marked 'TRAP' in easy-to-see dayglo colors.)

J

 

[drnuncheon]

Dcollins, I refer you to the red text above.

It's a bit frustrating when folks are arguing against me without having read my posts.

Ironic that you complain about people not reading your posts, considering that dcollins didn't write that.

Anyway, the core of the argument here isn't really about traps, it's about where the line gets drawn between player skill and character skill, and how you play a character with skills that differ from yours.

I think a lot of people are having visions of a frustrated rogue player who is sitting there thinking to himself, "Dammit, I paid the skill ranks to do this, my character would know how to do it, why do I have to tell the DM everything I'm doing? I'm a fricking librarian, not a professional thief. The wizard's player doesn't have to wiggle his fingers and say magic words to cast his spell..."

It all comes down to expectations, and if you and your players have the same ones, then you'll do fine. If there are different ones, that's when the trouble begins.

J

 

[Pielorinho]

D'oh! Sorry, dcollins and drnuncheon both: I was responding to multiple people at once, and slipped up there. I have no idea why I thought dcollins wrote that.

I do agree with you, drnuncheon, that player and DM expectations need to be the same. Certainly I don't deny that handling trapfinding and disarming entirely through dice-rolls is within the rules; I simply claim that including some puzzle-solving aspects to the process as I've described is also within the rules, and is personally far more satisfying to me, both as a player and as a DM.

I will say that even though the wizard doesn't have to wiggle his fingers and cast a spell, the wizard does have to look through his large list of spells, figure out which one will be best in this situation, figure out where or on whom to cast it, and figure out whether to cast defensively, among other concerns. I don't let the wizard say, "I rolled a 25 on my spellcraft check -- which spell should I cast now?" All my players have to use common sense, and an ability to evaluate the fantasy-world and make sound decisions within it is vital to playing in my games.

Daniel