Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iron Sheep" data-source="post: 2452335" data-attributes="member: 4965">You have to be careful modifying the way traps are discovered if you aren't going to nerf one of the major roles of the rogue.&nbsp; According to the search skill description, you only need to be within 10 feet of the area you are searching to search it.&nbsp; No touching is required, and except for unusual traps, searching alone, even taking 20, won't set them off, according to the rules as written.The downside of taking 20 is the time required (2 minutes per 5 ft by 5 ft square). So a 50 ft by 50 ft room takes 3 hours and 20 minutes to search.&nbsp; Put the PCs in a time critical situation, or throw in some wandering monsters, and traps can be much harder to find because players won't be willing to invest the time.Disarming a trap once discovered is another matter, and as a DM I think that you get better drama and suspense from a trap which is discovered and has to be disarmed or avoided somehow, than from a sequence of undetectable traps, which will appear random and arbitrary to the players.&nbsp; The threat of disaster from a botched disarm attempt is more compelling than the threat of falling into a pit at arbitrary points with no way of preventing it.However, if you don't like the binary nature of take 20 searches, you could use the fact that if you were to roll 20 d20s, you only get a high roll of 20 about 64% of the time. Doing the math, you get:[CODE]Result&nbsp;&nbsp; d100&nbsp;&nbsp; d20&nbsp; &nbsp; d8&nbsp; 16&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; -&nbsp; 17&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 2-4&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 1&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; -&nbsp; 18&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 5-12&nbsp;&nbsp; 2-3&nbsp; &nbsp; 1&nbsp; 19&nbsp; &nbsp; 13-36&nbsp;&nbsp; 4-7&nbsp;&nbsp; 2-3&nbsp; 20&nbsp; &nbsp; 37-100&nbsp; 8-20&nbsp; 4-8[/CODE]So if you want the added variability, just roll the appropriate dice (probably best if the GM does this secretly) to find out the &quot;actual&quot; result of taking 20.&nbsp; This way a rogue will get the trap that requires a take 20 most of the time, but they will fall 1 or 2 short enough of the time to make it potentially interesting.Regards,Corran</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iron Sheep, post: 2452335, member: 4965"] You have to be careful modifying the way traps are discovered if you aren't going to nerf one of the major roles of the rogue. According to the search skill description, you only need to be within 10 feet of the area you are searching to search it. No touching is required, and except for unusual traps, searching alone, even taking 20, won't set them off, according to the rules as written. The downside of taking 20 is the time required (2 minutes per 5 ft by 5 ft square). So a 50 ft by 50 ft room takes 3 hours and 20 minutes to search. Put the PCs in a time critical situation, or throw in some wandering monsters, and traps can be much harder to find because players won't be willing to invest the time. Disarming a trap once discovered is another matter, and as a DM I think that you get better drama and suspense from a trap which is discovered and has to be disarmed or avoided somehow, than from a sequence of undetectable traps, which will appear random and arbitrary to the players. The threat of disaster from a botched disarm attempt is more compelling than the threat of falling into a pit at arbitrary points with no way of preventing it. However, if you don't like the binary nature of take 20 searches, you could use the fact that if you were to roll 20 d20s, you only get a high roll of 20 about 64% of the time. Doing the math, you get: [CODE] Result d100 d20 d8 16 1 - - 17 2-4 1 - 18 5-12 2-3 1 19 13-36 4-7 2-3 20 37-100 8-20 4-8 [/CODE] So if you want the added variability, just roll the appropriate dice (probably best if the GM does this secretly) to find out the "actual" result of taking 20. This way a rogue will get the trap that requires a take 20 most of the time, but they will fall 1 or 2 short enough of the time to make it potentially interesting. Regards, Corran [/QUOTE]

Verification