How do I help my younger, less-experienced, players with their trapfinding skills? (not the characters, the players) They generally search every closed door, but not an open door or anything in a corridor (such as a pit trap).
How can I educate them towards a good balance of searching and keeping the game moving?
How do I help my younger, less-experienced, players with their trapfinding skills? (not the characters, the players) They generally search every closed door, but not an open door or anything in a corridor (such as a pit trap).
How can I educate them towards a good balance of searching and keeping the game moving?
A few quick suggestions off the top of my head:
1) A few placed traps (of the less lethal variety if you don't want to hurt them), ought to get them looking next time.
2) Suggest or 'loan' them a good book about rogue and how they sneak and search and are generally paranoid.
3) If all else fails have a sit down with them and explain with examples some skill applications they may have not thought of.
Hopefully that helps.
MERRY XMAS ALL!
How do I help my younger, less-experienced, players with their trapfinding skills? (not the characters, the players) They generally search every closed door, but not an open door or anything in a corridor (such as a pit trap).
How can I educate them towards a good balance of searching and keeping the game moving?
Good question. I think there is a fair spread among DMs regarding traps and how they are used. My players tend to search like crazy and I find that most of the time the only traps that really work on them are interspersed with an encounter since they can't take 20 when involved in an actual encounter.
My players tend to search like crazy and I find that most of the time the only traps that really work on them are interspersed with an encounter since they can't take 20 when involved in an actual encounter.How do I help my younger, less-experienced, players with their trapfinding skills? (not the characters, the players) They generally search every closed door, but not an open door or anything in a corridor (such as a pit trap).
How can I educate them towards a good balance of searching and keeping the game moving?
Taking a 20 is the ultimate cop out IMHO and drags the game time down (not necessarily real time) because it takes crazy amounts of time. I usually disallow this by making it very painful for the party in the form of wandering monsters. After all, how long does it say you have to take to search a 5x5 square for traps? If you have a 20x30 room, that might be hours of adventuring time wasted while the day gets longer - and stuff moves in my world even if the PC's don't.
As to the question above: This is an excellent opportunity to have them go through one of the Adventurer's Challenge quests. Or, better yet, let them know someone that just started up a "school" for adventurers and wants to use them as a test run to see if their new non-lethal trap-filled small complex is too difficult or easy for a party of newly formed adventurers. Stock it with clever traps and creatures that don't necessarily injure the party (illusion traps and illusionary wandering monsters work great for this) and have at it.
I have used this idea before and it was a wonderful idea at the start of the campaign to let the party start working together, start learning the rules of what they might be able to do in any given situation, and give them a bit of experience without the pressures of a real death experience looming over their heads. I didn't tell them it was all illusionary - and I admit that it's kind of like the holochamber on Star Trek - but the fact remains that it's a great way to 'teach' the PC's a lesson that is not fatal before you have to spring something on them that is gruesome. Maybe they will be prepared for it and maybe they won't, but at least after the TPK you can ask them why they didn't use the skills they learning in school! :)
A few placed traps (of the less lethal variety if you don't want to hurt them), ought to get them looking next time.
Agreed. The best way to get them looking for traps is to give them a reason to. Personally, I've found the "Traps and Treachery" books to be invaluable to me as a DM in really bringing traps to life for the party. The descriptions include what a thief finds when they make their "find traps" check, as well as various ways to disable / bypass them, so it really helps with the roleplaying aspect.
Taking a 20 is the ultimate cop out IMHO and drags the game time down (not necessarily real time) because it takes crazy amounts of time. I usually disallow this by making it very painful for the party in the form of wandering monsters. After all, how long does it say you have to take to search a 5x5 square for traps? If you have a 20x30 room, that might be hours of adventuring time wasted while the day gets longer - and stuff moves in my world even if the PC's don't.
Truthfully I've yet to decide if I really dislike this or not.
That said time wise I think your probably over estimating.
It takes 6 seconds to do a normal search of a 5 by 5 area. You have roughly a 75% chance of rolling a 20 if you roll a 20 sided die 20 times. Your odds rise to close to 95% if your roll the die 40 times. So I figure it probably takes either 20 or 40 times 6 seconds to take 20 depending on how kind a DM you are. Hence your PCs can search a 5 by 5 area in either 2 or 4 minutes. With a bunch of them doing it they can cover even sizable rooms or hallways in a pretty reasonable amount of time.
You'll likely find that exploring a fair sized cave complex takes roughly a day - maybe a day and a half.
My players have the beautiful habit of taking 20 to search the empty rooms, and then totally forgetting to check for traps when there's a trap that hands out over 50 damage to everyone in the room the moment someone opens a door.
Yay!
Speaking of traps, does anybody give out XP for traps? My players have been levelling pretty fast, and I think I shouldn't be giving trap XP...
|
Taking a 20 is the ultimate cop out IMHO and drags the game time down (not necessarily real time) because it takes crazy amounts of time. I usually disallow this by making it very painful for the party in the form of wandering monsters.
I don't know if you can take 20 to search for traps (by the rules). I believe that it says that you can't take 20 if failure would result in a "bad" thing happening. I guess that ultimately it would depend on the trigger device of the trap, but it seems to me that if you don't "see" a trap then you are much more likely to step there, touch there, move there, etc. Which would be a bad thing. Searching a room for treasure has no "bad" effects (other than taking longer).
As far as the original post is concerned, my feeling is that if you want the group to change how they do things (about most things including searching for traps), do the opposite. For instance, trap everything (or at least a lot of things) except for closed doors. If they go through a dungeon where they set off every pit trap, fireball trap, collapsing ceiling trap, etc. and they never get trapped by a closed door, I would hope that they would start to learn that more things could be trapped than just doors and either they had better have a whole lot of hit points or they will need to be a bit more careful.
Just my quick thoughts.
Bill
I don't know if you can take 20 to search for traps (by the rules).
Yes, you can.
I believe that it says that you can't take 20 if failure would result in a "bad" thing happening. I guess that ultimately it would depend on the trigger device of the trap,
That's exactly right. Very few traps are triggered just because you failed a single Search check. DMs must be careful not to confuse skills that have actual penalties for certain levels of failure (such as Disable Device or Craft, which both specify exactly what happens if you miss the DC by 5 or more, or Appraise, which specifies exactly what happens if you fail the check at all) with mere failure to gain the benefit of a successful skill check.
In other words, just because you fail to accomplish what you set out to do, that doesn't mean something "bad" has happened. If it did, you couldn't Take 20 on any skill check.
Player: "Oops! I missed my Escape Artist check."
DM: "Oh, that's bad. You didn't slip free of the manacles chaining you to the wall."
Player: "That's okay. I have plenty of time. I'll just Take 20."
DM: "No, you can't. If you fail, that means you didn't escape. Obviously, that's bad. I mean, it's worse than if you succeeded, right?"
Player: "Dang! I rolled a 1 on my Open Lock check."
DM: "Yep. The chest is still locked."
Player: "Well, we're in no hurry. I'll just Take 20."
DM: "No, you can't. If you fail, that means the chest is still locked. But you want the chest open right now, don't you? Failure means your desire is thwarted, and that's bad."
Player: "I search the door for traps. Rats! I only rolled a 12."
DM: "You don't notice any traps on the door."
Player: "No kidding. Well, what's the rush? I'll just Take 20."
DM: "No, you can't. If there's a trap, failing your Search check means you didn't find it. Not finding the trap would be bad. I mean, if there's a trap there, you'd want to know that, wouldn't you? So not knowing must be bad. After all, you're more likely to open the door and set it off."
but it seems to me that if you don't "see" a trap then you are much more likely to step there, touch there, move there, etc. Which would be a bad thing.
Case in point. The Search rules do not require that you "step there, touch there, move there, etc." They also do not specify any penalty for failing a Search check. Thus, any time a DM decrees that merely failing a Search check would trigger a trap, that is an ad hoc decision neither supported nor forbidden by the rules. Such traps should, IMO, be extremely rare, and never triggered by such things as "stepping there, touching there, or moving there" unless the player actually declares that his character is stepping here, touching this, or moving that.
Speaking of traps, does anybody give out XP for traps? My players have been levelling pretty fast, and I think I shouldn't be giving trap XP...
Yes, traps garner XP. Parties level fast in 3.X; if this is the problem, check out the "Realistic Aging in Campaigns" thread.
Also, how many traps are you using? I don't, and most published adventures don't seem to, use nearly as many traps as NPC encounters. I think the system is built so the party levels every 12-14 encounters or something like that. A trap and a monster or hostile NPC both count as encounters. You just have to make sure the encounter totals are correct, or you will get parties leveling too fast or too slow.
Speaking of traps, does anybody give out XP for traps? My players have been levelling pretty fast, and I think I shouldn't be giving trap XP...
This has come up before and the general consensus - with some vocal exceptions - was yes.
Also, how many traps are you using? I don't, and most published adventures don't seem to, use nearly as many traps as NPC encounters. I think the system is built so the party levels every 12-14 encounters or something like that. A trap and a monster or hostile NPC both count as encounters. You just have to make sure the encounter totals are correct, or you will get parties leveling too fast or too slow.
I think that the 12-14 encounters theory only works with a 25 point build and if only the 3 core books are allowed. Everything beyond this allows the players to fight tougher monsters or have a much easier time with weakwer ones thus throwing the system off.
|
Just to clarify: You can take 20 to FIND a trap, you can't take 20 to Disable a trap.
FH
A villian at your bedside
take this and you'll be fine
Severely educated
Just pay your bill on time
I think it's time for another test
I need more of your blood
Sign this affidavit
so my insurance won't go up
I'm a healer
Taking a 20 is the ultimate cop out IMHO and drags the game time down (not necessarily real time) because it takes crazy amounts of time. I usually disallow this by making it very painful for the party in the form of wandering monsters. After all, how long does it say you have to take to search a 5x5 square for traps? If you have a 20x30 room, that might be hours of adventuring time wasted while the day gets longer - and stuff moves in my world even if the PC's don't.
I agree that it takes a painful amount of time to take twenty to and go over an entire dungeon but as a DM I reward this. They suffer problems from taking so much time but I am a huge fan of secrets and traps. My dungeons are always filled with secret stashes of money or equipment, secret doors to new chambers as well as a ton of homemade traps.
Look at it from the rouges point of veiw. Sure he could save time and breifly scan for traps Taking 10 but what about the traps he is bound to miss eventually. The first time a party member falls into a pit and gets consumed by a gelatinous cube all eyes are going to turn to the rouge that was too lazy to seach properly.
So I feel that there is a heavy incentive to seach painstakingly. As far as I can tell there is no way to cue a party to start looking for traps without negating the suprize of an attack by traps, which is their only advantage.
I would say that, if the party is going to take 20, they should give the DM a plan of what squres they are going to search in what order. This way, in the rare case that, even taking 20 and aiding another, they still miss a trap, the DM knows which ones they set off, and when. Or, if the party wanted to find a trap and disarm it then, rather than moving on and finding them all and disarming them once the whole room was explored. This lets them know which traps they find first.
This is most useful, of course, in groups lacking a rogue. Those poor, poor people....
I've noticed a tone in many of these posts that seem to indicate the forgetting of one very important thing about trapfinding, which is that only a rogue or cleric using a find traps spell can do it. The party can spread out and start taking 10s or 20s for hours if they like and only find traps the hard way.
Secret doors are another matter, however. Anyone with an intelligence score can search for those, and since it stands to reason that intelligent monsters would hide their treasure, logically designed dungeons should feature at least one.
Probably the best way to speed game play with regard to searching is to become predictable- cults hide their loot in a secret compartment below the alter, wizards hide theirs behind a false back in a wardrobe, traps are always near entrances and bottlenecks. As the players catch on, they save time by knowing where to search. This may seem boring to some, and for them I would not recommend it.
Another option is to allow the PCs to spot traps and secret doors. Give any PC with line of sight to a secret door or trap they could search for a spot check with a DC of 10 higher than the search DC. This makes the spot skill way more useful, so to maintain balance and still maintain some distinction between what spot and search do, have the check instead be a search check, modified by the PC's wisdom bonus rather than intelligence. Of course they won't always succeed on this check, so don't tell them what their rolling for, just ask for a d20 and look up their skill modifier from your own notes. A limited range of 15 feet should allow a perceptive party to cover most of a room just by passing through it a catch most traps before getting to close. To make tis varient less of a screw job for elf players, the elves secret door finding ability should be extended to 10 feet without the +10 DC and 20 feet with it.
If you want to be a little more restrictive have a success indicate only that a character has noticed that "something is up" with an area, prompting them to make search rolls normally.
My players tend to search like crazy and I find that most of the time the only traps that really work on them are interspersed with an encounter since they can't take 20 when involved in an actual encounter.How do I help my younger, less-experienced, players with their trapfinding skills? (not the characters, the players) They generally search every closed door, but not an open door or anything in a corridor (such as a pit trap).
How can I educate them towards a good balance of searching and keeping the game moving?
Im not sure if this has been said already but taking 20 assumes that you are just going to keep rolling until you get a 20 on the die, thereby succeeding. This is possible if you konw there is something there or a task needs to be completed, such as picking a lock. But if you are searching for traps you can only take 10. If you take a 20 you are as likely to roll a 1 or any number that can equal a failure before you roll a 20.
If I am a rogue and I search and fail my roll, as a PC I am sure that I have searched high and low and have found nothing. Therefore, I do not need to roll again and I am happy that there are no traps. Allowing them to check again really is unreasonable from a PC point of view unless they can provide a good reason to do so.
DD, at the risk of sounding like a rules lawyer I feel compelled to point out a slight mistake.
Anyone can search for traps, only the Rogue (or cleric with spell) can find traps with a Search DC higher than 20.
Almost all traps with CR higher than 1 have Search DC higher than 20. So everyone in the party has the ability to spot a CR 1 and some CR 2 traps.
I do like your other suggestions about modifying Spot to be able to discern that something is not quite right. Keep in mind that if the trap is set in stone then a dwarf can search with a +2 from stonecunning.
Igni, thanks for pointing out that clarification. I had actually noticed both when I checked up on the rules to make sure I wasn't remembering a 3.0 rule that had been altered, but I was trying to be brief.
DD
Im new to posting here...my previous post looks like one giant quote, haha!
Im not sure if this has been said already but taking 20 assumes that you are just going to keep rolling until you get a 20 on the die, thereby succeeding. This is possible if you konw there is something there or a task needs to be completed, such as picking a lock. But if you are searching for traps you can only take 10. If you take a 20 you are as likely to roll a 1 or any number that can equal a failure before you roll a 20.
If I am a rogue and I search and fail my roll, as a PC I am sure that I have searched high and low and have found nothing. Therefore, I do not need to roll again and I am happy that there are no traps. Allowing them to check again really is unreasonable from a PC point of view unless they can provide a good reason to do so.
You can absolutely take 20 on a search, regardless of what you are searching for, and whether or not it is there to be found. Taking 20 on a search check means spending two minutes to search a 5x5 area instead of 6 seconds, guaranteeing that the character will find anything that is possible for her to find, based on skill modifier and class abilities.
If you want to be nice as a DM, allow a character taking 20 on a search to find what he was looking for in only one minute if the search DC is low enough that he could have found it by taking 10.
You can absolutely take 20 on a search, regardless of what you are searching for, and whether or not it is there to be found. Taking 20 on a search check means spending two minutes to search a 5x5 area instead of 6 seconds, guaranteeing that the character will find anything that is possible for her to find, based on skill modifier and class abilities.
If you want to be nice as a DM, allow a character taking 20 on a search to find what he was looking for in only one minute if the search DC is low enough that he could have found it by taking 10.
Sure you can take 20 but you are missing the point of "Taking 20" entirely. If a person has searched for traps and rolled a 5 with a modifier of 7 and gets a 12 and the DC is 15, they have failed. A failure on a search means they dont find anything. The character is not thinking to himself, "Wow, I rolled really crappy on my search, let me search again." No, as the DM you would say to the person searching, "You have searched in the corners and shadows and did not find a trap." What motivation would the character have for searching again?
Taking 20 is the assumption that you will roll until you get a 20. Why would a PC EVER do this when searching unless they are using metagame thinking? Taking 20 is specifically meant for tasks in which you know you have failed and can make a repeat attempt, such as picking a lock, where you know you have failed. A PC can NEVER know he failed a search or spot check within a roleplaying session unless they spring a trap or some such after the PC said it was clear.
Lets compare searching to climbing: you cannot take 20 while climbing because there is a result from failure. The result being you fall. With a search check, a failure means you do not find anything but you think you have searched carefully. See where Im going with this?
Taking 20 is reserved for actions that have no penalty for failure.
With a search check, a failure means you do not find anything but you think you have searched carefully.
Wrong. You think you have searched a 5-foot square for about 6 seconds. That's not "carefully." That's "taking a quick look."
You are also wrong about what Taking 20 models. It is not "meant for tasks in which you know you have failed." Such knowledge is irrelevant. The Take 20 rules are meant to speed up game play in situations where otherwise characters might want to keep rolling again and again and again and again and again to make sure they've done the best they can possibly do...like, for instance, when Searching for deadly traps that may or may not be there. Rather than make the player (or DM) actually roll the dice 20 or so times, the rules say: "Don't waste everybody's time with a bunch of boring die-rolling. Just assume the character eventually gets a 20 and move on!"
But don't trust me. Read the Take 20 rules again. You won't find anything in there about PCs needing to know whether they failed or not.
With a search check, a failure means you do not find anything but you think you have searched carefully.Wrong. You think you have searched a 5-foot square for about 6 seconds. That's not "carefully." That's "taking a quick look."
You are also wrong about what Taking 20 models. It is not "meant for tasks in which you know you have failed." Such knowledge is irrelevant. The Take 20 rules are meant to speed up game play in situations where otherwise characters might want to keep rolling again and again and again and again and again to make sure they've done the best they can possibly do...like, for instance, when Searching for deadly traps that may or may not be there. Rather than make the player (or DM) actually roll the dice 20 or so times, the rules say: "Don't waste everybody's time with a bunch of boring die-rolling. Just assume the character eventually gets a 20 and move on!"
But don't trust me. Read the Take 20 rules again. You won't find anything in there about PCs needing to know whether they failed or not.
I think you missed the point of my post entirely. A PC checking again and again is a perfect example of metagame thinking.
I didnt say the Take 20 rules said anything about knowledge of failure or not. Its common sense. If a PC fails a roll to search for a trap you dont say, "You failed your roll and fail to find anything" you say, "Youve searched the area and do not find anything"
Like I said, you can allow your characters to Take 20 if you would like, but it doesnt make any sense from a roleplaying perspective.
If you think that taking 20 for searches makes no sense, then why don't you just go ahead and stop looking for your keys after 6 seconds of not finding them?
If you think that taking 20 for searches makes no sense, then why don't you just go ahead and stop looking for your keys after 6 seconds of not finding them?
Ah, now that is the question! Why indeed? You see, I would keep searching, just NOT IN THE SAME PLACE! Why, if I have searched an area, would I continue searching that same place knowing the result? That is what you do when you take 20. You continue searching the same place, rolling and rolling and rolling until you receive a 20. Makes no sense. And from a gaming perspective, the player may know something is there yet his character does not, so he continues until his character knows as well. Metagame thinking at its finest.
Rather than make the player (or DM) actually roll the dice 20 or so times, the rules say: "Don't waste everybody's time with a bunch of boring die-rolling. Just assume the character eventually gets a 20 and move on!"
You hit the nail on the head with that one. Taking 20 assumes the character will know the result of a failed roll and will continue trying until he achieves success. When searching, or spotting, for that matter, a failed result is not known to the PC. A PC assumes he has succeeded in his attempt whether or not the result he achieves is a success or a failure. However, when picking a lock, a character knows he has failed and will continue to try again. That is when you take 20.
You have to consider what the search DC associated with finding something really entails. Suppose your keys are in a full junk drawer. Now suppose your keys are an allen wrench or something that is more likely to be in a junk drawer. The DC to find that allen wrench is pretty high, because you have to dig around for it for a while, but it's in there. If you "take 20", then you are basically rumaging around in the drawer until you find it, and for the sake of simplicity, in D&D we say that takes two minutes.
Likewise a dungeon explorer who spends two minutes sticking her knife blade into the cracks between stones and wiggling it is also taking 20, and if there is anything there to be found, her thouroughness is quite likely to reveal it.
I like that argument a lot more and youve given me something to consider. If my players specifically state they will be checking an area as such then I will give them the 20. In a situation youve described I can see it being a valid use of the rule.
Savaun, you are a gentlebeing and a scholar.
DD
|
|
Blackhawk, I must point out something, when a rule specifically geared towards one particular class is changed that class becomes less usable in gameplay. I once had a Dm rule that flatfooted was not surprised and therefore not open to sneak attacks. The party rogue promptly lost all his combat worth and lost interest in playing a rogue. When you hobble a class that is constantly falling in pits, jabbing themselves with poison needle and opening up exploding chests, you are going to make that a less attractive class for the player to play.
my 2
FH
I think you missed the point of my post entirely. A PC checking again and again is a perfect example of metagame thinking.
Oh, I understood you perfectly. I just disagree with you that inspecting a 125-cubic-foot volume of space that might contain a near-invisible trap capable of killing you for more than 6 seconds is a "perfect example of metagame thinking."
I didnt say the Take 20 rules said anything about knowledge of failure or not. Its common sense.
Whether it's explicitly stated in the rules or "common sense," you're wrong that Taking 20 assumes the character will know the result of a failed roll! It has nothing to do with such knowledge. It is simply an expedient way to avoid having players roll again and again and again to make sure they've done the best job of Searching/Opening Locks/Escape-Artisting/Etc. they can possibly do. Why is this so hard for you (and many others) to understand?
If a PC fails a roll to search for a trap you dont say, "You failed your roll and fail to find anything" you say, "Youve searched the area and do not find anything"
Actually, you say: "You've searched the area for about six seconds and do not find anything. Would you like to keep looking?"