Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2474154" data-attributes="member: 18280">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.&nbsp; He or she must simply set the DCs for the desired result.&nbsp; Moreover, by means of description the DM greatly influences where the players search for traps.&nbsp; That said, Take 20 means that, if a task can be done, it will be done.&nbsp; There is no doubt whatsoever.&nbsp; If you Take 20 and do not find the trap, there is no way that the trap can be found by you.&nbsp; Should the trap most often be found?&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; In fact, the idea of &quot;Take approximately 20&quot; 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.As a side note, if you are certain that a trap should be there, yet you are unable to find a trap, logic would indicate that you assume a trap you could not find is there.&nbsp; Not finding the trap does not prevent you from trying to trigger the trap through various means, such as the use of a pole or summoned creature.&nbsp; Finally, magic can reveal a trap that the rogue missed but you are certain exists.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.&nbsp; Adding traps without rhyme or reason is certainly no better than using a &quot;wandering damage table.&quot;&nbsp; Conversely, placing traps (both natural and not) where appropriate to an adventure can heighten tension and increase the fun players experience.&nbsp; In one of the examples Silmarillius mentions, after one member of the party fell victim to a natural &quot;trap&quot; caused by rotten floorboards, they were able to make use of the trap area to defeat a construct that would otherwise have been a difficult fight for them (they earlier defeated a construct in a similar manner -- by bullrushing it into an underground lake).Here are some other examples of traps, natural and otherwise:Note that none of these traps were lethal in-and-of-themselves (Hrum, even after the battle, makes one save and fails one save, and still survives).&nbsp; Note that they make sense for where they are (none is &quot;wandering damage&quot;).&nbsp; Note that the webline traps do not even require a Disable Device check to deal with -- just a determined dwarf with a sword.&nbsp; And they certainly enhanced the game for the players, if only by increasing the sense of travelling through a dangerous environment.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2474154, member: 18280"] 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. As a side note, if you are certain that a trap should be there, yet you are unable to find a trap, logic would indicate that you assume a trap you could not find is there. Not finding the trap does not prevent you from trying to trigger the trap through various means, such as the use of a pole or summoned creature. Finally, magic can reveal a trap that the rogue missed but you are certain exists. 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. In one of the examples Silmarillius mentions, after one member of the party fell victim to a natural "trap" caused by rotten floorboards, they were able to make use of the trap area to defeat a construct that would otherwise have been a difficult fight for them (they earlier defeated a construct in a similar manner -- by bullrushing it into an underground lake). Here are some other examples of traps, natural and otherwise: Note that none of these traps were lethal in-and-of-themselves (Hrum, even after the battle, makes one save and fails one save, and still survives). Note that they make sense for where they are (none is "wandering damage"). Note that the webline traps do not even require a Disable Device check to deal with -- just a determined dwarf with a sword. And they certainly enhanced the game for the players, if only by increasing the sense of travelling through a dangerous environment. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification