Do you have any thoughts on disallowing the Take-Ten rule for Opening Locks and Disabling Traps since they could be termed as 'stressful'?
Secondly, what is the purpose of the skill mastery in these if you can Take-Ten anyway?
Do you have any thoughts on disallowing the Take-Ten rule for Opening Locks and Disabling Traps since they could be termed as 'stressful'?
Secondly, what is the purpose of the skill mastery in these if you can Take-Ten anyway?
I believe that you cannot take ten when the situation you find yourself in is distracting enough to have you make a concentration check (like during combat), but simply having a situation be stressful is not enough. I would hazard to guess that many of the skills could be deemed inherently stressful: Climb, Jump (depending upon what you are jumping over), Balance - all stuff that you can do outside a combat situation. Also the rules state that in order to take ten, "your character is not being threatened or distracted" and gives the specific example under the heading 'taking 20' that you *could* take 20 to open a lock because the threat of danger is just not present, but could never be used on a skill (like disable device) because the consequenses of failure (which you automatically incur) are immediately apparent. (PHB, pg 65)
By the same token, if you take a feat or have a special ability that can "break" this rule, then you can. Skill Mastery states: The rogue becomes so certain in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so. I read this to mean that distractions cease to affect those skills that you have designated to Master and you can now take ten even when doing them in combat.
The DCs for locks and traps are usually set at 20 or higher, so taking 10 only works for a high-level rogue working on a simple challenge. ("Hell, I could pick this lock in my sleep!")
Unless the thief is trying to get the escape door open while his buddies fend off the horde of orcs chasing the party, or a trap linked to the lock with a time delay on it, there's no reason he shouldn't be able to take 20 on picking a lock. If there is an enemy on the other side of the door, let him take 20 on a listen check to hear the rogue at work to negate surprise--maybe if his listen modifier is higher than the rogue's open lock modifier give him the difference between the two modifiers in rounds to take preparatory actions. If the rogue is threatened or distracted, as in the pursuing orcs scenario above, he can't take 10 without Skill Mastery or a comparable ability.
As for disabling device, I'd say you can take ten on it as long as you're not under some kind of obvious threat or time pressure. Since there are almost always consequences for failure (spring the trap, sabotage fails to work as planned but you can't tell you botched the job) taking 20 is almost never an option. And since disable DCs for all but the simplest traps are generally 20 or above, taking 10 is only safe for a mid-level or higher rogue working on a very basic trap.
What about Taking 20 on a Search check under no threat? Sure, the party moves about the same pace as a snail, but when the troupe realizes that there's likely a trap present, they tend to stop, look at the rogue, and apparently take a break/eat lunch/bind wounds or whatever, while she stops and inspects every damned inch of the wall...
Annoying, but legal, I suppose...
What about Taking 20 on a Search check under no threat? Sure, the party moves about the same pace as a snail, but when the troupe realizes that there's likely a trap present, they tend to stop, look at the rogue, and apparently take a break/eat lunch/bind wounds or whatever, while she stops and inspects every damned inch of the wall...
Annoying, but legal, I suppose...
Parties that overuse this in my campaign tend to run into patroling monsters appropriate to the situation in question. On the other hand, when a corridor deadends in a location that makes any experienced adventurer say "hey, there's gotta be a secret door here somewhere" I can understand the need for a party to take 20 to find the door.
- Ashavan
What about Taking 20 on a Search check under no threat? Sure, the party moves about the same pace as a snail, but when the troupe realizes that there's likely a trap present, they tend to stop, look at the rogue, and apparently take a break/eat lunch/bind wounds or whatever, while she stops and inspects every damned inch of the wall...
Annoying, but legal, I suppose...
Why is that annoying? What would you expect a rational person to do in a situation where he realizes there is "likely a trap present," just plod right on ahead and trigger it? Give the likely-trap-of-death a quick once-over and, knowing he may easily have missed a subtle clue, risk his life by continuing on?
Or does it make sense that he might spend another 2 minutes taking a closer look?
Taking ten is for when you don't have to roll because you'd probably beat it anyway in a few tries, so rolling at all would just be a formality.
Taking twenty is for when you're going to do it over and over and over until you get it right, or try every possible permutation, or search every possible nook and cranny. The drawback is that you waste time and your buff spells wear off, although most DMs don't track time very strictly since it's a hassle.
You can't take 10 or take 20 in combat because each attempt takes one combat round. You can't do it if there's some penalty for failure or time limit, because then it's important to know if an attempt might fail. You can't take 20 to hear a sound that only happens once, nor can you take 20 on something which has a penalty (unless, perhaps, you're willing to suffer that penalty).
I tend toward taking ten or twenty (as appropriate) at every possible opportunity, unless I'm pretty certain that a "typical" attempt (taking ten) won't accomplish what I'm trying. Then, I tend to have abysmal luck with my dice unless I'm DMing -- I'm about one inopportune natural 1 away from giving my translucent purple d20 the skillet.
Taking 20 on a search check? I'd do it, sure. The problem is that I can't really see taking 20 to search for traps, because if you fail to locate the trap you'll probably trigger it when you're looking somewhere else in the square. You didn't notice the contact poison on the doorknob, so you're exposed when you jiggle it to check for another type of trap, or you step on the pressure plate you didn't notice when you're checking to see if there are any dart launchers hidden in that pedestal. Mostly I take 20 to search for a hidden door, or to see if the goblin was hiding his wallet under a loose tile under his bed.
Taking 20 on a search check? I'd do it, sure. The problem is that I can't really see taking 20 to search for traps, because if you fail to locate the trap you'll probably trigger it when you're looking somewhere else in the square.
If that were true, don't you think the rules would mention it like they do for Disable Device (and other skills where there is some negative result for failure)? "If you fail your Search check by 5 or more, you trigger any traps in the square being searched." Something like that?
Based on the Search DCs for traps, I'm pretty sure the game designers intended for rogues to be routinely taking 20 on their Search checks. Either that or they wanted to make sure no one ever played a rogue.
Taking ten is for when you don't have to roll because you'd probably beat it anyway in a few tries, so rolling at all would just be a formality.
I'm going to be nitpicky and disagree with you. Taking 10 is for when you want to eliminate the "random element" while doing something reasonably easy, especially when doing so would have dire consequences. (Jumping a 10-foot wide but 10,000-foot deep crevasse, for example.) It's not that rolling is a mere "formality"; you might very well blow it on the first roll and die. Maybe your whole party is trying to Hide and Move Silently through a camp of sleeping gnolls; the DCs are pretty low, but one unlucky roll (out of say, ten) will bork the whole plan. So you all take 10. Again, not because rolling would be a "formality," but because rolling would be foolish.
If that were true, don't you think the rules would mention it like they do for Disable Device (and other skills where there is some negative result for failure)? "If you fail your Search check by 5 or more, you trigger any traps in the square being searched." Something like that?
Based on the Search DCs for traps, I'm pretty sure the game designers intended for rogues to be routinely taking 20 on their Search checks. Either that or they wanted to make sure no one ever played a rogue.
Well, I'm hesitant about playing rogues anyway, as anything from extra-thick armor to the alignment of the stars to a light fog can render sneak attack completely useless, but that's neither here nor there. I figure that the penalty for failing to notice a trap is pretty obvious -- you're unaware of it. If you're not aware of that pit trap, and then you step into the square to get a better look at the wall (to see if there are any suspicious looking holes that arrows might pop out of), you trigger the trap. Seems pretty simple to me.
Then, I'm pretty accustomed to skill-based characters getting the shaft, so to speak.
Jonathan Drain--Taking 10 only takes one round. Under some circumstances, you could use it while you're in combat mode (i.e. tracking actions round by round)--the issue is whether the character making the check is rushed or distracted by the specific situation. A rogue climbing the wall where no enemies can see him, while his friends are fighting them around the corner, should be able to take 10.
You can't take 20 in combat because it takes 2 minutes (20 rounds) to complete the action.
White Toy Maker--Search checks are primarily a visual affair. If the process of searching might trigger a trap, the DM should have the character specify which part of the area she looks at first, and what precautions she takes to avoid "getting the shaft" from an unexpected direction. Alternatively, I'd say most rogues searching for traps can be assumed to do a thorough visual inspection from a distance, then slowly advance into the suspected area, repeating the process frequently. The door handle would get a thorough visual inspection before it gets jiggled. Etc. If you have ranks in search, you have learned through training and experience what procedures work best and will tend to follow them carefully, as long as you're able to take your time.
I figure that the penalty for failing to notice a trap is pretty obvious -- you're unaware of it. If you're not aware of that pit trap, and then you step into the square to get a better look at the wall (to see if there are any suspicious looking holes that arrows might pop out of), you trigger the trap. Seems pretty simple to me.
I guess I'm not understanding the scenario you're describing. Can the trap be detected via a Search check from outside the square or not? (Does the rogue have to "step into the square to get a better look at the wall," or can he find it without doing so?) If the answer is yes, then why can't the rogue Search for 20 times as long before stepping into the square? If the answer is no, then haven't you just described a trap that cannot be detected at all by Searching?
The DCs for locks and traps are usually set at 20 or higher, so taking 10 only works for a high-level rogue working on a simple challenge. ("Hell, I could pick this lock in my sleep!")
As for disabling device, I'd say you can take ten on it as long as you're not under some kind of obvious threat or time pressure. Since there are almost always consequences for failure (spring the trap, sabotage fails to work as planned but you can't tell you botched the job) taking 20 is almost never an option. And since disable DCs for all but the simplest traps are generally 20 or above, taking 10 is only safe for a mid-level or higher rogue working on a very basic trap.
Actually, the DC for locks isn't all that great and anyone can do it. Searching for traps is something only someone with trapfinding can do - and that's a different thing anyway. I believe that you should take ten when there is reason to believe that you will make it anyway. I would argue that the DC for opening locks and finding traps in any adventure should be the median amount for any task. For instance, if your 3rd level rogue has a 16 dex (+3), a maxed out Disable device (+6), and a synergy bonus (+2), why shouldn't he be able to take ten if the DC of the trap is only 21? He should already know that the trap is something he could normally disable. Move along, move along. If he has to ply his skill and stretch it to newer limits where the chances of success are more hit or miss... well, I would think that a rogue would know when to hold em and when to fold em, as it were. He knows his own craft.
The only problem with this is that the DM would have to give the character the DC of the trap, and I don't know if DM's are likely to do that.I guess I just never understood the "only high-level PC's can do this" arguement. Maybe as a baseline, but my players tend to almost specialize in skill sets. If you are realistically trying to make a DC 30 check what would the minimum character level be? A Diviner in my group is 7th level, has ten ranks in lots of knowledge skills and a high Int, plus synergy bonuses if applicable and skill focus. Some of his baseline skills are +19, and that's without taking ten or rolling the dice. So when the adventure calls for levels of knowledge known, the DC's for 5 through 25 are automatic! At 7th level.
Maybe it's just me...
Celric
I guess I'm not understanding the scenario you're describing. Can the trap be detected via a Search check from outside the square or not? (Does the rogue have to "step into the square to get a better look at the wall," or can he find it without doing so?) If the answer is yes, then why can't the rogue Search for 20 times as long before stepping into the square? If the answer is no, then haven't you just described a trap that cannot be detected at all by Searching?
I never make anything "go off" because of a failed search check, you simply fail to find anything. If you then do something that would trigger a trap (etc), then that's a seperate thing.
A 20 foot by 20 foot room has 16 squares in it and would take 32 minutes to search if you "took 20" in each square. That pretty much kills lower level buff spells and probably kills the amount the next roomfull of baddies is surprised. I would also argue that stuff happens in the half hour you are tearing up the room - and if you want proof then think about what would happen if you started rumaging through your neighbor's garage for a half hour while he was home. ANd I'd be will to bet there are no traps to find in there either.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I guess I just never understood the "only high-level PC's can do this" arguement. Maybe as a baseline, but my players tend to almost specialize in skill sets. If you are realistically trying to make a DC 30 check what would the minimum character level be? A Diviner in my group is 7th level, has ten ranks in lots of knowledge skills and a high Int, plus synergy bonuses if applicable and skill focus. Some of his baseline skills are +19, and that's without taking ten or rolling the dice. So when the adventure calls for levels of knowledge known, the DC's for 5 through 25 are automatic! At 7th level.
Maybe it's just me...
I'm right there with you on this one. The skill DCs for "difficult" challenges seem to be severely skewed. If your character has the skill in-class and fairly high ranks in it for his level (even if he hasn't quite maxed it), DC 20 checks are easily accomplished by 3rd level, DC 25 is routine by 6th, and DC 30 is fairly easy by level 10. With all the various synergies that exist, classes like rogues and bards especially manage these skill checks with ease. Even classes like the Ranger have little difficulty with "hard" skill DCs if they are focused in that skill. For example, tracking a single housecat over hard stone 3 days after the fact is a total DC of what... 35? 40? Let's assume a 12th level Ranger. Max ranks of Survival (15), 16 Wisdom (+3), synergy from Knowledge (nature) (+2), and you've got a total of +20. Taking 20 will put him on the trail of that housecat with no problem. This isn't even counting feats like Skill Focus or any other skill enhancers (can't think of the name of the feat that gives +2 Survival and +2 Heal). And DC 40 checks, according to the books, is something that only extremely high level characters should be able to do, yet I've shown here that it is certainly doable at level 12. Skill checks over 50 are considered in the realm of 'epic-level' characters, yet I had a level 15 rogue who routinely exceeded 50 on several of his skills. Granted, he was rather specifically geared towards amazingly high skill checks, but I aggrivated the DM to no end with my spectacular results. Max ranks in Sleight of Hand (18), +6 Dex bonus, Nimble Fingers feat (+2), Skill Focus (+3), Bluff synergy (+2), Charlatan feat (+2), and Skill Mastery meant that I could take 10 at any time and get a 43 on my Sleight checks. I would waltz through town and pickpocket just about everything I came across. No one even came close to spotting me. It was pretty ridiculous.
As far as I am concerned you can take 10 on most Open Locks checks. I see nothing stressful about it, unless you are dangling by one hand above a 100 foot deep spiked pit containing a swarm of spiders with flesh-eating venom, while trying to pick the lock to the pit that just closed over your head.
Disabling Device - if it is a trap, you can't take 10 or 20. If it is somethingt hat will blow up or potentially cause harm to you or others if it is not disabled, you cannot take 10 or 20. If you are just trying to disable something, like a simple machine, and there are no harmful consequences to your actions (judged completely by the DM), then Taking 10 or 20 is perfectly acceptable.
M'kay... Interesting viewpoints. I particularly like (and dislike at the same time) the idea that Rogues or Bards should be able to Take 10 and find most anything, given proper synergies and skill levels...
If you're supposed to be able to find them with a simple Take 10, then answer this seemingly stupid application of the rules: You get experience for defeating traps.
For Taking 10.
For doing nothing.
For having built your character properly.
Add in ridiculous magic items like:
Goggles of Minute Seeing: The lenses of this item are made of special crystal. When placed over the eyes of the wearer, the lenses enable her to see much better than normal at distances of 1 foot or less, granting her a +5 competence bonus on Search checks to find secret doors, traps, and similar concealed objects. Both lenses must be worn for the magic to be effective.
Faint divination; CL 3rd; Craft Wondrous Item, true seeing; Price 1,250 gp.
which the Rogue in my party found and kept in the Age of Worms campaign, and you get the fact that the party AUTOMATICALLY finds EVERY TRAP in the campaign (if she looks), thus earning themselves what amounts to FREE XP for having done nothing.
At last count, the rogue regularly rolls in the mid-30s and she's only 4th level...
*sigh*
I fail to see why you should earn experience points for having disabled something that MIGHT have hurt you, only your build design and a combination of magic items you have on you make that a practical impossibility. So long as she Takes 10 on her skill check, she can't even CRIT FAIL, thus activating the trap.
*grumble*
Syrinx
M'kay... Interesting viewpoints. I particularly like (and dislike at the same time) the idea that Rogues or Bards should be able to Take 10 and find most anything, given proper synergies and skill levels...
If you're supposed to be able to find them with a simple Take 10, then answer this seemingly stupid application of the rules: You get experience for defeating traps.
:Snip: *grumble*
Syrinx
Don't get me wrong, in a world filled with lethal traps, poisons, weird creatures and magic, I'm assuming that some group of folks (we'll call them rogues) have learned a specific skill set to overcome the obstacles placed between them and their next "score." Assuming, however, is not held up by the rules, which explicitly state that you cannot take ten/twenty if failing will have dire consequences. Not just your run-of-the-mill ones, but the ones of the dire variety. It's inconvenient to miss that secret door because you failed your roll in a different way than it's inconvenient to roll up a new character because you fell into a pool of green slime.
Personally, if the DC for a trap is low enough that taking ten will overcome it, I allow the PC's to pass by without rolling (provided they found the thing first), and award 1/2 XP for the "encounter" because at least they were looking for a trap that might have otherwise caused more hardship than it was worth. Does this mean that I am awarding a specific PC build? You bet! But I have to rationalize that with the fact that finding hidden stuff and disarming traps is What-Rogues-Do (TM). But if it's not a hard enought DC to threaten the little guy, then they just don't gain the full XP they would normally enjoy. If they have to roll the dice (because the DC is higher than taking 10 would allow) then they would get full XP for defeating the encounter.
IMHO, XP awards for skill usage is a tough thing to swallow. Mainly, it all boils down to a hit or a miss - you either disarm the trap, or you all die in green slime. You either talk your way out of trouble, or the guards don't believe that the person you just murdered was a werewolf and they execute you.
So now you're thinking, do I just want to fight that CR10 dragon or enter his CR10 trapped lair? It might take you and your party 20 rounds to finally finish off the dragon, but the misses you rolled when you swung your sword 40 times didn't doom your entire party. Wanna test your dice 40 times in this lair? 20? 5? It really only takes 1 missed die roll to ruin your day when it comes to traps, but other skills are like that as well. Jump over that ravine? I'd rather build a bridge, thank you! A dire lion is chasing the party? Run skill don't fail me now! That sign either says "this way to the land of magical treasure" or "this way to the last place you will ever see"... I knew I should have put more ranks into decipher script.
What was my point again...? Oh, right. If you think of your character as if he was a vibrant, living, participent in your campaign world, then the option of taking ten for stuff you already know how to do certainly makes sense. But if it's old hat stuuf that you already know how to do, then it needs to have an XP hit to balance.
I fail to see why you should earn experience points for having disabled something that MIGHT have hurt you, only your build design and a combination of magic items you have on you make that a practical impossibility. So long as she Takes 10 on her skill check, she can't even CRIT FAIL, thus activating the trap.
On the other hand, why should a different rogue gain experience for doing something that wouldn't have the potential to hurt him if he'd been more efficient in his training regimen? She's still disarming the traps, and if she's doing it at low levels that implies that she's doing it mostly through talent, intuition, and magical guidance (as opposed to training and familiarity with the traps, which would be represented by having lots of ranks in the skill), so the only logical reason to deny her experience is the lack of risk.
Which makes approximately as much sense as denying experience for killing a dragon by attacking its dexterity score: it boils down to penalizing good tactics and specialization. If you're going to penalize her for specializing, all you need to do is not include traps for a little bit. If you want a specific trap to function, there are ways to get around the rogue's abilities. For example, a telepathically deliver Suggestion that there's no trap there, so she shouldn't waste her time looking.
Can the trap be detected via a Search check from outside the square or not? (Does the rogue have to "step into the square to get a better look at the wall," or can he find it without doing so?) If the answer is yes, then why can't the rogue Search for 20 times as long before stepping into the square? If the answer is no, then haven't you just described a trap that cannot be detected at all by Searching?
You can't effectively, through purely visual means, search underneath a carpet (or behind a tapestry, behind a loose brick, or anything of the sort) without coming close enough to remove the offending piece of landscape from the position in which it obstructs your view. Certainly, you can use the search check to locate the trap underneath the carpet, or the readied ballista in the alcove behind the tapestry. You'll just have to get closer.
I suspect that the root of the disagreement is in my interpretation of "taking 20" on a search check -- looking at the problem area from every conceivable angle, getting in and poking at suspicious areas, and generally abandoning caution in favor of trying to figure out what's in there. If you're willing to accept 19 failures (14 of them "greater" failures -- five or more under the DC) that implies recklessness, to my way of thinking.
I suspect that the root of the disagreement is in my interpretation of "taking 20" on a search check -- looking at the problem area from every conceivable angle, getting in and poking at suspicious areas, and generally abandoning caution in favor of trying to figure out what's in there. If you're willing to accept 19 failures (14 of them "greater" failures -- five or more under the DC) that implies recklessness, to my way of thinking.
In truth, taking 20 on a search check always struck me as toeing the cheating line. Here's my thought process:
If the rogue has enough time to take 20 searching all 16 squares of the 20'x20' room, they should be able to discover everything in that room. Now I realize that actually rolling a 20 (or taking one) does not ensure success 100% of the time. But, if there is no chance for a PC specializing in whatever skill set is needed to succeed in the task at hand, then why is it in the adventure for characters at that level? I have no doubt that this will lead quickly to calls of DM cheating - "Whadaya mean roll a Fort save verse the poison gas trap? I just rolled a 20, giving me a total of 35 on my search check (something the PHB states is for finding microbes in a haystack) and you said 'You find nothing'!"Now I also realize that jsut allowing the PC's to find whatever is there with a minimum of risk robs the game of its more thematic elements. If there is a balance and aright answer, then I am not wise enough to know what it is, but I find that random encounters are a great way to move the game along. If the PC's are constantly reminded that there is danger afoot, then they are less likely to 'waste' time by searching everything, rather than just searching those things the DM subtly suggests they take a second look at.
|
I hope they correct these issues in 4.0.
My DM threw some traps at my group and when I started taking 20 on my searches he tried to do everything possible to penalize our group for being cautious. He kept complaining that the game was bogging down. DON'T USE TRAPS IF YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO START TAKING 20 ON EVERYTHING! The traps were awful, ability damage, regular damage, etc. we kept having to retreat from the dungeon to rest. I was the rogue. I'll be damned if I was gonna take one step without a search. We were almost killed many times and the traps weren't in logical positions. It was like roleplaying a dental visit. I hated it.
I think that if treasure is going to be hidden in a room that would require a roll of 15 or higher to find searching then there should be a fair hint that it exists. Same thing for traps. Disable device and open locks I really don't have issue with, but all the differences of opinion on Search are just troublesome. I don't like that a bad roll could make the party miss out on the huge payoff treasure. I wish rogues could use Spot to case a room and with a high check (trap dc+5) get a sense that "something is amiss in the southeast corner", then they could search in greater detail in that area. They wouldn't need to specify that they are searching each square of a hallway, they could just make a spot check and, if they invested enough in it, could feel that they are being reasonably cautious. Gameplay continues on at a fair pace and Rogues feel that their skills are being utilized constantly. Who isn't happy then?
FH
My DM threw some traps at my group and when I started taking 20 on my searches he tried to do everything possible to penalize our group for being cautious. He kept complaining that the game was bogging down. DON'T USE TRAPS IF YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO START TAKING 20 ON EVERYTHING! The traps were awful, ability damage, regular damage, etc. we kept having to retreat from the dungeon to rest. I was the rogue. I'll be damned if I was gonna take one step without a search.
Exactly.
DM: I know a fun game! You roll a d20, and if you get a 12 or less, I blow your head off with a shotgun. Want to play?
Rogue: Uh...is there anything I can do to improve those odds?
DM: No. Not until you go up another level.
Rogue: What happens if I just don't roll the d20?
DM: Oh, well then you don't "find the trap" and I just blow your head off anyway. Doesn't that sound like a fun game?
Rogue: ...
I suspect that the root of the disagreement is in my interpretation of "taking 20" on a search check -- looking at the problem area from every conceivable angle, getting in and poking at suspicious areas, and generally abandoning caution in favor of trying to figure out what's in there. If you're willing to accept 19 failures (14 of them "greater" failures -- five or more under the DC) that implies recklessness, to my way of thinking.
If taking six seconds to Search and failing by rolling a natural 1 doesn't imply "recklessness," why does taking two minutes to Search and failing by (presumably) rolling a natural 1 imply recklessness?
If you're supposed to be able to find them with a simple Take 10, then answer this seemingly stupid application of the rules: You get experience for defeating traps.
For Taking 10.
For doing nothing.
For having built your character properly.
I don't see how this is any stupider than earning XP for doing anything else in the game.
For rolling dice.
For doing nothing.
For having built your character properly.
(Or do you equate "rolling dice" with "doing something?" Because I don't. The "properly built" fighter who uses a move action to close with his enemy, uses a standard action to attack him, and rolls a die to determine whether he hits or not has "done something" as surely as the "properly built" rogue who uses a full-round action to Search a 5-foot square and takes 10 to determine whether he finds anything has "done something." The fact that one has rolled a die and the other hasn't is irrelevant; the "doing something" is defined by the character's declared action, not by how the success or failure of the action is resolved.)
If it is something that will blow up or potentially cause harm to you or others if it is not disabled, you cannot take 10 or 20. If you are just trying to disable something, like a simple machine, and there are no harmful consequences to your actions (judged completely by the DM), then Taking 10 or 20 is perfectly acceptable.
No. Wrong. You can take 10 regardless of how dangerous it is to attempt a skill check. The "harmful consequences" rule applies only to taking 20.
DM: I know a fun game! You roll a d20, and if you get a 12 or less, I blow your head off with a shotgun. Want to play?
Rogue: Uh...is there anything I can do to improve those odds?
DM: No. Not until you go up another level.
Rogue: What happens if I just don't roll the d20?
DM: Oh, well then you don't "find the trap" and I just blow your head off anyway. Doesn't that sound like a fun game?
Rogue: ...
While I understand where you are coming from here, I also think that if there is a pile of folks with their heads blown off in front of your rogue - well, he might just think that there's a trap nearby. Just possibly. Or maybe not a pile of the headless, but a lot of blood stains or some other indication. There are very few advantures these days where the trap itself doesn't interact in some small way with the environment it is placed in, and all of those indications are there for the spot and search checks.
I really liked FH's idea that a spot check to case a room might turn up out of the ordinary stuff. Searching for the cause of that will uncover the trap (or whatever), and then disabling it becomes a future step, if necessary.Case in point: Your character walks into a room and sees a bunch of old furniture laying around and a thin layer of dust over everything. A spot check (DC 20) reveals that the wooden furniture isn't just old, it's pitted and waterlogged. A search (DC 28) reveals that the tapestry is an illusion that when touched fills the room quickly with a mild acid (2 points of non-lethal dmg/round) and a stone in the floor that looks like it might move if forced (DC 18 STR). Disabling the tapestry might be hard (DC 28) and if you fail the room fills up in 3 rounds - giving you plenty of time to try and pry up the stone drain cover but requiring actual rolls and not just a take 10/20. Behold! Giving infomation to the PC's that might actually matter to the health and security of the PC's actually does help them! Unless your PC's are dense - and we all know how that feels.
|
If you're supposed to be able to find them with a simple Take 10, then answer this seemingly stupid application of the rules: You get experience for defeating traps.
For Taking 10.
For doing nothing.
For having built your character properly.
Add in ridiculous magic items like:
Goggles of Minute Seeing: Faint divination; CL 3rd; Craft Wondrous Item, true seeing; Price 1,250 gp....the party AUTOMATICALLY finds EVERY TRAP in the campaign (if she looks), thus earning themselves what amounts to FREE XP for having done nothing.
At last count, the rogue regularly rolls in the mid-30s and she's only 4th level...
Syrinx
The problem isn't just the fact that traps can be easily found, but that the XP for finding them is so out of line with the danger they represent.
The DMG lists a simple fire trap as CR5.
DC29 to find and/or disable it, admittedly, but who needs to find it, anyway?
The DC of the Reflex save is only 16, which means a first-level rogue has a nearly even chance to take half damage. A level 2 Rogue should have a better than even chance of taking NO DAMAGE AT ALL.
Even Tully Turnipfarmer (Com1, Dex 10) dodges the main blast 25% of the time, and even if he doesn't, he can't be killed if there's anyone nearby with a cure cantrip.
According to the rules, he'd get 1800xp regardless of whether he disabled the trap or suffered its effects, which is quite insane. Do you get xp if you're walking through the woods and get shot by an archer who runs away?
Why is anyone at all level 1?
All spell-casting characters would just set up fire traps every day, and get their henchmen to blunder into them...hey, presto, he levels up!
Do it once; all the level 1 henchmen are level 2!
Do it twice; all henchmen are level 3!
Do it 4 times; all henchmen are level 4!
By now, you're all grumbling into your beards, and thinking "No-one would volunteer for such an insane dangerous duty", but why not?
There's no rules for permanent injury in D&D, so he'll heal back to normal every time. Need proof? Just look at all the high-level PCs and NPCs. The most anyone has is a scar to make themselves look dashing. Seasoned female adventurers still expect to have the same baby-soft skin they were born with...
Send the weediest guy in first, and when it fails to kill even him, it proves it's not lethal. In fact, he feels.... tougher, ... more skilled, ... more Reflexier ...etc.
No pain, no gain.
You'd have to fight off the volunteers with a dirty stick.
It beats sending them off into the big wide world, to really risk their life fighting a goblin for 100xp each.
That's one of those "well full of toads" tricks that smart DMs won't let happen. But yeah, in theory, a level 1 fighter can walk into a CR8 power word stun trap, suffer no long-term ill-effects and walk out 5,400 XP better-off. One burning hands trap and 1d4 fire damage later, he reaches level 4.
Of course, that assumes he can find a trap like that and throw himself into it. It's likely much more dangerous place.
The well full of toads trick involves filling a well with toads and setting in on fire. Since a toad's challenge rating is one twelfth of an XP, it only takes 156 toads to bring you all up to level 2.
Snorter- are you saying Rogues shouldn't get experience for doing Rogue things?
And if your DM allows you to gain XP by being a living mine detector find another DM.
Snorter- are you saying Rogues shouldn't get experience for doing Rogue things?
And if your DM allows you to gain XP by being a living mine detector find another DM.
Actually, I think that if a DM is allowing you to gain experience by being a human mine detecter that you should be counting your blessings and waiting for the other shoe to drop. IMC, if I decide to lay down a bunch of traps (or allow them to exist in a pre-made adventure as is) they are alows there for a reason. I added traps all through the kobold-held areas of the Sunless Citadel adventure because I thought that the devious little kobolds would use them to "discourage" the goblins from encroaching on their turf. And, I had the kbold chief tell the party that there were traps there for that very reason - and the party still sprang some of them anyways.
Now, if the players in my group decided that they were just going to start blundering into any traps present for the XP, the traps would have gotten a whole lot deadlier, a whole lot faster (see the pit of green slime comment above). Playing a 1st level character is much like being a 1st level character: You're both trying to figure out just what the best combinations are, the most effective tactics, how to better coordinate with the rest of the party, etc. So it's XP for both you, the player, and your PC - if you can't learn that you shouldn't just blunder into traps, then you shouldn't be getting the XP for them. And since I know that some of my players read this board - take heed to my warning.Green. Slime. Pit. And if you're really unlucky and survive without learning your lesson, it's an illusionary floor covered pit trap that is only 10 feet deep, but the bottom is actually a touch activated portal to the plane of green slime.
Snorter- are you saying Rogues shouldn't get experience for doing Rogue things?
Of course he's not suggesting that (I hope). He's just pointing out that the rules seem to suggest that without rolling any dice or taking any real risk a rogue can gain XP for basically nothing.
For Example:Your 5th level rogue PC really wants to join the theives guild, so they send him to steal some jewelry from the home of some noble patron. Assume your rogue has max ranks in thief skills and a DEX of 16 or higher and NO feats (like stealthy, or skill focus).
So he waits until night fall (like a -5 penalty to spot I think) and takes 10 to sneak past the guards, who also take ten. (In Game Terms, he gets a +26 to hide and +21 to move silently - and the guards get a +5 to spot and +10 to listen). So basicaly he sneaks in and throughout the manor easily. The jewels are both locked and trapped. He takes out his MW lockpicks and MW disarming tools and gets to "work" by taking 10 again each time. He gets a +23 to pick the lock and remove the trap and just as easily sneaks back out.
So no dice were rolled, he got the jewels and he didn't even have any feats! XP or no XP? It's a tough call actually, or at least in my mind. Sure, the little guy did steal stuff so clearly I cannot drink the wine in front of me. But, I also know that the challenge wasn't even difficult enough to make him roll his dice, so I clearly can't choose the wine in front of you, either.
Half XP sounds about right to me, but that means that every rogue will only get much better over time because his skills include stuff to help him along (Hide, Move Silently, Bluff, Slight of Hand, Climb, Open Locks and Disable Device), while those trying to stop him are guards - typically warriors and fighters - that just don't have the skills to oppose rogues and form an effective foil to their dastardly deeds. About the only place they would match up would be in the rogue was rying to climb a wall to escape and the fighter also maxed out his climb skill (and even then he would face an armor penalty).
So what's the logical answer? Stay tuned to find out - hopefully in another un-hyjacked thread ;)
Celric
It looks to me that Rogues can "steal" xp. If you are a rogue and not stealing something, what ARE you doing?
I think Fake healer is on to something, I have a "house" rule that if the players don't play rogues, then I don't play traps. Having the occasional trap is oh so much more satisfying due to its rarity. This increases the enjoyment of the game from a players point of view as the game isn't "bogged down" and the Dms perspective that the game doesn't "bog down".
I particularly like (and will immediately import) the idea that you roll a Spot Check with the DC that of the trap's +5 to notice "something is amiss." I would also determine that the Rogue CANNOT take 10 or 20, just so that there is a die roll involved (you either notice it, or you don't - that's what the dice are for).
That, to me, makes it seem more logical, and knowing that most Rogues don't tend to max out Spot (though I'm sure the party Rogue will once this house rule is instated), means that the Rogue has to make that roll.
Otherwise, I'm going to start incorporating more random encounters just to keep folks on their toes...
Syrinx
I was toying around with a similar idea, but using Sense Motive instead. I wasn't sure if I wanted to make it a feat or just roll it into the Trapfinding ability, but the purpose of the thing is to allow a purely passive method of determining the likelihood of a trap being present. In using the Sense Motive feat, it relies on the character's knowledge of traps and trapmakers (craft trap, knowledge architecture, would both add synergy) to determine that a place or thing is likely to contain a trap.
I also wanted the DCs to be just a little bit lower than for finding the trap, as the character would still have to make the search check to find the trap and its triggering mechanisms. The DM would typically make the Sense Motive roll in secret, or just assume a baseline of taking ten to keep the action flowing more quickly.
Edit: Edited for redundancy.
Come to think of it, how's this for a feat:
Keen Cognizance [General]
You've a natural sense of people that lends you a greater awareness of their manipulation of your environment.
Benefit: The character gains alternate uses of the Sense Motive skill. All such alternative uses are entirely passive, and should be rolled by the DM. Alternatively, the DM can assume the character is Taking 10, unless some circumstance would prohibit it (such as combat).
The DCs for all such checks are equal to the DC of the Spot or Search check to notice them, minus five. The character gains a check so long as they have line of sight to the subject of the check (the trapped item, secret door, etc).
Sense Trap: On a successful check, the character senses the presence of a trap 'somewhere in the area'.If the check equals or exceeds the original search DC to find the trap, he gains a general sense of the trap's location, granting a +2 bonus to the search check of the one that actually searches for the trap.
Sense secret doors and passages: On a successful check the character senses that there is a secret door or passage somewhere nearby. If the check meets or exceeds the original DC to find the secret door or passage, they grant any allies a +2 bonus to the search check as they gain a general idea of its location.
Detect Ambush: On a successful check, the character senses that a particular location is ideal for an ambush, and grants himself and his allies a +2 bonus on any spot checks made to avoid being surprised. If the check meets or exceeds the orginal spot DC to detect the ambush, the character grants a +2 bonus to his and his allies' initiative rolls.
Normal: Sense motive cannot be used for these purposes.
Snorter- are you saying Rogues shouldn't get experience for doing Rogue things?
Of course he's not suggesting that (I hope). He's just pointing out that the rules seem to suggest that without rolling any dice or taking any real risk a rogue can gain XP for basically nothing.
(edited for space)
Half XP sounds about right to me, but that means that every rogue will only get much better over time because his skills include stuff to help him along (Hide, Move Silently, Bluff, Slight of Hand, Climb, Open Locks and Disable Device), while those trying to stop him are guards - typically warriors and fighters - that just don't have the skills to oppose rogues and form an effective foil to their dastardly deeds. About the only place they would match up would be in the rogue was rying to climb a wall to escape and the fighter also maxed out...
First i'd say you must make the rogue roll dice for a hiest. Maybe it's me but taking 10 always seemed like you had the ability to take your time with it to be sure it was done right. With roving patrols and people living in the house you're robbing, how much time do you want to take? Besides, it's worth it for the times they roll a 1 and set off every trap in a 4 mile radius. Inconvceivable? I do not think that word means what you think it does.
Another thing to remember about guards, while they may not be stealthy, they are fighters. So when they do cath a thief, in a straight up fight they mop the floor with them. i'd call that evening out a bit. Also, being outnumbered and out gunned (err... sworded?) makes them more careful.
Make them work and then they'll deserve all the XP they get for their night time jaunts. Make them roll and plan and improvise. Use the guard's numbers to their advantage. it balances out.
Maybe it's me but taking 10 always seemed like you had the ability to take your time with it to be sure it was done right.
It's you. Taking 10 on a skill check takes no more time than rolling for it does.
Taking 10 is the "you can tie your own shoelaces" rule. If you're not in any big hurry and no one is trying to stab you with a sword while you do it, you'll do a decent job of it every single time. You're never going to "roll a 1" and get your own thumbs caught in the knot.
Now, some people don't like that PCs can take 10 on skill checks, because (as you say) "it's worth it for the times they roll a 1 and set off every trap in a 4 mile radius." That's fine. Whatever is fun for you and your group. Personally, I hate having my supposedly-competent character tie his own thumbs up in knots, but that's just me.
It's you. Taking 10 on a skill check takes no more time than rolling for it does.
Taking 10 is the "you can tie your own shoelaces" rule. If you're not in any big hurry and no one is trying to stab you with a sword while you do it, you'll do a decent job of it every single time. You're never going to "roll a 1" and get your own thumbs caught in the knot.
Now, some people don't like that PCs can take 10 on skill checks, because (as you say) "it's worth it for the times they roll a 1 and set off every trap in a 4 mile radius." That's fine. Whatever is fun for you and your group. Personally, I hate having my supposedly-competent character tie his own thumbs up in knots, but that's just me.
Just me then... ok, I can live with that.
My point was to make them work for thier XP. Besides, the numbers work out that your character, with all those bonuses and skills, will make the easy rolls. I've always found it more dramatic in game if the "big move" was rolled. Consider it dramatic effect. It works for us.
Besides the fact that most likely doing these things there would circumstances that would not allow you to take 10. Let's use the same example as before, breaking into a manor house. In the example they take 10's all the way in to the treasure. This is a bad example becuase more than likely, at one point or another the rogue will either be in a hurry or someone is trying to stab him.
It looks to me that Rogues can "steal" xp. If you are a rogue and not stealing something, what ARE you doing?
Searching for traps.
|
|
And if your DM allows you to gain XP by being a living mine detector find another DM.
Many DMs out there will be doing just that, because that is the Rules As Written. You gain xp for 'encountering' a trap, regardless of the result.
Now, many DMs I know have chosen to ignore that rule, or reduce the xp in some way. Often this is because they are long-term players like myself, who have played several RPG systems, and can spot the inconsistencies I've already mentioned (and/or better ways of simulating actions), or they have the benefit of such a player in their group who is willing to back them up and help them out.
Younger, less experienced, less assertive DMs, who have only ever played 3rd Ed, and know no other game systems, are more likely to be held hostage by irresponsible, greedy players who can browbeat them with the Holy Rules, especially since 3rd Ed is much more focussed on 'Players vs DM'-style play, IMHO. The DM is often not the master of the game, weaving a story full of high and lows for the PCs, but is often the Players' gimp, a slave whose job it is to give their characters phat gear and an easy ride. (eg. how many players nowadays, not only own a Monster Manual, but sit flicking through it during a session? And see nothing wrong with shouting down the DM if a creature differs from its standard statline? How many players tell the DM what PrClass they are taking, rather than 'Does this exist? Is this OK with you?'?).
In short, I don't have a problem, because I encourage any DM I play with to listen to his inner voice of reason, and not reward kamikaze actions. I am posting here to help any 'next-generation' DMs, who might otherwise blame themselves (rather than a badly-written rule) if their campaign spirals out of control...consider me a free public service. ;-)
|
|
(edited...)Snorter- are you saying Rogues shouldn't get experience for doing Rogue things?Of course he's not suggesting that (I hope). He's just pointing out that the rules seem to suggest that without rolling any dice or taking any real risk a rogue can gain XP for basically nothing.
Thanks for sticking up for me, Celric. However, I have a confession to make...
...I often do insist (or suggest) to the DM that I get reduced or zero xp...(gasps of shock and horror from the gallery...). But only when it's my character involved. I don't go around dissing other players, and demanding their share be reduced. That would be a sure-fire way to find myself out of a group...I often play a rogue, because I like them, I like the idea of being self-sufficient, I like the fact that they are a valued member of the party.
But. The xp rules don't work.
Eg., The party fights a bunch of creatures, and all xp gets shared equally between the whole party, regardless of who did what. I can accept this, to a certain extent, as long as my rogue successfully infiltrated the rear and sneak attacked someone of import. But often, the rogue is dropped early in the fight, or the foes are immune to sneak attack, or have an AC he cannot hit, so he sits it out, or resorts to total defence, to hold up the goons.
Maybe the foes have DR, and only the fighter has the right weapon.
Maybe the cleric destroys a room full of undead before a weapon is drawn.
Maybe the wizard takes centre stage, with the right spell at the right time, and the rest of the party is there just to protect him.
The DM says "All players get 500xp (or whatever)".
I say "No, the others should have some of my share. I didn't earn it. I don't deserve it. I don't want it.".
This shocks a lot of players (and DMs), but I feel dirty accepting credit for something I did not do.
Conversely, I expect that when I do something on my own initiative, far from the group (such as scouting), this constitutes a 'solo adventure', for which I do deserve full credit.
The problem with the rules as written, is that, if the scout/rogue is given full xp for party combats, plus extra xp for scouting and trapfinding, he will rapidly exceed the rest of the party. So they siphon off the 'solo' xp to the whole party, to 'keep things fair'. If his solo xp are divided between PCs who are not even present, the logical response is "Why the hell should I bother to go the extra mile? My character stands a greater chance of death, and the others are leeching parasites, stealing my xp!".
When a trap is being disarmed, the rest of the party usually leave the room. The rogue performs his actions, on his own, most of the time. Assuming a strong character is not required to hold something steady, or a spellcaster to buff his abilities, the difficulty is the same, regardless of the size of the party.
So why does a rogue with 2 companions hiding in another room get twice the xp of a rogue with 5 absent companions? And why does a solo rogue get 6 times as much?
Why does the fighter, taking a cigarette break outside the dungeon, suddenly level up when the rogue unlocks a door in the cellar? ("Whoah! I felt something then! I feel much more buff! He must have done it!").
The problem is exacerbated by the sheer amount of xp for a simple action. If it were measured in tens or dozens, it wouldn't matter, but it's not. It's measured in hundreds, and thousands. For actions that are often a foregone conclusion, that present no danger. And can be performed (theoretically) infinite times/day.
I'm happy to accept a lesser share of combat/group xp, as long as I get to keep full solo xp. It's the principle of the thing.
But I don't want the xp as per the DMG. I don't want thousands of xp for disabling a simple trap, just a fraction of that.
Am I weird?
I've gone with the system Saern proposed in another thread, of granting out XP based purely on the challenge of the adventure as a whole, instead of dishing it out for individual monsters or traps. This way, the party gets the XP for overcoming the challenge as a whole, instead of meat grinding a bunch of NPCs or being clever enough to flick the right switch.
In the end, it ultimately ends up avoiding the problems regarding XP and traps.
Plus, it gives me plenty of leave to simply tell the party: "Okay, you guys encounter a trap, and the rogue/artificer disables it easily/with some difficulty. You move on." And not worry about whether I should give them XP for something so easy. Guilt free!! :)