Traps with location/proximity triggers = Rogue killers?

[Pielorinho]

'Training' in d&d is a very odd thing, but one could say that the character had to already have the natural talent for it beforehand. So it isnt purely 'take a level of this', it is 'have a natural talent that allows you to do so, but you have to have someone point you at it, and then spend time doing it'. Very large distinction there.

That is one possible explanation, but I don't see that it jibes with the rules very well. Keep in mind that an Int3 Dex3 PC can take a level in rogue and suddenly (assuming he maxes out the search skill) see traps that a person who hasn't taken that level can't see. No special innate ability is required, in other words -- it's all about what you've learned to do.

Because D&D doesn't have any prerequisites for any core class, I have a hard time accepting that some class abilities are innate.

Individual campaigns can and arguably should differ, of course: for example, I only allow folks with spirit-blood (including elf-analogs and gnome-analogs) to be psions IMC. But by the core rules, anyone can learn to do any of the core class abilities, regardless of their innate talent.

Daniel

 

[DarkMaster]

That is one possible explanation, but I don't see that it jibes with the rules very well. Keep in mind that an Int3 Dex3 PC can take a level in rogue and suddenly (assuming he maxes out the search skill) see traps that a person who hasn't taken that level can't see. No special innate ability is required, in other words -- it's all about what you've learned to do.

Because D&D doesn't have any prerequisites for any core class, I have a hard time accepting that some class abilities are innate.

Individual campaigns can and arguably should differ, of course: for example, I only allow folks with spirit-blood (including elf-analogs and gnome-analogs) to be psions IMC. But by the core rules, anyone can learn to do any of the core class abilities, regardless of their innate talent.

Daniel

Well the fact that he has INT3 and DEX3 will considerably reduce his ability to detect traps since search is based on INT. I like 3.X class system much more than before. Before it was imposing minimum requirement to fit the class now he let natural selection do the job. A low dex low int rogue will be much less powerful than the other character and should die pretty quickly. But it is also very flexible a INT 11 character might simply take one level of wizard to get true strike or something like that without making a career out of it.
In a play by post game I have a 10 level character who started his carrer as a ranger (8 STR and 8 WIS 10 CON) because he was forced in that path, he was an extremely poor ranger, he then discover sorcery and took all 7 other level. Even if this character would never be able to be a good ranger the 3 level he took will be very helpfull for the skills, archery feat and the BAB, and give a different flavor to the character.

The find trap skill is difficult to justify, as is sorcery or psion for a multiclass. Spell casting, finding traps and psionic power should be things that takes year to develop.

I guess they decided to compromise fun for reality and I really like it that way.

 

[FireLance]

I've always considered Trap Finding to be akin to Uncanny Dodge or the Monk's AC Bonus. It's not magical, but only a character who has received special training has the sixth sense/ability to notice environmental clues/luck to realise "something's wrong".

As for putting the rest up, I'll have to write it first .

 

[Anubis]

What I mean by "can't be found" is that there is no possible way for a player or character to figure out WHERE to search for a trap. The specific example I can give is that in the current stage in my campaign, there is a room in one of the corners. There is nothing at all special about this room except it has a treasure chest in it.

Now the logical thing to do is trap the treasure chest, but since all the decent traps have location triggers, I'd have to trap the room instead, and there is no logical reason to trap the room (this temple is inhabit, it's not a ruin, and the people inhabiting it put the chest there but wanted to protect it) and there is no logical reason to search the room for traps either. If there was, then it would then become logical to search EVERY room in EVERY stage for traps, which would bring the game to a halt because only the rogue can do it and one rogue searching a 30 ft.-by-30 ft. room takes 116 minutes, nearly 2 whole hours! In a stage with 10 or 20 of these, that would make a stage take a ridiculous 20-40 hours just in searching for traps, not counting battles and normal exploration!

It can't be narrowed down, either, because you never know which square is the triggering square even if you do suspect a trap. I really liked the old ways where chests were usually the only thing trapped and sometimes doors, but rarely would spaces be trapped, and if they were, you'd know going into the stage to take special precaution in that specific stage.

In my campaign, going into the current stage, this is supposed to be more or less an assault plus normal investigation, not "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". This is also the ONLY trap in the stage, making it even less likely that there's a reason to suspect anything. Yet a trap that can't be found is indeed a hazzard and not a trap, and it doesn't seem fair to give the party NO chance at finding such a trap.

So what should I do? Should I change traps to only have "trigger" triggers like I want using "Rule 0"? Should I give anyone with the Search skill an automatic roll when coming within five feet of a location or proximity trap, at perhaps the trap's Search DC -10, to get a "hint" that there might be a trap there? I mean a "Trap Spidey Sense" is no less "extraordinary" than Evasion (DUCK AND COVER! What other ability allows you to stand in the middle of a nuclear explosion and not even get a scratch? Personally, I prefer the "DBZ Explanation" where a person blips out for a moment, hahaha.), so why not?

Or maybe just make that "Trap Spidey Sense" another feature of the rogue's "Trapfinding" ability . . .

 

[Pax]

The point where the trap is triggered, is partof the trap.

For a more real-world example: just because I put a claymore ten feet back, in some bushes ... doesn't mean you can't see the tripwire across the path where YOU are. Further ... just because I, instead, tie the claymore toa motion detector, and set it back FIFTY feet from the target point, doesn't mean an piece of ultrasound-sensitive detection equipment wouldn't figure out there was some ultrasonic "scatter" coming from the spot the motion detector is pointed at.

The rogue may not know precisely what the trap does, but he SHOULD be able to pick up on "stepping there will trigger ... something or other, I'm just not sure exactly what yet."

 

[FireLance]

Actually, Anubis, that's a very good reason why the take 20 rule is there. The player of a rogue PC can say that he takes 20 and searches every single square before he steps on it. The party takes about 2 minutes of game time to move 5 feet, but you can gloss over all of this in real time and announce when a trap is found, sprung (the rogue didn't have a high enough Search modifier) or something interesting (like a combat encounter) occurs.

If there are no time constraints, there is no reason why the party can't do this. In fact, it would be very sensible to do this if the party is exploring an ancient crypt built by a civilisation known for protecting its treasures with deadly traps.

I am reminded of a Dragon magazine article by Tracy Hickman some time ago where he described the time he was playing with a group of cautious players. They came across a door and spent a long time checking the door for traps. Possibly, they were checking the handle, checking for secret compartments, tapping it to find hollow spaces, invisible trip-wires, whatever. Tracy got tired of this and just told the DM (to the horror of the other players) that he would open the door. There were monsters on the other side and combat ensued. Then, when the DM told the party there was another door in the second room, he opened that one too. That article sparked a discussion between himself and Monte Cook in the pages of Dragon magazine on how to play the game, but I disgress. The point is, Tracy would not have been so bored if the players were able to tell the DM "I search the door and take 20." The DM could tell them if they found anything, and everyone could get straight to the action and have fun.

As for the point about traps that trigger when doors or chests are opened, I would classify them as a subset of touch trigger traps, possibly with a bypass element if the door or chest needs to be opened safely.

 

[Saeviomagy]

So basically your point, anubis, is
"I want to use an inappropriate trap for an area and I'm upset that it's inappropriate".

Use a different trap.

Or use the room trap, but put a disabler somewhere outside the trap (so the normal inhabitants can do something about it?).

 

[Liquidsabre]

Anubis, man, you gotta relax dude. A Trap wouldn't be a trap if just anyone could come along and notice it. Dang, there's gotta be some challenge to it. Something scary and the PCs have got to learn that sometimes stuff happens and hope they have a high enough reflex save heh.

Besides if the Trap is the big Ol' nasty one at the end of the dungeon there should be the appropriate "clues" along the way to hint at it's existence. How else will you plant the nigling suspicion that will drive your players crazy as the wander down the empty halls and wonder if they'll be able to get past the "Death Trap" at the big room. Not to mention the glee at thoughts of what such a carefully guarded chest must hold. ;D

 

[Anubis]

Actually, Liquidsabre, that's part of my point. This is not some big thing at the end of the stage. This is just a little room off to the side with some treasure in it with a single trap guarding it and is not meant to be a climax in any way.

FireLance, you gotta remember the take 20 rule takes 2 minutes per 5 ft. area searched, and with the rogue the only one able to find traps, that means the rogue is going to be the only one ever searching, also making the skill pointless for all other classes. Unfortunately, dungeons and temples and castles are big, and it would takes DAYS to search every single 5 ft. area in every room just because there might be a trap, and I believe that's totally unrealistic in every way. Heck, such a thing would not only take an unrealistic amount of time, but it would produce an insane number of random encounters that would eventually overwhelm the party. Random encounters are not something you want a lot of, they're something that's just there to happen on occasion. After all, this is Dungeons & Dragons, not Final Fantasy; the game is run by set encounters, not random encounters.

Oh, and Saeviomagy, my point is that almost every trap type in the book is inappropriate; there is no trap type with a "trigger" trigger, and the closest thing, the touch trigger, doesn't work because it doesn't fit what this is supposed to be. My point is that the traps they made in the DMG are basically, well, silly, and also nearly impossible to find because no party should be expected to search every square of every stage. Hell, that's time-consuming in REAL time as you count up how many minutes are used up, when random encounters occur, and how many dozen sunrods are used in the process.

Basically, the book left out any mention of the old school traps like those when you open something, and NONE of the sample traps are appropriate.

Yet I might want to use some of those at some point, yet there is no way for the players to survive if they don't know where exactly to look and when, and I don't want to spend game time going over every square taking 20. Besides, considering how my campaign is run, that being with PCs and PC-level NPCs, it's kinda hard to play that fair when *I'm* the one running the one rogue of the party. I already know where all the traps are, but the caller doesn't. The caller thinks more of the basics, and my players aren't as creative as I am when it comes to traps and hidden things.

Basically, I'm frustrated with the traps crap in 3.5 as they are unrealistic and troublesome. I'll just have to go with giving the rogue an automatic roll as a sort of "Spidey Trap Sense" at the trap's Seach DC -10 to sense if something is there, and then let the caller take it from there.

It's hard trying to play intelligent and independent NPCs without giving away the secrets of the stages.

 

[FireLance]

Well, in my view, if there is a significant chance of serious random encounters, the rogue shouldn't be taking 20 to check every square. A good compromise is to spend 2 rounds Searching each square - one take 10, and one roll. That way, a party moves down a 30 ft. long, 5 ft. wide corridior in a little over 1 minute (the 3e equivalent of "moving carefully down the passageway, checking for traps") and can cover a 30 ft. by 30 ft. room in about 7 minutes. The party can be more careful at "obvious" trap locations such as doors or chests (2 minutes to take 20).

But as always, YMMV.