And in a weak voice you respond with "Actually, I would prefer it if the barbarian opened the chest. He is better at it than me...." As a rogue, things are all well and good if you disarm the trap but the barbarian is better if things go wrong.
Consider a few more issues with rogue vs trap scenarios:
1. There are no decisions to make apart from, "I will/will not disarm the trap.”
2. There is very limited information available.
3. There is no way to control and mitigate risk.
4. Disarming a trap is risky and not very interesting (apart from the excitement that comes with high risk).
If you recognise these points as a problem, then what follows is a solution to these issues that our group has adopted. Hopefully, you will find it a fun and useful addition to your game that makes rogues a bit more useful to the party and playing a rogue a little more skillful and interesting.
Trap Detection and Removal
Detecting Traps
Decide how you much risk you want to take in detecting the trap (there are 4 levels of risk, explained below). You may do each test successively, using more risky (but more effective) approaches. Dice rolls are done by the DM. The DM should roll a die even if the player “takes 10” or “takes 20.”
Examining a Potential Trap (when there is one)
You need to decide which of the following two approaches to adopt, though you may retry with a different approach
1. “Ooooer! That looks a bit dangerous”
Remote inspection – 10 foot away using passive sensing (sight sound smell, etc.)
Roll D20 –5 (may “take 20”)
Masterwork tools do not help, should be pretty safe, minimal risk
2. “Let’s have a good look at this”
Close inspection using passive sensing.
Roll D20 (may “take 20”)
Masterwork tools do not help, again fairly safe but may trigger some proximity traps. Basically current rules.
3. “I’ll give it a gentle tap…”
Some intrusive but careful examination of mechanisms and workings, use of tools/hands to touch parts.
Roll D20 (may “take 10”, but taking 20 will activate the trap) plus a bonus D20 (has to be rolled)
May add masterwork tools bonus
May make further attempts
Things are now getting more exciting. Failure by 5 or more will activate the trap. Read the result off the failed disarm table below to see what happens.
4. “Right then, let’s give it a bit of a belt”
This could involve partial dismantling of mechanisms, prising apart of components, testing the tension on wires. The inspection will use hands and tools.
D20 +5 (may not take 10 – as it is highly stressful) plus a bonus D20.
May add masterwork tools bonus.
May make further attempts, I hope you roll well!
Failure by 5 or more will activate the trap. Read the result off the failed disarm table below to see what happens.
Procedure (and Results) if There are No Traps
If there are no traps, DM rolls a D20 (even if the rogue is using a D20 check). Modify the result as follows: - +1 if you do a close look, +2 gentle tap, +3 a bit of a belt, also add trap sense score as well. On a natural 1, you get the result of “suspicious” (see table below). On a modified 20 you get the result “no traps” and consequently know it is safe. You roll once, keeping the same die score; modifying the result depending on (perhaps increasing) level of risk adopted.
Information Obtained when There is a Trap
Compare search result with trap DC:
-3 or less Result is "No information."
-1/-2 Result is "Suspicious"
Uncertain whether there is a trap, but there probably is. Does not permit removal.
0, +1, +2 Result is "Found one!"
Trap may be removed but info is of limited use. Info should be sufficient to permit understanding by the player of what the character needs to do to deactivate the trap.
Examples:
“It seems to be some sort of mechanism”
“I am going to have to dismantle this lock”
“I will need to cut this tripwire”
+3,+4, +5,+6 Result is "It’s a bomb!"
Trap may be removed and information is given as to the basic activation and working of the trap. Reduce the removal DC by 2
Examples:
“A poison needle will shoot out”
“Blades will shoot out of the floor”
“A spell will be activated”
“The floor will give way”
Trap removal DC roughly indicated. For example, if the character would need a 15 or more, it could be difficult, 10 –15 hard, 5-10 it is moderate and 5 or less it is easy. There is a deliberate blurring of the numbers as DMs should exercise judgment perhaps depending on the score (and maybe make it a bit random as they see fit)
+7, +8,+9,+10 Result is "It’s a mark VII blade trap."
Trap may be removed. Reduce the removal DC by 5.
Information will be pretty detailed as what the trap will do.
“A fireball will go off in the middle of the room doing in the region of 8-10 dice of damage”
+11 or more Result is "It’s a mark VIIc blade trap made by Snargle the dwarf 6 years ago and it is well maintained".
Trap may be removed. Reduce the removal DC by 8.
Information is complete – read out the trap description
Trap Removal
Failed disarm results (success is as basic rules)
Compare disarm result to trap DC
Failure score:
-1,-2,-3,-4 Just failed - nothing happens
-5,-6,-7,-8 It is going to blow!
Trap will activate but rogue allowed a standard move before the trap activates (sometimes this will not be possible or practical).
Rogue gets a +5 adj to AC and to all saving throws
-9,-10,-11,-12 Oooops!
The rogue realises that something bad is about to happen but has very little time to react. May make a 5 foot move and gains +2 to AC and +2 to saving throws but will be affected by the trap (including poison needle traps etc)
-13 or worse Bang! Rogue activates trap with no warning.
Just to show how things work, here are a few examples.
Roger the 4th level rogue will have a search skill of 10, disable device skill of 11 and trap sense of +1.
Example 1 – a normal door with no traps
Roger starts off with level 1 – remote inspection. The DM rolls a 17 (modified by the +1 trap sense for a score of 18).
The DM informs the player that nothing has been found. The player then says Roger will fully and intrusively investigate it (A bit of a belt level). The previously rolled die score of 17 is now modified by +4 (trap sense and the full investigation bonus of +3) to give a final result of 21. The DM informs the player that Roger is sure there is no trap present.
Example 2 – a normal door with a concealed pit trap in front of it
Roger bounds up and says “I will have a good look at the door for any traps”. This requires close inspection of the door and sadly, the DM would be within his rights to say, “As your approach the door to start looking at it, the pit trap is triggered”. The moral being that if you look at the wrong place, you may still trigger a trap.
Example 3 – Hail of needles trap – Search 22, Disable device DC 22
Roger examines this trap from a distance, taking 20. His score comes to 25 (take 20 plus his skill of 10 less 5 for doing this at a distance). This is enough to beat the detect DC by 3. Roger has found out that it is a hail of needles trap and it will be moderately hard to remove (DC22 less 2 for investigating the trap less 11 for his skill = adj DC of 9). He now has a decision as to whether he investigates further or whether to go straight for removal.
He decides to thoroughly investigate the trap and the DM rolls 2d20, adds on the bonus 5 (for giving it a bit of a belt) plus 2 for masterwork tools. The DM scores a pretty average score and comes up with a total of 38. This gives a difference of 16. He gets full information on the trap and proceeds to disarm it with a +8 bonus.
Sadly he only rolls a 5 but with the +8 bonus, +2 for masterwork tools and his disable device score of 11 he ends up with a score of 26. Despite a fairly poor roll, Roger is well capable of disarming this trap.
Example 4 – Lightning bolt trap – Search DC 28, Disable device DC 28.
Roger again does remote inspection. He comes up with the same score again, 25, but this time he does not detect it. Still, he does not trust what is going on and so he elects to have a close inspection. This trap, however, has a proximity trigger and coming close triggers the trap! Oooops!
However, let's modify this situation, making the trap triggered by opening the door or similar, or perhaps by Roger avoiding the trigger area causes the results to change as follows:
Roger now scores 30 doing a close passive inspection. This is enough for him to realise it is a trap and that there is some mechanism that he must deal with to stop the trap working. Details are, however, vague. He decides to investigate further but in a fairly cautious way, taking care as he explores the mechanism further (a gentle tap approach). He elects to take 10. The DM rolls a D20, adds on the take 10 result, plus skill and masterwork tools bonus. Let’s say the result is a 26. He is informed that the investigation has revealed something suspicious. He tries again with the same cautious approach and this time gets a score of 33. He gets some information, say “Some sort of electrical capacitor will be discharged” which may give Roger a chance to get some helpful buffing. He also gets some guidance on difficulty (The DC becomes 28 less skill of 11, less masterwork tools (2) less a further bonus 2 for investigation for a revised DC of 13) and is told it is hard.
Roger does not want to investigate further and decides to disarm the trap. If Roger rolls 13 or more, then the trap is disarmed , but lets assume he rolls a 6. He has failed by 7. Roger triggers the trap but may take preventative action as he realises he has activated the trap. He will now take a reflex save versus lightning with a + 5 on the saving throw.
Conclusion
Some of you will think that the trap removal rules are fine as they are. Fair enough. If, however, you want your rogues to enjoy their iconic moment, then perhpas the rules above are for you.
Apart from that, it looks good, but trap search DCs would need to go up under your system or risk is dramatically reduced. (A currently 'normal' search attempt won't ever set off the trap unless it is proximity, and more intrusive searches give a higher score AND higher chance of survival if you do fail by 5 or more.)
The question is why is giving a trap “a gentle tap” worthwhile doing compared to the more aggressive giving it “a belt.” The answer is that you can do a take 10 with one of the dice involved if you do the gentle tap. That gives you a range of results of 11-30 (plus your various additions for skills, equipment etc). The giving it a belt has a range of 7-45 (plus your additions for skills, equipment etc).
The more aggressive tactic should give you a lot more information but it has the higher risk of getting a low score (and as we all know, it is those low unlucky scores that cause the problems for characters surviving).
Please try out the rules if you want the have rogues making decisions about risk taking.
Do you use higher trap disable DCs when you use these rules? If so, what sort of guideline do you use (+10, +15, double?) I'd rather use a tested guideline than try and make one up.
One little thing I favor using as a long-time player of Rogues and newly appointed DM is
Use Spot Checks to locate traps rather than Search. (House Rule)
Reasoning? A Search check works fine and dandy for things like a door or a treasure chest, but when you're Searching a room, wall, or hallway for a trap it makes a lot less sense.
Consider this: A Hallway has a pit-trap triggered by any of the floor tiles in the 12th row of tiles (1 tile = 5ft square). Lidda the Stock Example Rogue decides to Search the 20ft-wide by 80ft-long Hallway for traps. Ruling that it will take 1 round per 10ft square of space Searched, you tell Lidda that it will take her 2 minutes (rounded up for simplicity sake) to search the room.
Now, for the tricky part - What precisely is Lidda Searching for?
If Lidda is searching the walls for arrow slits, trip wires, opening where blades might shoot out, or examining the ceiling for anything that swings down, she's probably not going to notice that the floor tiles in the 12th row (60ft into the hallways) are raised. Even if her Check clears the DC (let's say it's a simple 20), she wasn't looking for the right thing. She falls on her butt into a 30ft deep pit, 20ft wide and 10ft across.
Conversely, if she'd been searching the floor, she (likely) would not have noticed anything that came out at or above shoulder level. In both of these cases, it makes more sense (to me anyway) to use a Spot check: As a Rogue who deals with traps on a regular basis, you should be ready to quickly glance around the room and Spot anything that looks suspiciously like a trap to you.
But wait, there's more!
What if there are enemies in the hallway? By all means, it's fine to rule that Lidda takes 2 minutes to Search the hallway, and while doing so she's not taking part in combat (but still being attacked, most likely) as she's devoting her time to searching for traps. However, is it realistic to expect that you can thoroughly Search any particular location while people are running around you, into you, stepping on your hands, poking you with swords, and lobbing Fireballs at your face? Probably not. You could impose a -10 penalty on the roll for all these factors, or simply rule that you can't Search in combat, or let her take all sorts of Attacks of Opportunity (with or without the -10 penalty on Search, the damage is penalty enough in my opinion)... lots of options. But the fact is, Searching the room just isn't very realistic.
Making a Spot check, however, is much more reasonable. Impose a -5 or -10 penalty for having targets blocking your vision, possibly -15 if the Spot isn't made before opponents "become active" in the first round of combat. (Moving targets are more impeding than stationary obstacles.)
Thankfully, your system doesn't seem to have a "time effect" to impede the checks in combat, though a wise DM might well rule a -2, -5, or -10 penalty to "give it a tap" (or worse) in combat due to combatants jarring both you and the trap, thereby increasing the chance it goes off.
Now, a combination of your system and the Spot Check house rule could very well be a Rogue's dream come true.
-Geregald
These rules do not eliminate risk. They merely reduce it. There will be a time when a monster rolls a 20. Likewise, there will be a time when the rogue rolls a 1. But at least (whilst cursing their bad luck) the player will have thought they were doing a sensible action with the risk being managed.
However, that is merely what we do for our group. Try it and see what works for you. Feedback from other DM's in our group is that they like the guidance on trap description.
To Geregald - thanks for your comments. I can see where you are coming from. My view about spot would be I would use it when you are having a look around and trying to see anything that has not been concealed. Perhaps the roof is a bit dodgy - have characters make spot checks. In short where there is something that a panoramic sweep of the locality might be sufficent, then a spot roll would be a good choice. I would use search where the trap is concealed and is not apparent. A search roll is the appropriate skill to be used in that case. It will be a careful and detailed perusal and is not suitable for use in combat.
Searching does take time. A lot of time. I am quite happy with that so long as the DM has a real logic for placing the trap at a particular location. Placing a trap in a corridor which the monsters would regularly use would not be logical unless it was well signposted. At best, the denizens would be upset at the casualties they were self inflicting and at worse, there would be evidence of monster remains where the trap had gone off. Generally the party should not feel they have to search a used corridor or room as they travel from one location to another unless there are particular circumstances (e.g. it is a tomb which no living creature is allowed to enter etc).
In short, players (and the DM) want to have fun and having illogical traps will slow the game down as the party crawls around on hands and knees looking for traps.
Now, for the tricky part - What precisely is Lidda Searching for?
...err, traps?
I honestly don't see your point. The DC is the amount of skill it takes for someone to find the thing. Saying that she searches for traps should be good enough. As a Rogue who deals with traps on a regular basis, she should know enough about them to look for all the main types of traps, hence her skill ranks.
Roll D20 (may “take 10”, but taking 20 will activate the trap) plus a bonus D20 (has to be rolled)
May add masterwork tools bonus
I'm confused as to the purpose of the bonus D20...
I like everything else, though.
...err, traps?
I honestly don't see your point.
To defend Geregerald on this point - I think it is a worthwhile thought as to what a rogue (I nearly wrote thief there - but that would betray how long I have been playing this game!;) )would look for. Stargate525 is right to assume that the character would know what to look for, but as players and as DM we need to consider the sort of clues our characters might be trying to detect. The sort of evidence that a trap displays indicates the detection rules that should be used. Detecting a strange metal panel on a wall or a a whole pile of branches on a forest path would probably be a spot roll. Detecting that these suspicious items are a lightning emitter or a pit trap would require the use of the search skill.
I honestly don't see your point. The DC is the amount of skill it takes for someone to find the thing. Saying that she searches for traps should be good enough. As a Rogue who deals with traps on a regular basis, she should know enough about them to look for all the main types of traps, hence her skill ranks.
The point is to make trap-finding a little more involved (as role-playing) than just rolling two dice.
That said, I'm with stargate525. There isn't much to flesh out, here. The same could be said for any one-dimensional character run with the sophistication of 1970's D&D. Fighters hack, clerics heal, rogues sneak and find traps. The problem isn't the lack of dimension in the skill per se; I'd diagnose this as a lack of depth to the overall situation. If traps are just installed in chests willy-nilly, there's nothing to be gained from analyzing one. There's your problem. Instead, try thinking out the why, what and how. Who installed the trap? For what purpose (many D&D traps are sadistic but not much beyond that)? Why was that trap chosen, and why do the contents need to be protected?
For example, take the case of a retired (high-level) NPC paladin (now deceased) who managed to wrest the Wand of Orcus from the Abyss. That Holy Avenger sure is a nice piece of hardware, but logically, it makes more sense to pass it on to a worthy henchman than stick it in a trapped chest. But that Wand. . . to the paladin, that's something that should never see the light of day. That's when the paladin goes shopping for that "Mark VIIc blade trap made by Snargle the dwarf". But because it's against a paladin's nature to kill an unidentified person, she has Snargle weaken the blade's spring and coat the tip with a poison with a spell-like effect of making the rogue lose interest in the chest.
In short, if you want to make traps more interesting from a role-playing standpoint, role-play them. As the DM, put yourself in the shoes of the NPC who installed it. The NPC's personality and motives will be reflected in the trap's hardware, and if you nudge the players a little (perhaps with the musings of a curious NPC), they will eventually realize there's a purpose to every trap. Next, it's even conceivable for the party to use skills like Appraise and Bardic Knowledge to dig deeper into the mystery of the trap you set. That's where you'll get your trap role-playing experience.
In short, if you want to make traps more interesting from a role-playing standpoint, role-play them. As the DM, put yourself in the shoes of the NPC who installed it. The NPC's personality and motives will be reflected in the trap's hardware, and if you nudge the players a little (perhaps with the musings of a curious NPC), they will eventually realize there's a purpose to every trap. Next, it's even conceivable for the party to use skills like Appraise and Bardic Knowledge to dig deeper into the mystery of the trap you set. That's where you'll get your trap role-playing experience.
Kudos to you. I never considered the roleplay value of the common trap. Now that I have been enlightened, I'll have to rethink most of my layout of traps in a dungeon.
In some ways, it is what I meant when I wrote in an earlier post when I said in an earlier post to this thread "the DM has (to have) a real logic for placing the trap at a particular location," though I cannot claim to have made that point as clearly or as well developed as the remarks in Dragonchild's post.
To illustrate, our low level party wandered down a very long (miles or it) tunnel. At some point, the lead character activated a tripwire and a scythe shot out (standard trap from the DMG) with basic damange of 2d4 +8. Not too much of a problem except the DM rolled a 20, checked to confirm it was a critical (with +20 on the attack roll it was pretty likely) and did quadruple damage. Dead character. Now we could have painstakingly have searched the corridor, foot by foot but we had no reason to expect a trap (and in fact meant some wandering creatures thereafter indicating this was a frequented tunnel) or any clue that would justify the existence of the trap. With hindsight, we all agreed that this sort of random "sadistic - to quote dragonchild" was wrong.
My proposal does not do much to develop the role playing aspect. It does flesh out the game mechanics and allow players to make more informed choices. It allows rogues (or whoever) to experience this aspect of their characters in greater depth (and effectiveness). To take an analogy - you could (theoretically) compress combat into a single die roll (perhaps through some arbitary comparison of challenge ratings). Would that be as much fun as the current system? I think we would all agree that it certainly would not.
To E_Vernon, first of all I am glad you like "the rest of it". I would be delighted if you developed the ideas and made it work for your group.
However, the reasoning behind this extra bonus D20 is to carry on the progression built into the less intrusive forms of investigation and makes this level of investigation more informative. The extra D20 potentially allows you to find out a lot more infromation. However, it also has its risks - roll low and the trap is likely to be activated - something more cautious appproaches will allow you to avoid. Your choice, rogue, what is it gonna be......
To take an analogy - you could (theoretically) compress combat into a single die roll (perhaps through some arbitary comparison of challenge ratings). Would that be as much fun as the current system? I think we would all agree that it certainly would not.
The mechanical flaw in adding extra rolls, however, is that they stack the odds against the rogue. As it is, even low-level traps can have DCs in the 20's. Multiple rolls "square" the odds (take the probability and multiply it by itself). For simplicity, say a rogue has Search and Disable Device skill bonuses of +5 each. A trap's Search and Disable Device DCs are 20. That means the rogue needs 15 or higher to succeed at a roll, a 30% success rate. Because two rolls are needed (where both need to be successes for overall success, and failure at either one leads to the same bad result), the overall success rate is a mere (0.3 x 0.3 = ) 9%. If we add a third roll with the same odds and same consequences for failure, the success rate drops to (0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 = ) 2.7%. I understand the above rules contain modifiers, where a good roll can improve the odds of a subsequent skill check. Regardless, it's clear that successive dice rolls hurt the odds far more than any typical modifiers can make up for. You're better off just throwing an axe from a distance.
The above rules imply invasive inspection of the trap when analyzing it; I argue this is contained within the Disable Device check. Instead, I suggest adding a zero-risk roll to the process -- i.e., one that does not set off the trap. A zero-risk roll does not "square the odds" because its consequences of failure do not equal that of the other rolls. After a trap is detected with Search, the rogue can use Appraise on the trap components, which allows him/her to visually analyze its strengths and weaknesses without fear of repurcussion. For example, if a spring gear is made of copper, it's possible to bend the metal, thereby jamming the mechanism. Conversely, if it's made of mithril, targeting the spring gear is not advised. After analysis, the rogue can then use relevant skills as synergy bonuses. Depending on the trap, almost any skill can be synergistic: Stonecunning, Bardic Knowledge, Listen, even Craft (Alchemy) or Use Magic Device. On a good Appraise check, the odds of success are improved. On a bad one, the rogue applies the wrong skills and the odds drop. Either way there's more flavor, and mechanically the overall odds are a wash. The main downside is that rogues are put under intense pressure to diversify their ever-precious skill ranks.
This means traps need to be more descriptive, but adding dimension where you want dimension is just part of the life of a DM.
I started to realize just how important the WHY is important once my players (2 newbies and 1 semi-experienced) started saying things like:
"I want to know whats in this room if it's guarded by 1 scythe trap, 1 electric trap, and 1 "smoosh" trap, 5 zombies, and 1 WTF?"
So, I started adjudicating my game to make it make even more sense then before. (e.g. valuable info, plot, survivors, supplies, etc.)
Now that I've read Dragonchild's post... I feel even more enlightened as a DM and a player as to WHY and WHO and of course WHAT. When all's said and done I feel that if you don't wont a set of complicated rules (sorry Trebonius
) but more "role-play" out of your traps as I desire...then consider this:Why-why was said trap placed. (was is placed to protect something, someone, or is to kill just because said villain is sadistic):evillaugh
What-What is is it said trap is protecting, keeping people away from...or just plan kill. Is it trying to kill people or monsters that regularly invade. (e.g. a farmer protecting his kids from dire animals)
Who-"who placed this here?" Get into the mind-set of the person who owns (or once owned) said dungeon. Were they good...evil...lawful...chaotic...neutral...or vile?
Originally Posted by Dragonchild
In short, if you want to make traps more interesting from a role-playing standpoint, role-play them. As the DM, put yourself in the shoes of the NPC who installed it. The NPC's personality and motives will be reflected in the trap's hardware, and if you nudge the players a little (perhaps with the musings of a curious NPC), they will eventually realize there's a purpose to every trap.
Your who should answer your why-Once you get this, your who should lead right back into you why said person placed trap.
Plus-Its always fun to put other things in there such as "It’s a mark VIIc blade trap made by Snargle the dwarf 6 years ago and it is well maintained". I'm using that! :D
As an alternative simpler system consider:
- Allow cautious players to take a penalty to Disable Device or Search checks.
- For each -2 penalty a +1 bonus on Saves/AC vs. traps.
Having played the game since the rules came out in a white box, I reckon there are a lot more tables now than there were then - and that the rules now are a lot better as well. ;) However, your fundamental point has some real merit. It is additional complexity in an already complex game and I think that issue would be my criticism of the suggested new rules.
The advantage it gives is that it makes the rogue class more effective (in one of its iconic function), allows additonal decision making (which is a large part of the fun of the game) and allows the DM (and player) to have more of a framework about trap backgrounds and information gained. Whilst our group think these extra elements are worth the extra rules, I am sure that other people can think of more elegant solutions.
Your suggestion is interesting. If I were to critique it, I would point out that although you were more likely to pass the saving throw, it does make you more likely to have to take one in the first place. Consequently, it might be increasing rather than decreasing the risk. I would be interested in any feedback you have in playing with your rule in your group.
For the record, the Search skill says search a 5ft by 5ft area. Not search for the keyhole poison trap, then search for the springing blade trap, then search for the Glyph of Warding trap, then search for the Reverse Gravity explosive pit trap, and then search for the bucket of anti-holy water propped above the door.
Oh, and half of the traps are going to go off anyway.
