Traps and randomness

[Raven Crowking]

Some of the arguments above presume that you keep track of you thief's exact skill numbers.

Yeah right.

Well, it assumes that you are not writing an adventure for general consumption (such as through publication). It also assumes that you keep records of your PCs character sheets. This is fairly easy to do, actually. Simply tell the PCs that they are responsible for providing you accurate, up-to-date character sheets every X sessions. Then simply declare that if it isn't on your copy of the sheet, the character doesn't have it.

Pretty simple, and it helps remove the pain and anguish of lost character sheets.


RC



EDIT: Of course, when I said "the DM is in absolute control over whether or not a trap can be found, and whether or not a found trap can be bypassed. He or she must simply set the DCs for the desired result. Moreover, by means of description the DM greatly influences where the players search for traps.", that did not require the DM to keep track of PC skills at all.

When a DM is writing an adventure, he can easily make all DCs either 1 or 100. All or nothing. Easy to do, and no bookkeeping involved. Or, he can change the DC numbers based on the PC's die roll. Unless you get to see the adventure notes, there is no way of knowing whether or not the DM is fudging the numbers.

(BTW, as a DM, unless you keep track of your PCs characters, there's no way of knowing if they're fudging the numbers, either!)

If you really believe, as some here have suggested, that the PCs should find a trap if they look for it, unless it is way out of their league, simply go the DC 1 or 100 route, and you don't even have to worry about PCs "Taking 20" ever again.

Me, I like a little uncertainty. As a result, I really like the idea of "Take Approximately 20". As always, though, your mileage may vary.


RC

 

[sfedi]

Another way to deal with the uncertainty is to have the various traps in the adventure span several DCs:

Given an adventure desgined for a specific APL (Average Party Level):

DC APL + 20 (Lazy Rogue - Poor Search, Int +0)
DC APL + 25 (Dedicated Rogue - maxed Search, Int +1)
DC APL + 29 (Focused Rogue - maxed Search + Skill Focus, Int +2)
DC APL + 32 (Ultimate Rogue - maxed Search + Skill Focus + Investigator Feat, Int +3)

For example, an adventure for 5th level PCs could have:

2 DC 25 traps
4 DC 30 traps
2 DC 34 traps
2 DC 37 traps

 

[Li Shenron]

As an alternative, you can also just trust the CR assigned to traps in published products, which supposedly is tied to the search & disable DCs. I don't set a trap DC according to the PC Rogue skill bonuses (but then I don't usually "craft" new traps myself, I use the ones in books): if the party has no single class rogue, or if the rogue didn't spend but a few points in those skills, I'm not lowering the traps DCs, otherwise the players will feel that they should bother about taking those skills.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The "DC 1 or 100" idea was not meant to be used, you know. It was merely the logical extension of "If the rogue is convinced of the existence of a trap to a sufficient degree that he even bothers searching for one, and there is actually a trap there, then personally I think he should be more or less guaranteed to find it unless it's way out of his league." (Saeviomagy)

To be honest, I don't set DCs by party level either. Nor do I use 10 traps in the typical adventure (I average less than half that). But, then, I have never considered the "all or nothing" nature of Taking 20 when finding traps (or performing other tasks) either.


RC



EDITS:

Well, realistically speaking, the DM is in absolute control over whether or not a trap can be found, and whether or not a found trap can be bypassed. He or she must simply set the DCs for the desired result. Moreover, by means of description the DM greatly influences where the players search for traps.

That said, Take 20 means that, if a task can be done, it will be done. There is no doubt whatsoever. If you Take 20 and do not find the trap, there is no way that the trap can be found by you. Should the trap most often be found? Sure. In fact, the idea of "Take approximately 20" allows for traps that can be found most (but not all) of the time without the DM making a decision as to which traps cannot be found during adventure creation.​

You do not have to make up new traps or new CRs to be deciding what traps will be found or not found in an adventure. If you know you have a lazy rogue, or one with few ranks in the appropriate skills, you also know that the rogue will not be able to find/disable the trap you set. This may, in fact, be part of good adventure design. However, no claim that you set the traps "by the book" removes the fact that "the DM is in absolute control over whether or not a trap can be found, and whether or not a found trap can be bypassed".

As I previously stated, and as Silmarillius concurred, the problem is not the existence of traps, but rather the existence of poorly thought-out adventure designs. Adding traps without rhyme or reason is certainly no better than using a "wandering damage table." Conversely, placing traps (both natural and not) where appropriate to an adventure can heighten tension and increase the fun players experience.​

No less true now than before.


RC

 

[sfedi]

As an alternative, you can also just trust the CR assigned to traps in published products, which supposedly is tied to the search & disable DCs.

I've just take a look at them, and the Search DCs are pretty generous (i.e. low).

There's no point in specializing/focusing in Search.

 

[Li Shenron]

I've just take a look at them, and the Search DCs are pretty generous (i.e. low).

There's no point in specializing/focusing in Search.

Of course you may still need very high search for something else...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Of course you may still need very high search for something else...

True, but this has nothing to do with traps.

RC

 

[painandgreed]

So, what do people think? The main disadvantage I see with this is that it will make searching for traps take longer in real time, since you can't just say "I'll take 20 and search it everywhere" - you actually have to roll the dice. On the other hand, dicerolling is fun, so I don't see that as a problem

I would not usually allow Take 20 for searching for traps. You might be able to search from a distance away but I wouldn't let a person take 20 to do so. Take 20, in that it is as good as a person could do, means they do everything they could possibly do. Searching a bookcase with Take 20 doesn't mean just looking at it from a distance away but actually takeing all the books off the shelf and placing them someplace else. Carefully going though each book to make sure nothing is hidden in the pages or binding. Moving the bookcase itself if possible and inspecting all surfaces including the bottom for hidden spaces or writing. Taking 20 while searching an area that a trap was in would usually require actions that would set off the trap.

 

[sfedi]

I would not usually allow Take 20 for searching for traps.

You may reconsider this posture, as all the DCs of traps assume you can take 20 searching for them.

I agree with your point, though.

 

[painandgreed]

You may reconsider this posture, as all the DCs of traps assume you can take 20 searching for them.

I agree with your point, though.

I would dispute that and even if it stated it someplace, I'd just consider it another stupid thing that I'd have to change my house rules to note. Assuming that you could take 20 while searching for traps would map most traps findable even by a 1st level rogue. A 1st level dwarf rogue with a 14 Int, investigator feat, and 4 ranks in Search would find CR10 traps automatically in your typical dungeon setting. Sorry, I have more respect for a CR 10 trap than assume that it is to be automatically found by a 1st level character moderatly geared to doing so. Your 1st level fighter isn't going to be able to take on a CR 10 monster. While it states that "you generally must be within 10 feet" to search, I would not always allow a take 20 in all such circumstances or Search merely becomes Spot. Taking 20 while searching the couch for your keys involves not only looking it over but also pulling up the cushions and reaching your hands down into the unseen parts. I also often rule that most take 20 actions are not capable in two minutes. That would especially count for search. You can't search something with a take 20 in two minutes when it would take you longer than two minutes to unpack a container without paying attention to what was in it or rearrange the itmes in a room just so you could see them all. Players walk over their DMs way to much on this one convincing them of all the crap they can do in a really short amounts of time.