Are the DMG 3.5 traps too hard to find?

[HighWater]

Is it just me, or is the average Search DC of 20 on CR1 traps in the DMG a bit brutal for a level 1 character? I have a level4 Rogue in the party with max skillranks in Search (with an Int bonus of +2, for a total of +9 on Search)), and she has a 50%/50% chance of finding a SearchDC 20 CR1 trap, at level 1 that would've been a +6, so a 65% chance of failure. Isn't that a bit high of a failure chance for a CR1 threat when handled by the one character in the party that is supposedly good at finding and disabling traps? And as the average Disable Device DC also lies at 20, that means another 50% (level 4) or 65% failure chance on the second roll, leaving more ways for the Rogue to both die and feel utterly incompetent at her job.

I know that through proper out-of-core optimisation you can boost skill checks massively, but I think it odd that the premade traps are so hard to find if you follow the obvious (lowish-op, but that's the expected gameplay method) path of throwing max skill ranks into a skill you're supposedly good at. Who wants to invest max ranks in two skills, only to fail the first one very often (with potentially painful result), or if succesful, the second one (just as nasty)?

Most traps also don't seem like candidates for take 20 (if you fail to spot them the first time, you trigger them), or aid another (finding and disabling traps is delicate work where any wrong move can set the thing off, also should the Rogue really need aid at its shtick anyway in order to stand a chance?).

Am I just very wrong thinking the DMG-traps are unjustly hard to find ánd disable, or am I missing something obvious?

[Techwarrior]

Search doesn't preclude taking 20, and any Rogue worth their salt should always do so when looking for traps unless they are confident enough in their skills that taking 10 is acceptable.

Besides that, they are supposed to be difficult to find on a random roll. Otherwise, they'd just be XP packets for people who invested in the two skills, and happen to have trapfinding.

[ryu]

Yep. Besides that just look at how simple most of them are. I've gone through entire starting dungeons using nothing but thrown rocks and a ten foot pole to detect traps.

[cricricri13]

I guess the answer is yes and no.

Yes: Because they are hard to find.

No: Because, as they said, they have to be that way, you can't just search randomly every room and get free xp all-the-way.

[TuggyNE]

Most traps also don't seem like candidates for take 20 (if you fail to spot them the first time, you trigger them)

Um, what? If you're taking 20 on a Search, you're not moving anywhere, so why would the trap go off?

[cricricri13]

Um, what? If you're taking 20 on a Search, you're not moving anywhere, so why would the trap go off?

Well actually "taking twenty" is sometimes not even allowed in some of the big tourneys the associations throw. Because the character is not supposed to know if he failed or not. Some even take it so far as to have the DM making the throws behind the screen and not telling what the result is, only if the character spots stuff or doesn´t.

So yeah depending on the circumstances, and how strict is your DM, taking twenty is not allowed at all. I personally allow it when I'm DM, as most I know, but well.

[HighWater]

Search doesn't preclude taking 20,

Creatures who succeed on a DC 20 Search check detect a simple mechanical trap before it is triggered. [Similar statements in the same section for complex and magical traps]

I took that to mean that failing a search check is likely to set the thing off. Searching generally involves touching and moving stuff too and if you touch or move the wrong thing I can imagine the trap going off. I've used the "you can take 20" approach for very limited searches though that require no direct physical contact (the lock on a chest or door), but when people "take 20" on a room, I assume they move around while looking for stuff, take 10 seemed more appropriate (when not under outside pressure abysmal failures don't really happen) but is not enough for the DC's.

As take 20 is the prevailing opinion, I am open to the interpretation that "take 20" is an option though, but it does lead to new problems:

Besides that, they are supposed to be difficult to find on a random roll. Otherwise, they'd just be XP packets for people who invested in the two skills, and happen to have trapfinding.

- Problem of called rolls: So what you're saying is that the player should call out dedicated searches and if he/she fails to anticipate the DM's evil mind, run into every trap that's not in an obvious place? I can imagine it intended that way, but it gives me trouble with player/character separation. (I should mention that I occassionally prompt the Rogue for a Search check because her character thinks something might be trapped, which it is in a certain % of cases, yes houserule, no not attached to it, but intended to prevent the next problem...) Edit: maybe this is not a problem...

- The problem of time: I can imagine Rogues (righteously paranoid that they have to take 20) taking 20 on everything, taking up a lot of ingame-time, and if done for every single thing also a big real-life timedrain.

- The predictability problem: The hardest-to-mitigate problem I have with this is that it goes from (crappy) odds of finding a trap, to guaranteed success/failure, depending on how high the DM (or the book) has made the DC (with neigh perfect predictability for the DM barring player-activated skillboosters). Is that interesting gameplay? Either you make it or you dont, with no roll of the die? <-- Honestly asking for feedback on this, it seems boring to me but I might be wrong, in almost all other aspects DnD is a game of chance until the die is cast.

Yep. Besides that just look at how simple most of them are. I've gone through entire starting dungeons using nothing but thrown rocks and a ten foot pole to detect traps.

This is "roleplaying" negating "skills" at its finest. I appreciate player ingenuity, but it takes away most of what makes one of the Rogue's iconic class abilities special and makes investing skillpoints into it very unappealing. It is an entirely different issue when poking stuff with a 10ft pole (which is something everyone can do) is more effective than sinking 4 skillpoints into a class feature. My players currently don't use this tactic and I'd rather it stayed that way, instead of scaring them into negating the Rogue with great-chance-of-failure DCs

[Deophaun]

Is it just me, or is the average Search DC of 20 on CR1 traps in the DMG a bit brutal for a level 1 character?

Not really.

Traps, unfortunately, are pretty much presented as stand-alone obstacles in 3.5. As such, you're probably not distracted or threatened when Searching for them. If they were at what might be called a "reasonable" chance for success at CR1, say DC 16, it would be an easy auto-success for most rogues. As it stands, you have to work at it, but it's still doable to almost auto-succeed at level 1:

+2 Int bonus
+4 ranks in Search
+2 MW item (I like to think of it along the lines of a thieves' kit, only with mirrors instead of manipulators)
+2 Aid Another
Take 10

You'll hit DC 20 all the time. This is even easier if you have an Artificer in the party, who will probably have an 18 Int instead of 14. And it just keeps getting easier from their as you get access to increasing circumstance bonuses and ability enhancements.

Well actually "taking twenty" is sometimes not even allowed in some of the big tourneys the associations throw. Because the character is not supposed to know if he failed or not. Some even take it so far as to have the DM making the throws behind the screen and not telling what the result is, only if the character spots stuff or doesn´t.

At that point you say "fine, roll 40 times, just to be absolutely sure." If the DMs want to make more work for themselves, I'll enthusiastically help them.

Although, to be honest, taking two minutes at every door or crossroad is not something that I encourage in my games. Bad things tend to happen to parties that linger. But, I'm also not one that leaves traps lying around.

[ryu]

I'm of the opinion that you simply can't design an entire class around the concept of various skill tricks and have it be legitimately fulfilling. Why do I say this? Because with that design mindset everything else about the design effectively becomes an afterthought. This is why rogues have such a crummy battle kit in the form of sneak attacks that get shut down by many creature types alone to say nothing of other factors. Now you can fix a lot of that with certain builds and items, but the point still stands. Now why is this all such a problem? A class shouldn't feel invalidated when one little element isn't present. If the class can be replaced in function to the point of embarrassment with a well played commoner using entirely mundane implements the class design was borked to begin with. Second worst designed class in core I'd say.

[Chronos]

Yes, the rogue class is designed to focus on skills, and so its other abilities (combat, for instance) are lower than most other classes. By the same token, the fighter is focused on combat, and its skills are lackluster. How is either of these a problem? It might be a problem if traps were the only thing a rogue could do, but that's not the case. Picking pockets is useful whenever you're up against any tool-using creatures (which is most of them), stealth skills are useful whenever you're up against any creature, and I can't think of a challenge for which Listen and Spot are useless.

[Techwarrior]

I took that to mean that failing a search check is likely to set the thing off. Searching generally involves touching and moving stuff too and if you touch or move the wrong thing I can imagine the trap going off. I've used the "you can take 20" approach for very limited searches though that require no direct physical contact (the lock on a chest or door), but when people "take 20" on a room, I assume they move around while looking for stuff, take 10 seemed more appropriate (when not under outside pressure abysmal failures don't really happen) but is not enough for the DC's.

As take 20 is the prevailing opinion, I am open to the interpretation that "take 20" is an option though, but it does lead to new problems:

You seem to have the rules for Search and Disable Device mixed up. Disable Device has 'penalties for failure' and thus you can't take 20 on it. Search, especially from someone with Trapfinding, shouldn't set off a trap, otherwise how would they then be able to disarm the trap?

- Problem of called rolls: So what you're saying is that the player should call out dedicated searches and if he/she fails to anticipate the DM's evil mind, run into every trap that's not in an obvious place? I can imagine it intended that way, but it gives me trouble with player/character separation. (I should mention that I occassionally prompt the Rogue for a Search check because her character thinks something might be trapped, which it is in a certain % of cases, yes houserule, no not attached to it, but intended to prevent the next problem...) Edit: maybe this is not a problem...

This is the assumed methodology. The DMG even says that you shouldn't have traps in places that make no sense from the trap setter's perspective. Traps that are there for no reason eventually causes the game to devolve into I disbelieve the air.

- The problem of time: I can imagine Rogues (righteously paranoid that they have to take 20) taking 20 on everything, taking up a lot of ingame-time, and if done for every single thing also a big real-life timedrain.

- The predictability problem: The hardest-to-mitigate problem I have with this is that it goes from (crappy) odds of finding a trap, to guaranteed success/failure, depending on how high the DM (or the book) has made the DC (with neigh perfect predictability for the DM barring player-activated skillboosters). Is that interesting gameplay? Either you make it or you dont, with no roll of the die? <-- Honestly asking for feedback on this, it seems boring to me but I might be wrong, in almost all other aspects DnD is a game of chance until the die is cast.


This is "roleplaying" negating "skills" at its finest. I appreciate player ingenuity, but it takes away most of what makes one of the Rogue's iconic class abilities special and makes investing skillpoints into it very unappealing. It is an entirely different issue when poking stuff with a 10ft pole (which is something everyone can do) is more effective than sinking 4 skillpoints into a class feature. My players currently don't use this tactic and I'd rather it stayed that way, instead of scaring them into negating the Rogue with great-chance-of-failure DCs

Reading Bad Traps 1 and Bad Traps 2 can go a long way to making life easier for your trapper, you as a DM, and the entire party as a whole.

[John Longarrow]

HighWater,

An easy thing to consider is what the purpose is for a trap. Most often they are intended as obsticals rather than threats. The following may illustrate the thinking.

Kold decides he wants to improve the defenses for his dungeon.
His first step is to identify where his force and defenses are weak.
Any place that he can't easily cover with direct monster combat strength, he puts in hard to mitigate traps that are fairly easy to find. Think 50' pit.
Any place that his monsters can cover, but attackers can go through quickly, he puts in traps that are hard to find and reduce speed. Think covered 10' pit.
Any place that will not be directly observed gets traps that make noise and random patrols (to keep folks honest).

Then come the important traps. Battle field control.
In an area he expects his monsters to fight in, there are different traps spread around that keep the attackers channeled OR to punish them for not going through channeled areas.

The expense of "Auto kill" traps (falling rocks that block a passage) generally make them undesirable except for protecting escape routes.
Likewise a hidden 10' pit trap with a secret tunnel makes for a great escape route that attackers generally won't see.


Now that you've got a better idea of what the rogue should be facing, you realize that auto success that slows a party to a crawl should be a bad option for the party. Likewise missing a trap every now and then can easily tip off monsters. As such, a good rogue will be doing a lot of sneaking in to try and take care of traps prior to the big, loud members of the party coming up, but this leaves the rogue exposed to random monster patrols.

The PCs now get to choose what strategy meets their goals in dealing with traps. They also have to play a guessing game when to use each method of clearing. Choose the wrong one and bad things happen.

Only at high levels can you get "Auto success+done quick", the point where traps become much less effective. Up until then, its a logic game for the players to decide if they go slow and safe or take more risk.

[HighWater]

I'm not "I disbelieve the air" bad. Not even close. My traps (at least so far) make sense in their context. What I am bad at though, is trusting the common sense of my players, and now that I think of it: that's unjustified! Out goes the "I'll occasionally warn-ya (with a % chance that it's true)"-rule. Upon a re-read of the search section, players don't have to be in the "square" they are searching (they can be within 10 ft) and, now that I think of it, I haven't even let a trap trigger on a failed Search so far. Still, a failed search generally means a set-off trap (just not immediatly after the roll) as you can't disable what you didn't find.

@ryu & Chronos: Trapfinding has been specifically pulled into the Rogue's domain, non-Trapfinding classes even have "no chance" finding magic traps! (Unless they use magic, but lets not get into that...) On the one hand, the PHB is saying to the Rogue "Dude, you're good at trapfinding!" and on the other hand the DMG is saying (when you roll, rather than take 20) "Nope, you suck!", I agree that that's wonky game design, more so when poking things with sticks (the non-silent approach) is an option. The Rogue sure does have other skills that can be very useful, so skillmonkeying can still be nice and GlassCannon(tm) is also pretty nifty, but a rolling-Rogue won't be good at Trapfinding DMG traps straight out of the box, in spite of what it says on the box.

@Deophaun: Dropping a MW-tool should alleviate some of the problems (an extra 10% success is quite a bit). The Rogue already carries a magnifying glass and a mirror, I'll just tell her that if she uses those, she gets the bonus, makes enough sense to me. I'm currently considering allowing "Aid Another", as the max range on a search is 10ft. Actually, that gives the Ranger something extra to contribute...

@Techwarrior: Thanks for the Bad Traps 1 & 2, reading that helped me realise just why I am so uncomfortable with traps and their peculiarities, i.e. lack of interaction. Food for thought.

@John Longarrow: Thanks for the suggestions, your breakdown of traps helped me realise that my trap-placement is logical, except for one I'm currently relocating. I'll definitely use some of those BFC traps to spice up the battlefield if combat ever turns into a boring slugfest!

I still feel that Rogues having a fixed search result (be it through take20 or take10) on every search-check is mechanically not in line with other dangerous encounters in DnD (ruled by the Holy D20). Low-op, the Search and Disable values are pretty steep, but I guess they should be if they really rely on take20 (which still strikes me as odd). It feels weird, but then again, most of the suggested traps in the DMG are kindah bland once you get past the health damage, is it really that bad if somebody takes their time?... It's just the guaranteed outcome that bothers me.

I guess an obstacle isn't really an obstacle without covering fire.

[jedipotter]

Is it just me, or is the average Search DC of 20 on CR1 traps in the DMG a bit brutal for a level 1 character? I have a level4 Rogue in the party with max skillranks in Search (with an Int bonus of +2, for a total of +9 on Search)), and she has a 50%/50% chance of finding a SearchDC 20 CR1 trap, at level 1 that would've been a +6, so a 65% chance of failure. Isn't that a bit high of a failure chance for a CR1 threat when handled by the one character in the party that is supposedly good at finding and disabling traps? And as the average Disable Device DC also lies at 20, that means another 50% (level 4) or 65% failure chance on the second roll, leaving more ways for the Rogue to both die and feel utterly incompetent at her job.

This is just about right. Keeping things right around 50% of success makes for and interesting fun game. Sure, some people like to have that at 100%, but that is boring. Really anything above 80% makes the roll useless. It is pointless to even have traps in a game where a character can find/disarm them 100% of the time. It just wastes time, having the player roll.

[RavynsLand]

Super hard to find. I mean, elves are generally supposed to be pretty androgynous but I don't think the elf men dress femme enough to be considered proper traps.

[Chronos]

Well, there is still some uncertainty in knowing where to look. Very few players call for a Take 20 search on every single 5' square of floor, walls, and ceiling, every step they take in the dungeon (and if they do, then the DM is more than justified in applying more time pressure). So you've got to develop the knack of knowing where to expect traps, and then only search where you think they might be. Of course, this is a player skill, not a character skill, so it might still rub some folks the wrong way, but if you don't mind that, it can be a lot of fun. I've seen cases where the party stopped because "there's just got to be a trap here", had the rogue search and find nothing, but still went around another way because there just had to be a trap... Followed by dirty looks from the DM, because it turns out they were right.

[HighWater]

@jedipotter: Maybe, but that's the average CR1 trap, and a level 4 Rogue. That trap should be a cakewalk by challenge-level (4 level4 PCs versus 2 unaltered Orcs without terrain advantage-easy), yet the example-Rogue would botch even finding it 50% of the time, worse against the higher search-DC ones. Although the average of the DMG CR4 traps comes out at a ~23 Search DC (35% chance of finding it with the example Rogue, youch), this is deceptively low as a few of those traps have surprisingly low Search DC's, while quite a few others have 28 (10% chance of finding it). As a separate Disable Device check is required to knock the traps out, the actual successrate is considerably lower. This concerned me. With Mw Tool and Aid Another, all mentioned odds increase by 20%. That still leaves a 70% chance the high-search trap will do its thing, without even counting the chance of setting it off on a failure-by-5-or-more on the Disable Device check if it does gets found.

With take20, however, all DMG CR4 traps will be found (even without the new boosters and provided the PCs bother to look, but they generally bother), which is also quite undesirable I'd imagine.

My point really was that it's unclear (at least to me) against what the Search and Disable Device (also generally high) DC's are weighted. Rolling delivers low odds on CR appropriate traps (and remember, one to find it, one to kill it, so that's exponentially low odds), while Take20 guarantees success against any example-trap deemed "level appropriate", by only putting in max ranks and having a +2 on the ability modifier. (Still need to disable it, true, but then why include Search as a requirement anyway...)

@Chronos, for take20 the DMG traps aren't very suited (guaranteed find, see above), at least not on the Search DC. That'd mean the Disable Device check is the only thing that might keep a trap from being free xp (as long as the trap is placed with logic, rather than in a weird place just to screw with the players)... Your story is nice, but it doesn't change at all if the take20 for traps is replaced with a single (secret) roll: the party can still decide not to trust the search because it just -has- to be trapped...

@RavynsLand, it's a good thing there are no full-blooded elves in the party, or the Rogue might go "trapfinding" all the time...

[RavynsLand]

@RavynsLand, it's a good thing there are no full-blooded elves in the party, or the Rogue might go "trapfinding" all the time...

Someone gets it! ^-^

<3

[ryu]

And the direct response comes out with the worst designed class in core. Fighters don't just have the problem of hyper focus on one thing to the exclusion of all else. They're also pretty lackluster at their focus barring optimization to the point of base competence. For those wondering the monk only escapes my ire, because of some legitimately nice things obtained from non-core that can bring them up to tier 3 without simply picking a different class entirely as the focus of the build.

[jedipotter]

@jedipotter: Maybe, but that's the average CR1 trap, and a level 4 Rogue. That trap should be a cakewalk by challenge-level (4 level4 PCs versus 2 unaltered Orcs without terrain advantage-easy), yet the example-Rogue would botch even finding it 50% of the time, worse against the higher search-DC ones.

Well the whole CR system is a bit weird to say the least. And it is made for characters that are not just not optimized, but for characters that tone themselves down (like that rogue taking skill focus in profession fishing).


You need to play with the numbers to keep traps in the 40-60 percent chance range. That is the sweet spot.

[Coidzor]

Yes, the rogue class is designed to focus on skills, and so its other abilities (combat, for instance) are lower than most other classes. By the same token, the fighter is focused on combat, and its skills are lackluster. How is either of these a problem?

Largely because the lack of skills as well as a lack of anything to make up for it causes Fighters to be neutered in any situation that isn't combat that comes up, even guarding or keeping watch because they don't even have Spot and Listen as class skills. Really, the failures of the Fighter class are fairly well documented. Fortunately for the Fighter, combat is a major component of D&D at least.

Rogues mostly suffer from a less than intuitive role in combat, because they don't actually have the resilience to act as secondary melee damage output and Fighters and other more beefy classes lack the ability to actually "tank" for them like the designers seemed to think they could and should, and it's much less acceptable for them to just sit on their thumbs in combat than it is for Fighters to twiddle their thumbs uselessly during social encounters due to how large of a component of the game combat is by the default expectations and culture.

I mean, there's workarounds, but the shortcomings of the classes are fairly well known.

Granted, this is a bit tangential by nature.

Super hard to find. I mean, elves are generally supposed to be pretty androgynous but I don't think the elf men dress femme enough to be considered proper traps.

Technically I think they all are if we're going to use such a vulgar term. After all, they cause cancer and they're all witches...

Well, that or they can't be because they're all actually hermaphroditic, possessing both sets of functioning reproductive organs. Oh, the things that come up.

Well the whole CR system is a bit weird to say the least. And it is made for characters that are not just not optimized, but for characters that tone themselves down (like that rogue taking skill focus in profession fishing).


You need to play with the numbers to keep traps in the 40-60 percent chance range. That is the sweet spot.

I have to admit, I'd prefer 40-60 to be the usual range that they run when dealing with the traps that are scaling with the party/trapfinder(s). Granted, I'd prefer to stay in that range for those who are doing the expected things rather than those who are milking everything for what it's worth. XD

Though with the CR system, traps are even weirder since, especially at low levels, it's usually really just one member of the party actually engaging with it, which does wonky things to Encounter Level calculations to boot as well.

It takes a 1/4 CR trap to not be Very Difficult and instead be Challenging to a single level 1 character, amusingly enough, but with 2 level 1 characters it drops to Easy, though that's largely separate from the actual difficulties involved, of course.

[cricricri13]

Well I should tell you how the traps (and every other part of the game) works here in spain, as some kind of cultural exchange:

Well. Basically, there's a rule that has extended from the most "role-focused" rpg to the rest, and this is: you only make ONE DICE ROLL. So that pretty much ends the "taking twenty" Now don't get me wrong, on the more casual games you can take twenty, if the master is a nice guy, wich makes more casual games good for that. But if you go to one of the events here in spain and tell your master you'll take twenty, he'll probably laugh in your face. The logic behind this is pretty simple: You don't see a fighter taking 20 to impact. You don't see a caster taking 20 to make a ritual, heck you don't see anyone else taking 20. As I said it comes from the most role-bassed rpgs where the manuals state pretty clearly that the character only makes one roll.

Again there's the issue of some masters doing the rolls behind the screen so that you don't know if you had a 20 and there were no traps or a 1 and are going to die. And one person said "Then I'd tell them to roll 40 times" Well as I said, he'll rol ONCE, because if he's using that rule he sure is one of the strict ones. I think this rule comes concretelly from the "call of cthlhu" rp, but I might be wrong on that last part.

Now of course what we do to make more rolls is that you can make more of pretty much all the detecting skills rolls every time the master says you hear something or see a shadow/quick move etc. So the most lethal the trap is and the nicer your master is the more sudden noises there will be, allowing you to roll a lot of times. What is funny because it ends with some of the higher level traps making so much noise you wonder if they are in a good state.

Now also you should take on account most traps can be deactivated after being activated, so even if you miss them you have a chance of ending with it with only some scratches, and if not you can allways start throwing stuff if the dice gods are particularly angry that day.

And there's one more thing to take on account here. As I said before the traps on the manual are STANDALONE, that's why they are so hard to find. If you want to throw in some lower traos: just homebrew them. In fact here in spain a 90% of the traps you'll find are homebrewed or from one of the forums.

Oh and yeah, as a player that tends to end being either artificer or some other skillmonkey class, I can tell you our skillmonkeys are absolutelly paranoid. Or dead. And then the new character is paranoid.

[Heliomance]

YOU ONLY ROLL ONCE is not a rule that actually makes sense.

Taking 20 represents going slowly and carefully, taking your time to be sure you're doing it absolutely right. Funnily enough, that's not an option in combat. The fighter can't take a long time to carefully line up his strike, because his opponent is moving constantly. The wizard can't do that in a ritual because every bit has to be completed at a certain speed, and so going slowly and carefully - and maybe even making multiple attempts - ruins the ritual itself.

There's no reason the rogue can't take 20 on searching though. It just means she takes a long time about it, carefully poking into every crack and crevice to make absolutely sure she's found everything that might be there to find.

[Sliver]

I made a Spirit Shaman for one game and he can safely handle most traps, as long as he doesn't care about traps that alarm the big boss: Summon Elemental reserve feat. Let an earth elemental glide through the floor, walls and ceiling.

[WrathMage]

Super hard to find. I mean, elves are generally supposed to be pretty androgynous but I don't think the elf men dress femme enough to be considered proper traps.

RavynsLand, I was reading this thread as a sneaky look at work, whilst enjoying a coffee... got to your response and promptly laughed loudly, snorted and coughed coffee everywhere, so... Thanks for that, best response I've seen to a thread all year! Just brilliant :D

[Deophaun]

Again there's the issue of some masters doing the rolls behind the screen so that you don't know if you had a 20 and there were no traps or a 1 and are going to die. And one person said "Then I'd tell them to roll 40 times" Well as I said, he'll rol ONCE, because if he's using that rule he sure is one of the strict ones.

No, he'll roll 40 times. Because we're playing D&D and his house rule was just "no taking 20." That alone is a sign of someone that doesn't quite understand the skill system, but it can be worked around. "You only roll once" is a sign of a DM that has no clue on how to introduce a sense of urgency into his games, and so I wouldn't be sitting at his table.

[Chronos]

Alarm traps aren't the only ones not foiled by summons. Maybe the trigger for the trap is 20' in front of the trap itself, so your elemental goes forward, trips it, and it squishes you. Maybe the area of effect of the trap is large enough that it gets you and the elemental, like a lightning bolt down a long hallway. Maybe the trigger is based on body heat, so the earth elemental doesn't trigger it, or on weight, so the fire elemental doesn't-- Are you sending two elementals to scout every time? Maybe it's based on Detect Good, and so no sort of elemental would trigger it. Maybe the trap summons a monster, and the monster then decides what to attack.

[Taffimai]

Taking 20 represents going slowly and carefully, taking your time to be sure you're doing it absolutely right. Funnily enough, that's not an option in combat. The fighter can't take a long time to carefully line up his strike, because his opponent is moving constantly. The wizard can't do that in a ritual because every bit has to be completed at a certain speed, and so going slowly and carefully - and maybe even making multiple attempts - ruins the ritual itself.

There's no reason the rogue can't take 20 on searching though. It just means she takes a long time about it, carefully poking into every crack and crevice to make absolutely sure she's found everything that might be there to find.

What you describe, to me, is taking 10. Taking 20 means doing it over and over again until you get it right, so it makes sense that you'd only get to do that when there's no consequence for failure. My personal rule of thumb is that you get the 5 before the 20.

So, if someone draws two lines in the sand and you can join their game if you can jump across, you can jump, land in the middle, then try again and again until it works and they give you the new nickname "Determined Kangaroo". If, on the other hand, you're trying to jump across a river of actual lava, you don't get to try over and over because failing once means "Deep-Fried Kangaroo".

Search checks are similar: sometimes taking 20 will be okay, but other times you might set off the very trap you were hoping to avoid. Only with traps, you won't be able to tell in advance which scenario you're in.

[John Longarrow]

HighWater,
Do you have any traps that don't fall into one of those general categories? If so, you may want to change them around, unless there ONLY to make people paranoid. When used properly the rogues SHOULD be able to find them with at take 20, but then they are wasting time checking for traps when they really need to be doing something else OR they are sneaky enough to pull it off...

From and adventure I was running, as the party enters the main hall of a crypt they see two thrones on the far side. There are traps in the ceiling, but if at least 50 lbs is on each throne the traps deactivate. Rogue should be doing everything they can to find them (Crypt, so no time pressure to begin with PLUS something that screams "you've got traps"). Further in, there is a door at the end of a hall. Open the door and you face a blank wall. Yes, its a trap but it closes/locks the door that leads to this section of the dungeon. Another door has a fire trap (burn marks on the wall) but is near an encounter that the party may need to run from. Final "Boss fight" has a 10' deep covered pit in an alcove at the back of the room. In the back of the pit is a secret door. 20' down the passage is a trap that closes the secret door when crossed. Fantastic escape tunnel!

Another fun trap is an animate object trap that animates a guardian if anything larger than "Small" gets within 60'.


RavynsLand
Is there a difference? Oh, your talking about what they wear! Gotcha. Butch or Fem, but as far as I can tell they don't differentiate otherwise.

Jedipotter
From my experience (both sides of the DM's screen), if your traps are not part of a system, there not being used very well. Because of this, I don't try to force a 50/50 for out of combat since that makes them overly lethal when the players don't have time to take 20.

cricricri13

If that is true for most games in Spain, does that also mean the fighter makes ONE attack roll for all of combat? Just wondering as one of the core rules is Take 20.

[hymer]

Search checks are similar: sometimes taking 20 will be okay, but other times you might set off the very trap you were hoping to avoid. Only with traps, you won't be able to tell in advance which scenario you're in.

Can you point to an official trap which goes off on a search check? Because I don't think such a trap exists, except if people homebrew it. Traps are supposed to go off not when you look at them, but when you trigger them. And when you try to use Disable Device you might set it off despite all intention. But when you look for it? Them's not the rules.
I'll take that back if there are actual traps that go off on search checks.