Takeing 10 on D.D.

[Antikinesis]

If you make "taking 10" too difficult, the player could always opt for the "skill mastery" special ability after level 10. It lets a rogue take ten, even if he's threatened or distracted, for a select number of skills.

A must-have for any skills-based rogue (as opposed to a battle-rogue, et al).

AK

 

[Pielorinho]

Just to clarify, taking 10 doesn' t take 10 times as long as normal. It takes exactly as long as the action normally takes, and represents doing a routine job.

Daniel

 

[Antikinesis]

Whoops... too late again. Ya beat me to it, Henry.

 

[Victim]

Hopefully your player isn't reading this, because I'm gonna suggest a rat-bastard trick you can use to catch this techie rogue.

In your campaign world, trapmakers probably know that for every trap, there's someone who can disable it, and that trap disablers have an infuriating tendency to go adventuring with tombraiders and the like. So occasionally, they'll design a trap like this:

Poison_Needle, Search DC 25, DD DC 25: poison needle coated with contact venom, activated when chest is opened.
Falling Ceiling Block: Search DC 35, DD DC 20: when poison needle trap is disabled, it triggers a complex mechanism that drops the ceiling onto a 10' square centered on the poison needle. Reflex save for partial damage

When the PC originally searches for traps, have him only discover the needle; require a second search check if he wants to look for more traps.

The trapmaker's goal is mostly psychological: if there are several traps like this in the dungeon, she figures, the tombraiders are less likely to be cocky about having disabled a trap, and less likely to proceed.

Daniel

I think requiring a second search is a poor way to handle the matter. Then people will just check many times and slow things down. However, different DCs for traps in the same place is a good way of making taking 10 dangerous. Just when you thought it was safe to proceed . . .

 

[Albereth]

In response to your question as to whether disabling a trap is threatening to a rogue, I would have to answer that no it is not in and of itself threatening. The rogue knows that there is a trap and could get hurt/poisoned/killed but that is part of the psyche of the rogue. The learn to live with that danger. Now, if the room were filling with water while he was trying to disable the mechanism filling the room, then yes that would be threatening 8)

 

[photon1966]

When the PC originally searches for traps, have him only discover the needle; require a second search check if he wants to look for more traps.

I think this is also an improper way of dealing with DD. When one searches and area 5x5 area as I recall per check. I know my players would search the area as well as the chest. Now fine if they fail to notice the trap because of a roll but simple assuming they didn't look there as they didn't say they did is bad form as the game is abstract. That is not worrying about every little detail. Sure for colour and flavour adding some of these elements is fine but using them against the party isn't.

Taking 10 is a great way to speed things up, like when the party is searching an area, or they have encountered similar traps before. In fact that is a better way to "get them" is allow their complaceny to kill them. what I mean is have an area where all they keep encountering is spear traps of the same design, then through in a block trap dropping from above. So sure they get shields and stand out of the way for the hurling spears, but thats just where the block(s) will fall. Then go back to having the spear traps. They'll never know when one of these apparent spear is a block trap unless some really good rolls or smart ideas.

Players who are clever should be rewarded. Plus the Rogues DD skill is one of their shinning points, and as said before you don't take away a fighters combat or a mages spells, you simple make if a challenge, put the fighter on ice, ie Balance checks, weather and harassing attacks on the mage needs Concentration checks. Think the same way for the rogue, put traps that are a challenge in an interesting way, don't just put a higher difficulty number.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Also, my general assumption when the designers use a "term of art" like "threatened" in rules language is that the term applies in the precise manner in which it's defined for game purposes, rather than in plain English.

"Threatened" in 3e means "in a threatened area." Traps do not threaten an area, so a trap does not create a "threat" for purposes of the take 10 rule either. An ogre standing within 10' who theoretically could whack the trap-disarming character with his club does make the character "threatened" for purposes of the take 10 rule.

(Of course, I would also assume that a character exposed to missile fire is considered "threatened," so my argument isn't particularly consistent. [Sigh...].)

 

[mmu1]

I'd say being threatened in this context pretty much means that there's an immediate danger of some sort present - a combat going on all around, a raging fire, the ceiling slowly coming down - as opposed to a potential danger, like the chance a sentry will turn around and notice you as you work on a lock, the chance you'll inadvertently spring the trap and hurt yourself, the possibility of slipping and falling off a cliff, and so on.

Think of it this way - if you couldn't Take 10 on potentially risky activities, ordinary people swimming (let's say with one rank in it) would drown, what, 20% of the time in calm water? Same goes for mountain climbers, deep sea divers, tightrope walkers, etc... Craftsmen would go out of business, because ordinary workers would constantly fail at the simplest tasks and waste materials. And so on and so forth...

 

[Pielorinho]

I agree with y'all suggesting that I shouldn't require two search checks to notice two traps -- that was a bad idea.

But I do think this is a valid idea for a trap (an obvious trap easily disabled, and a masterfully-created trap set off when the obvious trap is disabled). In fact, I think I'd redesign it to target the disabler's fortitude save: the goal of the trap should be to get rid of the trap disabler, on the assumption that once the disabler is gone, other traps can get rid of the remaining intruders. A high-potency poison that targets INT, DEX, or (yikes!) CON would be in order.

And I know that rogues excel at trap disabling, and they should get to shine. But just as fighters don't necessarily kill every critter they encounter, rogues shouldn't be able to automatically disable every trap they encounter. Occasionally even the best rogue should encounter a trap that presents a real challenge.

Daniel

 

[Ravellion]

(some rule technically incorrect examples follow, but relevant nonetheless Do you allow fighters to take 10 on their attack rolls? Do you let mages roll average damage? Do you let clerics do average healing? I thought not.

Disable Device is a very special skill. Since traps have CRs, they are a challenge. A challenge is a threat. A threat threatens the rogue. When threatened, you can't take 10.

I think rolling is actually more player friendly as well. Otherwise an NPC rogue taking 20 on search and 10 on DD would be a lot easier.

A dramatization:

Players to Rogue Player Dave: "You found a trap Dave!"
Dave: (Playing the X-Box) "I'll take 10"
DM:"well, that worked about 300 times now, so I decided to put in one that kills you, just to keep it exciting!"
Dave: "Yeah, I'll roll up a new rogue after this level"

Better to keep every trap exciting and let the player roll, no matter what the letter of the rule says.

Spellcraft rolls for learning new spells also require a roll IMC... otherwise from level one it's full proof. Learning magic never was that easy, and shouldn't be. Traps also always had a chance of not being found and disabled.

Rav