Finding Unexpected Traps [Archive] - Wizards Community

Finding Unexpected Traps [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Flaxseed
03-14-07, 10:50 AM How do you find traps that are in unexpected places, which should be most traps? Do you move through dungeons at a crawl taking full-round actions to search every 5 feet or can the search skill work more like spot, giving the PC an automatic check when it comes across a trap?
Cruhand
03-14-07, 11:10 AM When you walk around searching for traps you go slower than normal, so in effect even though you aren't scrutinizing every inch of the 5-foot square you are indeed taking a bit more time with every square than you would with a simple glance (spot).

Myself I use spot to find traps as well when I host games, as I use spot as an "passive sight sense" while I use search as "active sight sense".

This way PC's get automatic checks without having to mention that they are searching every darn room of a dungeon, but the DC's to Spot I usually set 5 higher than the DC for Search.

- Cru

Edited: Oh, and this is also why there is a "trapfinding" ability - rogues and others with the ability know which places are the "unlikely" places, and thus they look there first :)
Ogg
03-14-07, 12:31 PM I don't like to slow my games down so if the rogue is scouting ahead for traps I make them take checks based on a roughly 15' cone straight ahead. I count ceilings, walls, floors all within the one roll. I've thought about making it a 60' cone like a Detect spell but haven't done it yet. Of course having only one roll for a wide area can have it's bad effects, namely rolling a 1.

I'll extend it to like 20' if it's a straight shot, like looking down a corridor or tighten it if they can't see as far, such as bad light conditions or twisty halls.

I've found 1 roll per 5' really slows down the game & tends to make the rest of the group frustrated which in turn can make the player playing the 'rogue' frustrated as well.

One thing to remember dwarves get a lot of free check when we're talking about stonework traps. From the SRD:

A dwarf who merely comes within 10 feet of unusual stonework can make a Search check as if he were actively searching, and a dwarf can use the Search skill to find stonework traps as a rogue can.
Defined as...
notice unusual stonework, such as sliding walls, stonework traps, new construction (even when built to match the old), unsafe stone surfaces, shaky stone ceilings, and the like.

This has become a much debated point as a player with me & DM's. I mean just about every secret door IMHO could apply under these guidelines as sliding wall & a lot of traps would involve stonework in either the trigger or the actual mechanism, like just about every pit trap.
Flaxseed
03-15-07, 08:04 AM Thanks for the responses. I think I'll secretly roll a search check at +5DC whenever they come across a trap. That make's it easier for me since the PCs won't have to be actively searching all the time. It doesn't nullify the advantage of actively searching either, since it will be harder to find traps this way.
Dheran
03-15-07, 02:34 PM The rules say that Search only works within 10' of the person making the check, and that the skill must be used actively except for elves within 5' of secret/hidden doors. So Search has some pretty severe limitations. That said, it's certainly reasonable to use Spot for any trap that has visible clues to its existence; this way you can detect traps more than 10' away, and the players don't need to constantly declare their intent to locate traps. A tripwire or a slightly raised section of floor are examples of traps that would work with Spot. The problem then is that the Spot DCs need to be made up by the DM, because they're not listed in the standard rules.

If a trap doesn't have any visible clues to its existence, you're back to the standard Search rule limitations.
Tonus
03-15-07, 03:06 PM This is one of those situations the "take 10" rule was made for. Have the scouting rogue tell the DM his search modifier, add 10 to it and the DM will easily be able to tell which traps you find ... and which traps you FIND, heheh.
Xeviat-DM
03-15-07, 04:28 PM Note: this is not Raw, but it's how I think it should be done for simplicity. Just like hide/move silently, and using survival to follow tracks, search should simply apply a penalty to your speed. I would then roll the search checks myself, once per each item that could be found. If search is being used to search an entire room, rather than the areas around oneself that could trigger a trap while walking down a hall, I'd only make one search check for each findable item, possibly roll some fake rolls for confusion, and just tell them how long such a search would take.

Speeds up the game so much more than doing it RAW.
rogerd
03-15-07, 05:08 PM By no means should you roll once per 5' square. It's best to make the rolls for the players - just roll for each item to be found. Roll a few dice if nothing is available to be found. If time is important, just keep track of the 1 round/5' square. This slow movement might increase the chance of a wandering monster, for instance. Probably not too bad, since 5 ft/6 seconds = 50 ft/min = 3000ft/hour, which should be plenty in most dungeons.

If the players are taking 20, then wandering monster checks are certainly called for. 150ft/hour is pretty slow. :-)

That's how I use the rules as written, and it doesn't slow the game down, just the PC's.

I can understand using a spot check, but I'd make it very hard to do. Otherwise spot is just too good - it avoids surprise AND traps.

Roger
ScipioX
03-15-07, 05:37 PM Thanks for the responses. I think I'll secretly roll a search check at +5DC whenever they come across a trap. That make's it easier for me since the PCs won't have to be actively searching all the time. It doesn't nullify the advantage of actively searching either, since it will be harder to find traps this way.

This is the solution I use in my games as well. Search as a active only skill just makes it worthless.

I think its important to NOT use spot. As rogerd, noted, spot is already a great skill. No need to make it better. And it would be pretty odd if a character had high spot and low search.... He would actually have a BETTER chance of finding a trap by NOT actively looking.

The definitions I use for the skills are:

spot for noticing movement and other macro events.
search is for noticing fine details and other small oddities.
Flaxseed
03-18-07, 05:17 PM Probably not too bad, since 5 ft/6 seconds = 50 ft/min = 3000ft/hour, which should be plenty in most dungeons.

I guess 50ft/min isn't too bad over the course of a typical adventure. And I thought that this had been a major oversight on the part of the game designers. I still plan on using the +5 DC non-active search rule though for PCs who just assume that they are searching without telling me.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Flaxseed 03-14-07, 10:50 AM	How do you find traps that are in unexpected places, which should be most traps? Do you move through dungeons at a crawl taking full-round actions to search every 5 feet or can the search skill work more like spot, giving the PC an automatic check when it comes across a trap?
Cruhand 03-14-07, 11:10 AM	When you walk around searching for traps you go slower than normal, so in effect even though you aren't scrutinizing every inch of the 5-foot square you are indeed taking a bit more time with every square than you would with a simple glance (spot). Myself I use spot to find traps as well when I host games, as I use spot as an "passive sight sense" while I use search as "active sight sense". This way PC's get automatic checks without having to mention that they are searching every darn room of a dungeon, but the DC's to Spot I usually set 5 higher than the DC for Search. - Cru Edited: Oh, and this is also why there is a "trapfinding" ability - rogues and others with the ability know which places are the "unlikely" places, and thus they look there first :)
Ogg 03-14-07, 12:31 PM	I don't like to slow my games down so if the rogue is scouting ahead for traps I make them take checks based on a roughly 15' cone straight ahead. I count ceilings, walls, floors all within the one roll. I've thought about making it a 60' cone like a Detect spell but haven't done it yet. Of course having only one roll for a wide area can have it's bad effects, namely rolling a 1. I'll extend it to like 20' if it's a straight shot, like looking down a corridor or tighten it if they can't see as far, such as bad light conditions or twisty halls. I've found 1 roll per 5' really slows down the game & tends to make the rest of the group frustrated which in turn can make the player playing the 'rogue' frustrated as well. One thing to remember dwarves get a lot of free check when we're talking about stonework traps. From the SRD: A dwarf who merely comes within 10 feet of unusual stonework can make a Search check as if he were actively searching, and a dwarf can use the Search skill to find stonework traps as a rogue can. Defined as... notice unusual stonework, such as sliding walls, stonework traps, new construction (even when built to match the old), unsafe stone surfaces, shaky stone ceilings, and the like. This has become a much debated point as a player with me & DM's. I mean just about every secret door IMHO could apply under these guidelines as sliding wall & a lot of traps would involve stonework in either the trigger or the actual mechanism, like just about every pit trap.
Flaxseed 03-15-07, 08:04 AM	Thanks for the responses. I think I'll secretly roll a search check at +5DC whenever they come across a trap. That make's it easier for me since the PCs won't have to be actively searching all the time. It doesn't nullify the advantage of actively searching either, since it will be harder to find traps this way.
Dheran 03-15-07, 02:34 PM	The rules say that Search only works within 10' of the person making the check, and that the skill must be used actively except for elves within 5' of secret/hidden doors. So Search has some pretty severe limitations. That said, it's certainly reasonable to use Spot for any trap that has visible clues to its existence; this way you can detect traps more than 10' away, and the players don't need to constantly declare their intent to locate traps. A tripwire or a slightly raised section of floor are examples of traps that would work with Spot. The problem then is that the Spot DCs need to be made up by the DM, because they're not listed in the standard rules. If a trap doesn't have any visible clues to its existence, you're back to the standard Search rule limitations.
Tonus 03-15-07, 03:06 PM	This is one of those situations the "take 10" rule was made for. Have the scouting rogue tell the DM his search modifier, add 10 to it and the DM will easily be able to tell which traps you find ... and which traps you FIND, heheh.
Xeviat-DM 03-15-07, 04:28 PM	Note: this is not Raw, but it's how I think it should be done for simplicity. Just like hide/move silently, and using survival to follow tracks, search should simply apply a penalty to your speed. I would then roll the search checks myself, once per each item that could be found. If search is being used to search an entire room, rather than the areas around oneself that could trigger a trap while walking down a hall, I'd only make one search check for each findable item, possibly roll some fake rolls for confusion, and just tell them how long such a search would take. Speeds up the game so much more than doing it RAW.
rogerd 03-15-07, 05:08 PM	By no means should you roll once per 5' square. It's best to make the rolls for the players - just roll for each item to be found. Roll a few dice if nothing is available to be found. If time is important, just keep track of the 1 round/5' square. This slow movement might increase the chance of a wandering monster, for instance. Probably not too bad, since 5 ft/6 seconds = 50 ft/min = 3000ft/hour, which should be plenty in most dungeons. If the players are taking 20, then wandering monster checks are certainly called for. 150ft/hour is pretty slow. :-) That's how I use the rules as written, and it doesn't slow the game down, just the PC's. I can understand using a spot check, but I'd make it very hard to do. Otherwise spot is just too good - it avoids surprise AND traps. Roger
ScipioX 03-15-07, 05:37 PM	Thanks for the responses. I think I'll secretly roll a search check at +5DC whenever they come across a trap. That make's it easier for me since the PCs won't have to be actively searching all the time. It doesn't nullify the advantage of actively searching either, since it will be harder to find traps this way. This is the solution I use in my games as well. Search as a active only skill just makes it worthless. I think its important to NOT use spot. As rogerd, noted, spot is already a great skill. No need to make it better. And it would be pretty odd if a character had high spot and low search.... He would actually have a BETTER chance of finding a trap by NOT actively looking. The definitions I use for the skills are: spot for noticing movement and other macro events. search is for noticing fine details and other small oddities.
Flaxseed 03-18-07, 05:17 PM	Probably not too bad, since 5 ft/6 seconds = 50 ft/min = 3000ft/hour, which should be plenty in most dungeons. I guess 50ft/min isn't too bad over the course of a typical adventure. And I thought that this had been a major oversight on the part of the game designers. I still plan on using the +5 DC non-active search rule though for PCs who just assume that they are searching without telling me.