Hello, hello,
I ran into some snags and would really appreciate any DMing advice on running a trap heavy adventure.
The main problem that seems to be making the game unfun is the rogue having to roll trap searches down every hallway, at every door, and in every room. It's getting a little tedious and seems silly that the player is constantly having to stop the game to tell me he is rolling a trapsense roll (and am I as the DM supposed to be rolling that?).
Please, tell me DMs, how do you handle trapsense?
Thanks again for any help you can provide to make my game more fun.
|
It's getting a little tedious and seems silly that the player is constantly having to stop the game to tell me he is rolling a trapsense roll (and am I as the DM supposed to be rolling that?).
Rolling a trapsense roll? Maybe I'm a little confused. Trapsense gives the rogue a bonus on saves versus traps that are triggered and/or a bonus on AC, again, versus traps that are triggered. There really isn't a "trapsense" roll.
Trapfinding is another matter. And if he is going to search every 5 foot section of the dungeon just to find every trap, it will probably take days or weeks for the players to finish the dungeon. I would probably start making many (most?) of the traps have an insanely high search DC until he starts toning it down to only look in places where he actually feels there might be a trap.
At least those are my thoughts.
Yeah, thanks Moff, I did indeed mix up trapsense with trapfinding. I guess anyone can make that check right? It's only rogues that can find magical traps - or am I totally wrong on that?
That was a great idea, but I think I'm going to just talk the player and tell him we're only going to search for traps where it would seem obvious traps would be (i.e. near treasure, on closed - not often openend doors, etc.) instead of searching every square.
Any ideas on running wildreness traps? You don't want your players trying to search for traps while wnadering through a forest - yet traps happen (see the Gamemastery Module D0 Hollow's Last Hope, the pit trap in Darkmoon Vale that is in the random encounters).
|
|
Any ideas on running wildreness traps? You don't want your players trying to search for traps while wnadering through a forest - yet traps happen (see the Gamemastery Module D0 Hollow's Last Hope, the pit trap in Darkmoon Vale that is in the random encounters).
Hadn't thought about it before. I guess that I would just make everyone make a spot check (even though the only one I would care about would be the Rogue's spot check) and give it a -5 penalty (since it is a passive scan) and compare it to the search DC. That seems reasonable to me without negating the Rogue's abilities.
And spellcasters can find magical traps with detect magic (in theory). Otherwise, yes, only rogues can find and disarm magic traps.
|
|
If your player insists on searching every 5' square while moving through the dungeon, one method I have heard suggested but never tried (my players hardly ever search for traps) is to have the player role a search check at the beginning of the dungeon; when he comes across the first trap, use that roll and have him roll another for the next trap.
You could even have him roll several and list them in order, marking them off as he comes across traps.
Thanks so much for the help Moff - invaluable!
or you could start having the trap go off when he searches.
*Snicker*
If your player insists on searching every 5' square while moving through the dungeon, one method I have heard suggested but never tried (my players hardly ever search for traps) is to have the player role a search check at the beginning of the dungeon; when he comes across the first trap, use that roll and have him roll another for the next trap.
You could even have him roll several and list them in order, marking them off as he comes across traps.
Having a list of pre-rolls from each player is helpful for a variety of things (unknown spot checks, etc.)
Last time I played a rogue I just took 10 on my search check - if they want to search everywhere, suggest that. Takes 1 minute per 50' of movement - erode spell duration accordingly :).
Contributor
|
The way the rules are written, using traps extensively causes the game to slow down. It's gotten to the point that most game design advice includes 'don't put in a trap without some kind of indication that there is a trap' which I think is stupid. Likewise I think it is stupid to penalize players for taking caution when your dungeon makes it neccesary.
On a related note, I also think that it's stupid that no one can find traps except for rogues (at least of the core base classes).
My solution to both problems is that I allow anyone to use search skill to find traps, and I allow classes with 'trapfinding' to notice traps the way that elves notice secret doors. That way I can put traps in wherever I feel like it, without slowing the game down.
Mind you, I also tend to put most of my traps in the middle of combat encounter areas, because that's the most fun.
My solution to both problems is that I allow anyone to use search skill to find traps, and I allow classes with 'trapfinding' to notice traps the way that elves notice secret doors. That way I can put traps in wherever I feel like it, without slowing the game down.
Mind you, I also tend to put most of my traps in the middle of combat encounter areas, because that's the most fun.
That's kind of how I intend to run it also. I mean, rogue's can't be the only ones who can see a pressure plate on the ground or a trip wire across a doorway. Wizard: "Oh that's nothing but a bit of string, let me just walk through it at my full speed to mark my point!" Stupid.
So, yes, everybody can search but major negatives for trying to disarm unless you're a rogue (training and all that).
Does anyone think it is grossly misbalanced to allow everyone to try tin fond traps?
Likewise I think it is stupid to penalize players for taking caution when your dungeon makes it necessary.
If you were addressing me at all about the 'trap is triggered while searching' remark, then apologies. Twas all in good fun.
|
Contributor
|
If you were addressing me at all about the 'trap is triggered while searching' remark, then apologies. Twas all in good fun.Likewise I think it is stupid to penalize players for taking caution when your dungeon makes it necessary.
Sorry, I got on a 'stupid' roll. i meant to say 'unfair.' And while it was your comment that brough this up, it was not directed at you specifically. Any time this discussion comes up there is a segment of the community that supports punishing players for searching for traps.
Kobold Cleaver, you amuse me greatly. I apologize for the way my comment came out.
|
|
Does anyone think it is grossly misbalanced to allow everyone to try tin fond traps?
I really like what Rambling Scribe wrote.
That being said, while not terribly unbalanced, it takes away some of the abilities of the rogue class if everyone gets the same benefits. Rambling Scribe's solution addresses this some by allowing them to "search" passively. I would still probably put some kind of cap as to what an untrained search check would yield. If the Search DC is 25, we are far beyond some haphazard string across the hallway.
The easy solution is to have the rogue simply take 20. Sure it takes 20 minutes per 5 foot square, but they should find every trap that way. And it means no more needing to roll in every room. Alternatively, as suggested above, just get them to take 10.
It is for reasons such as this that the take 10 and take 20 rules were incorporated into 3.x
The easy solution is to have the rogue simply take 20. Sure it takes 20 minutes per 5 foot square, but they should find every trap that way. And it means no more needing to roll in every room. Alternatively, as suggested above, just get them to take 10.
It is for reasons such as this that the take 10 and take 20 rules were incorporated into 3.x
There is no absolute ruling on how long taking 20 on a 5' square is but 20 minutes is excessive. I mean the players are going to take 20 on a fair number of rooms if they want to find the treasure and saying it takes many hours to thoroughly search a moderate sized room seems extreme. Presuming a search action takes 6 seconds (its a standard action) it seems reasonable that searching a 5' square should take around 20*6 seconds or about 2 minutes. One could argue for 4 minutes maybe if the rogue wanted to be absolutely sure but I can't see them going beyond this - after all they could always insist on taking 40 search checks per 5' space and simply rolling vast quantities of dice.
The whole point of the take 20 rule is to avoid this sort of thing and speed up the game. Either there is something that can be found or there isn't and lets get on with the game.
Hello, hello,
I ran into some snags and would really appreciate any DMing advice on running a trap heavy adventure.
The main problem that seems to be making the game unfun is the rogue having to roll trap searches down every hallway, at every door, and in every room. It's getting a little tedious and seems silly that the player is constantly having to stop the game to tell me he is rolling a trapsense roll (and am I as the DM supposed to be rolling that?).
Please, tell me DMs, how do you handle trapsense?
Thanks again for any help you can provide to make my game more fun.
The player should probably be telling you that he's taking 20 at all these spots. It'll slow the group down but speed up actual game play. However taking 20 means that the rogue will find every trap. Essentially trap heavy adventures don't work very well in 3.5. Traps generally only work if the players are rushed for one reason or another because otherwise they'll likely move slowly through the environment taking 20 on everything.
|
|
However taking 20 means that the rogue will find every trap. Essentially trap heavy adventures don't work very well in 3.5. Traps generally only work if the players are rushed for one reason or another because otherwise they'll likely move slowly through the environment taking 20 on everything.
Actually, taking 20 quite likely means he'll find every trap, but only as a side-effect of springing it (sorry, Scribe).
Taking 20 involves assuming that you take 20 times as long, during which time you're assumed to roll every die result from 1 to 20.When a player asks if he can take 20, the DM should think "What's the worst result that can happen?", and if rolling a 1 would result in a check low enough to fumble (usually 5 or more less than the DC), he ought to warn the player that it appears a very difficult task. Of course, if his skill level is through the roof, a 1 may not be a fail, but in that case, he hardly needs to take 20 anyway; he can just stroll past, taking 10.
Taking 20 is officially 'not allowed' if there is a consequence of failure. I don't agree this should be forbidden; some traps may be insanely difficult, but because of circumstances (poor light, illusions, masterwork trap) appear to be simple, so as to tempt burglars to jump into attempting something outside their ability...(Heh, Heh...).
Taking 10 is another matter entirely, and is what I assume everyone is doing on Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, etc, without having to declare it. Once an initiative count starts, or they're stressed (flooding room, falling debris, etc), then they have to roll and take what they get.
....Mind you, I also tend to put most of my traps in the middle of combat encounter areas, because that's the most fun.
I don't know you dude, but I like you.
Taking 10 or taking 20 makes sense to speed gameplay.
IIRC, anyone can check for traps with a Search check, but only rogues can find a trap with a DC higher than 20. (That might be 3.0, not 3.5, can't remember). Well, OK, other than by triggering the trap itself.
Why, exactly, is the rogue searching every square inch of the dungeon in the first place? Why does he think every square is trapped?
|
|
Search is a skill;
Open Lock is a skill;
Disable Device is a skill;
Tumble is a skill;
Sleight of Hand is a skill;
Decipher Script is a skill;
I’ve heard plenty of players and DMs declare that only rogues should be able to do any of the above, and members of other classes shouldn’t be allowed to even buy some of these skills, since it trespasses on the rogues’ ‘unique’ abilities, and makes them ‘worthless’.
This would seem to go against the whole ethos of Third Edition, which is to open up the classes to allow more options, more customisation, through skills and feats, so we no longer have to go back to the bad old days, of endless sub-classes and the awful 2nd Edition ‘class kits’.
It also goes against the designers stated aim that parties can now be composed of “1 ‘warrior’, 1 ‘arcane’, 1 ‘divine’, and 1 ‘skilled’”, if the skilled PC has to be one class and one class only.
Whether one is any good at a skill depends on one’s skill bonus.
Skill bonus is based on one’s base attribute, skill ranks, synergies, equipment and circumstance bonuses.
If a player has spent the skill ranks (often at double cost), they should reap the benefits of the skill.
It was my understanding that skills are those abilities deemed to be of general use by anyone, regardless of class (as are feats, though they required more effort, and occasionally, a pre-requisite). If they are intended to be one-class unique abilities, then why make them skills?
A rogue will always be better at these skills, since they are class skills, and they get more skill points per level. Allowing an interested amateur to succeed on a DC 21 check once in a while hardly negates that.
1. A Search check to find traps never triggers them, no matter how low you roll. Thus, taking 20 is allowed. It's a different story all together when you go to disable them.
2. Taking 20 on a Search check takes 2 minutes. Searching a 5' square is a standard action; standard action x 20 = 2 minutes (and, oddly enough, alligators x tangerines = 57.39; wierd, huh?)
3. I really like Rambling Scribe's ideas for making trapfinding similar to the elven auto-search for secret doors. If the DM makes sure to incorporate and enforce tangible (though not necessarily extreme) penalties for going slow through dungeons, searching every 5' square, then my gut feeling is the game would remain balanced if everyone were allowed to search for traps, regardless of DC, but the rogue was allowed this ability. Thus, you can rely simply on the rogue's high skill to make his "trap sense" (not the actual class feature) tingle whenever there was actually something around. Otherwise, you have to actively search and waste a lot of time.
1. A Search check to find traps never triggers them, no matter how low you roll. Thus, taking 20 is allowed. It's a different story all together when you go to disable them.
2. Taking 20 on a Search check takes 2 minutes. Searching a 5' square is a standard action; standard action x 20 = 2 minutes (and, oddly enough, alligators x tangerines = 57.39; wierd, huh?)
3. I really like Rambling Scribe's ideas for making trapfinding similar to the elven auto-search for secret doors.
What you said. Anyone *can* search for a tripwire, simple pit trap, etc., with DC's under 20. Can take 20, only takes 2 minutes (a long time for spells, a short time for a day's adventuring).
I don't like making trapfinding automatic, but assuming the rogue is only taking a move action as the party strolls down a corridor (maybe less if slower party members), then they could at least do a take 10 on one square per round (the next square ahead of them?).
Slowing things to 5'/round by taking 10 and actually letting the rogue search shouldn't hurt anything in game, other than for the players who love to rush ahead.
If you were addressing me at all about the 'trap is triggered while searching' remark, then apologies. Twas all in good fun.Likewise I think it is stupid to penalize players for taking caution when your dungeon makes it necessary.
Sorry, I got on a 'stupid' roll. i meant to say 'unfair.' And while it was your comment that brough this up, it was not directed at you specifically. Any time this discussion comes up there is a segment of the community that supports punishing players for searching for traps.
Kobold Cleaver, you amuse me greatly. I apologize for the way my comment came out.
Apology accepted. But I'm still gonna be using my idea!
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! *Snicker*"Alright, DM, my rogue can't afford to be hit by a trap. he's badly injured. So he's gonna search for traps."
"What? You've been searching the entire place. Calm down, waht are the odds that the kobolds added a new, deadly trap here in three hours?"
*Go's over to 'fix' adventure*
"Yeah, I guess you're right. Still..."
"Alright, i understand. Go on."
"Okay, my character searches for traps..."
"And sets off a poison gas trap. 4d% damage."
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!"
Heh heh heh
|
|
However taking 20 means that the rogue will find every trap.
Why?
Rolling a natural 20 on skill checks is not an automatic success just like rolling a natural 1 on skill checks is not an automatic failure.
If the rogue has a +10 to search and the DC is 35, the rogue isn't ever going to find it no matter how long he takes (barring other enhancement spells, assisting others, action points, etc.).
Taking 20 doesn't automatically mean that the rogue will find everything.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
First off, as has been mentioned, traps are not triggered by the act of Searching. A good piece of circumstantial evidence is to look at the Search skill and Disable Device skill. The later tells you the margin of error in which you accidentally trigger a trap; the former does not. In addition, you make traps substantially more deadly if you require two seperate opportunities to trigger them.
Why?
Rolling a natural 20 on skill checks is not an automatic success just like rolling a natural 1 on skill checks is not an automatic failure.
If the rogue has a +10 to search and the DC is 35, the rogue isn't ever going to find it no matter how long he takes (barring other enhancement spells, assisting others, action points, etc.).
Taking 20 doesn't automatically mean that the rogue will find everything.
I think Jeremy is assuming two things: one, that the rogue has maxed out his Search skill and two, the rogue is operating in a level appropriate environment (in other words, the traps could be detected by a character of his level). If both these assumptions are true, the rogue will find every trap.
If the rogue is not optimized for Searching or the trap DC's are set above, say character level +5 or so, it's impossible for the party to find them in general unless they employ divination or other methods. Barring such non-rogue based abilities though, you are throwing challenges at your PCs that they do not have the tools to overcome. It's almost like having an adventure requiring teleportation before that spell is available.
|
|
I think Jeremy is assuming two things: one, that the rogue has maxed out his Search skill and two, the rogue is operating in a level appropriate environment (in other words, the traps could be detected by a character of his level). If both these assumptions are true, the rogue will find every trap.
Yes. But if the rogue holds up the game, I can pretty much guarantee that he will start missing some traps.
There is a reason; you are not cleared to know the reason. Also, the number is 62.4. (Saern forgot a factor and the fourth digit is false accuracy, anyway.)Is there a particular reason alligators x tangerines=57.39 Saern?
Just curious how you came up with this.
Ah. I thought he was just using metric.
|
|
Ah. I thought he was just using metric.There is a reason; you are not cleared to know the reason. Also, the number is 62.4. (Saern forgot a factor and the fourth digit is false accuracy, anyway.)Is there a particular reason alligators x tangerines=57.39 Saern?
Just curious how you came up with this.
Metric multiplies by crocodiles, not alligators.
There is a reason; you are not cleared to know the reason. Also, the number is 62.4. (Saern forgot a factor and the fourth digit is false accuracy, anyway.)Is there a particular reason alligators x tangerines=57.39 Saern?
Just curious how you came up with this.
D'oh!
Metric multiplies by crocodiles, not alligators.Ah. I thought he was just using metric.There is a reason; you are not cleared to know the reason. Also, the number is 62.4. (Saern forgot a factor and the fourth digit is false accuracy, anyway.)Is there a particular reason alligators x tangerines=57.39 Saern?
Just curious how you came up with this.
Yeah, but then the answer comes out in decidiles, and translating that back into alligators is a pain.