Search and taking 20: the problem

[Pielorinho]

1. In your previous post, what you were arguing would have made Search useless on a whim, not unilaterally useless but unpredictably so.

Not sure I'm following you. If by "unpredictably useless," you mean, "search won't always find every trap, and the rogue won't know when it will and when it won't," then I agree. Thing is, even you agree that this is true, since you have no problem with traps with DCs beyond the rogue's reach.

I'm not sure I get the rest of what you're arguing: in some cases you don't seem to mind my central idea (that some traps require interaction in order to detect them), and in others you seem to dislike the idea.

If your problem is my using DD instead of Search in some cases to find a trap, that's fine. I think DD makes more sense. If you use search to represent interacting with a trap in an effort to detect it, however, it's very important that there may be a penalty for failure: your interaction with a very sensitive trap may set it off.

It's a risk, and the more points you have in the relevant skill, the lower the risk. I think DD makes more sense for handling this risk, as it represents finesse.

6. I agree but my agreement hinges on your use of the word 'visually'. I think any time you have a trap, there should be some chance, however slim, that it can be found by a Search check. There may be no visual clues but there should be some clue; see my previous post or below.

This is where I may disagree, depending on what you mean. Sure, there oughtta be some clues, if you're in a position to see/detect them. But sometimes you're within 10' of a trap and yet not in a posiiton to detect it -- if it's on the other side of a door (or panel!), for instance.

Daniel

 

[Scion]

If there is a way to trigger it then the rogue will have a chance to find it without setting it off.

If there is no way to detect it before setting it off then it isnt a 'trap', it is something more akin to an environmental hazard and should be treated as such.

Trapmaking is an interesting skill, going from the other side how would people treat traps and trapmaking? Can anyone make traps that would be 'undetectable'? From most of the comments who are advocating being unable to find certain traps it would certainly seem so.

So the kobold lair just got much more dangerous, who would ever make a trap that could be found unless they absolutely had to? most traps would be created in such a way as to allow no searching for them. Definately not a good plan.

As many have said, once you find the trap you still have to figure out how to disarm it. That is a topic for another thread I think though Actually finding the trap could be anywhere from trivial (a sign above a button saying, 'push this and you all will die') to incredibly difficult (magical traps) but very, very few should be 'undetectable', effectively none. If it cannot be detected then it isnt a 'trap' really. Being able to find the trap is only a small fraction of the issue

 

[DarkMaster]

What am I advocating?
-I'm advocating the truism that you can't see what you can't see.
-I'm advocating the idea that trapmakers ought to use every advantage they can.
-I'm advocating the idea that some traps have absolutely no clues detectable with a non-epic search check made visually within 10' of the trap. (Non-epic listed in order to exclude those rogues who can see banana molecules wafting from the trap).

Yes, you can list ways that the panel trap could be seen, if poorly constructed or previously activated. We all acknowledge that. My point is not about whether a rogue can detect the evidence of a poorly built trap; my point is that a well-built trap may have no visual clues.
-Discoloration on the wall? Only if it's been previously activated.
-Heard of a similar trap before? Only if it's a common model.
-Hear the cap detach? This has two problems. First, reread the trap's description: the cap only detaches when the panel is opened. Second, this is no longer a visual search. In order to make this search, the rogue has to manipulate the trap, and that's exactly what I'm saying a rogue should sometimes have to do.

The last one is the closest to providing a way to detect the trap: if a rogue decided to manipulate the trap, I'd give a (secret) search check even if the rogue didn't ask for one. On a successful check, I'd give the rogue more information: "You know, you hear a click, but you think you can feel that the dial could turn further if you wanted to." That's information that the rogue couldn't possibly get just from looking at the trap.

Of course, by manipulating the trap, the rogue subjects himself to danger: the trap could've been a decoy designed to release poison gas as soon as the dial is turned at all. That's one of the dangers of being a rogue.

One final question: one straw man that's come up repeatedly is the idea that a rogue player will be very upset if he takes 20 (or rolls a natural 20) on a search check and still doesn't find the trap. Yet this is perfectly within the rules: a rogue who has a +8 search check has no chance whatsoever of finding a trap with a search DC of 30 (barring special modifiers). Would you be okay with a player who whinges about not finding such a trap?

I wouldn't.

Daniel

Epic trap are usually done by epic trapmaker. Why put an epic trap on the group if you don't put Epic monster to fight! Same logic different challenge.

If the DC of the trap is 30 and the rogue has 8 I don't see any problem telling him "you didn't find anything" especially if he is a 7 or more level character. This trap could be found by a 7 level character but you decided to invest your skill point differently then pay the consequence. Putting a DC 30 trap on first level character is like putting an epic trap on a 7th level character, Put that is just common sense it has nothing to do with the rule.

Like I said before you are not happy with a tested mechanic and would like everybody to feel like you, but we don't and we all gave you our ways of interpreting the mechanic and you are still not happy.

 

[Pielorinho]

If there is a way to trigger it then the rogue will have a chance to find it without setting it off.

If there is no way to detect it before setting it off then it isnt a 'trap', it is something more akin to an environmental hazard and should be treated as such.

IN what way does changing its name change the situation?

Trapmaking is an interesting skill, going from the other side how would people treat traps and trapmaking? Can anyone make traps that would be 'undetectable'? From most of the comments who are advocating being unable to find certain traps it would certainly seem so.

To some degree, yes -- as long as we recognize that nobody is arguing for undetectable traps, but rather traps that are undetectable without manipulating something. HOwever, most of these traps will be very expensive.

If you give me a dowel, two sharp nails, and a balloon full of nerve gas, I can construct a door-trap that is completely undetectable from outside a room. Of course, someone who opens the door very carefully might be able to see the trap before the nail pops the balloon, or even might feel the tension of the balloon's skin against the nail before it pops. But constructing this totally "undetectable" trap would be child's play.

The cost, of course, would be in procuring the nerve gas and the nerve-gas-proof balloon. Kobolds tend not to have access to high-quality trapmaking ingredients like these.

So the kobold lair just got much more dangerous, who would ever make a trap that could be found unless they absolutely had to? most traps would be created in such a way as to allow no searching for them. Definately not a good plan.

Except that they'd be expensive and/or difficult to create. Note that in the example trap I listed above, it'd be very dangerous for the inhabitants of the room, and would be easily bypassed (either by using the doors the kobolds use, or by opening the door only enough to squeeze through, or even by slamming the door shut as soon as the balloon pops).

Such traps would occur sometimes, often enough to keep traps interesting, but would make up only the minority of such traps.

Daniel

 

[DarkMaster]

Actually, in my scenario when you "take 20" you find only the first trap unless the player indicates they have a reason to search further (they pick up on the hints dropped earlier). That's because when you take 20, you'll find the easy stuff first and the, normally, stop there. I mean, who looks for a second trap?

Not me take 20 you find everything you can find. Nowhere in the rule of taking 20 does it state that you find everything at the end. Also if I have two trap in the same location one with DC 21 (decoy) and another one at DC29 if the rogue roll 30 he finds both , 24 he finds the decoy, 19 he doesn't find anything, assuming not taking 20 here.

If you look at written module you can see that's how skill were developed.Take gathering information, which is similar in a way to search. they provide you with a list of DC and the info they bring. They also assume that everything below is known too.

 

[DarkMaster]

IN what way does changing its name change the situation?


To some degree, yes -- as long as we recognize that nobody is arguing for undetectable traps, but rather traps that are undetectable without manipulating something. HOwever, most of these traps will be very expensive.

If you give me a dowel, two sharp nails, and a balloon full of nerve gas, I can construct a door-trap that is completely undetectable from outside a room. Of course, someone who opens the door very carefully might be able to see the trap before the nail pops the balloon, or even might feel the tension of the balloon's skin against the nail before it pops. But constructing this totally "undetectable" trap would be child's play.

The cost, of course, would be in procuring the nerve gas and the nerve-gas-proof balloon. Kobolds tend not to have access to high-quality trapmaking ingredients like these.


Except that they'd be expensive and/or difficult to create. Note that in the example trap I listed above, it'd be very dangerous for the inhabitants of the room, and would be easily bypassed (either by using the doors the kobolds use, or by opening the door only enough to squeeze through, or even by slamming the door shut as soon as the balloon pops).

Such traps would occur sometimes, often enough to keep traps interesting, but would make up only the minority of such traps.

Daniel

Your problem is that you might not have enough experience in life to figure out that people can detect or gather enough clue about something to detect it without actually seeing it. Think about Judas in the bible.

 

[Pielorinho]

Like I said before you are not happy with a tested mechanic and would like everybody to feel like you, but we don't and we all gave you our ways of interpreting the mechanic and you are still not happy.

Thanks for the pop psychology, bub, but that's simply wrong. Do try to stay away from the ad hominems, what?

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Your problem is that you might not have enough experience in life to figure out that people can detect or gather enough clue about something to detect it without actually seeing it. Think about Judas in the bible.

Oooohkay, I'm done discussing this with you until you decide to knock it off with the attitude.

Daniel

 

[Henry]

Well, so much for that compliment.

Let's please back away from personal insults or suppositions about each others' character, or I close the thread.

 

[Artoomis]

Not me take 20 you find everything you can find. Nowhere in the rule of taking 20 does it state that you find everything at the end. Also if I have two trap in the same location one with DC 21 (decoy) and another one at DC29 if the rogue roll 30 he finds both , 24 he finds the decoy, 19 he doesn't find anything, assuming not taking 20 here.

If you look at written module you can see that's how skill were developed.Take gathering information, which is similar in a way to search. they provide you with a list of DC and the info they bring. They also assume that everything below is known too.

Consider a minor house rule, if you like. Or set it up another way - One trap hidden behind the other, that works, too, I suppose, if you can figure a good way to do it.

Perhaps the first trap reveals a hidden compartment behind it when it goes off (the trap cannot be disabled, but may be set off harmlessly using disable device). If you don't search a second time, you'll miss the second trap. Then follow what I wrote above so that the pressure is on!

All it takes is a little imagination. My point was requiring a disable device check at the same time as a search check reads like a blatant attempt to kill off rogues and could create unhappy players when you don't allow them to use their skills the way the book says they are used.