[OOC] Return to the Rusty Rat

[DM Surranó]

Was a busy week for everyone I guess. Mother's day and graduating family members, on my side...

[DM Surranó]

Fog of war off. Sorry it took so long. Hopefully I didn't miss anything while hiding "gm details"

Please mark your paths where you would like to go.

[Toot]

Sorry I haven't been around.  The usual: work and life as well as a sudden crap-load of online course I had a finish before a deadline had me distracted.

[DM Surranó]

Just checking if @Lugar is back online... I assume he wouldn't be upset if I rolled search and disable checks for him but maybe he'd like to add some tidbits before.

[Lugar]

I'm back, just recovering I'll be back online tomorrow. Thanks for everyone's patience!

[DM Surranó]

My problem with traps is that they are inherently dangerous and -- most of the time -- inherently hidden.
What does that mean for me?

1. Inherently hidden:
If you search for traps you must NOT know the result of the roll. You haven't found anything because nothing is there, or because you failed searching? Worse, what you've found is the whole trap, or just part of it? Even worse, what you found is just a fake trap to lull you into the false sensation that you have successfully found and disarmed it?
Same goes for disabling. You may never be completely sure.
Of course we can play-pretend that we are all serious adults who know all too well how to change diapers and stuff, roll for ourselves, and roleplay as if we didn't know the result of the roll, just the outcome. Takes away part of the excitement, but it's at your discretion.

2. Inherently dangerous:
Okay, you are intelligent and have ranks and various bonuses on Search, because you understand how traps (typically) look like, or generally, how do they feel, in terms of all of your senses. Is it ticking? Stinking? Vibrating? Does it have a mildly metallic taste? (okay, taste is maybe a bit of exaggeration but why not.) My point is, if you are just looking from a safe distance then you are probably not taking 20 on your search. If you are looking very closely, then maybe you are already springing the trap. If you sniff, the mild air current you cause may spring the trap. If you lean close to listen then you may trigger a proximity sensor. If you touch... Well I'm sure you get the idea what happens then

So... If you are willing to retry the search then you tell me when to stop (e.g. after something found OR after X retries)
As a side note, I never realised that there's no "Try Again" section for Search skill, and if I read the rules correctly it means "retry freely" just as we've always played this. There's one sentence that makes some wriggle space for me as DM (apart from being DM that is ), that being,
"Some skills, however, have consequences of failure that must be taken into account."
While Search has no "Try Again" section I consider the sentence above to apply for searching any place that involves danger (traps).

[Toot]

Searching has always been an issue.  It either takes too long and slows the game down (especially when takeing20) or RAW there is no penalty for failure so you can technically always take20.  I don't think it is unreasonable to not let the player roll when searching for traps.  When I DM I usually roll.  I feel if the player knows they rolled low then they will consciously or unconsciously alter their actions.  Also it speeds the game up by me rolling only when there's an actual trap rather then ever 5'.  I also see nothing wrong with there be a second trap that is hidden behind another but the player should still have a chance to detect the trap.  Maybe by searching again after disarming the first trap just to be certain.

I believe DMs have the right and obligation to make encounters including Traps interesting.  But IMO DMs should be careful of making every Trap a complicated mess of fake triggers, multiple traps, and hidden air current triggers.  Only the most skilled of Trap Makers could be capable of creating such intricate Trap Designs.  Some things may not be possible without magic.  For example, it would be very difficult to create a technological trap that triggers with the shift in air currents by a subtle sniff.  All this doesn't even take into account the reason Rogues are one of the few classes that can detect traps.  They have the instincts, intuition and the skills to know how to detect things like the subtle shifts in air currents. 

A player picks the Rogue class to be able to help find TRAPS.  Nullifying their special ability just because it's inconvenient is not very fun for the player.  And some players can only take so much tinkering with the abilities they expect to work as written before they decide that they don't like their character any more.  It's like a wizard whose spells never seem to work.  Who wants to play that kind of character (unless that's the character they wanted, of course).

[DM Surranó]

Yes, I want the party rogue to search for traps while granting the excitement of retries that's behind taking 20. It had happened in previous chapter by the way, nothing new, just pointed this out. So, as soon as Lugar states the level of risk he takes I'll proceed with the DM rolls of searches (up to the first natural 20 or the first critical failure).
One more thing; there's a substantial difference between failures of a search and a disable attempt. Search critically fails "if DM says so" (mostly, natural 1) but disable critically fails if you fail by 5 or more... Point is, search is always "a bit" dangerous but disable gets more dangerous as the DC of the trap increases.

[Toot]

Yes the Disable Device is much more dangerous.  This may be already well known but I want to point out that there aren't any critical fails for skill checks.  Obviously the DM, like always, can change this but if the DM is going to force a critical fail rule then he should also create a Critical Success rule for a natural 20.  It is only fair.  These new house rules should be written somewhere so they aren't forgotten.  Because I use quite a few house rules, I do this for my game. 

Side note, I've also been thinking of adding a few new house rules to try out.  Like allowing you to destroy your shield to absorb all damage from one source of attack (probably not an area of effect attack).  They perhaps can be repaired for maybe 10% the cost.  Magical shields might just temporarily lose a plus and can also be repaired based upon the number of pluses you've sacrificed during a battle.  I'm still mulling it over and as always I'm always open to suggestions.

[DM Surranó]

well, there is a rule for repairing broken items, I guess 1/3 market price in raw mat. needed for fix.
Concerning crit. success / failure of skill checks, I would welcome such a rule if it were official, but I wouldn't make it a full-fledged house rule, especially because it hurts skillmonkeys who are important but not the typical major roles of the party. I consider searching for traps to be an exception in this sense, and generally speaking, I would have characters achieve something extraordinary with a natural 20 (not necessarily an automatic success) and I would have some hilarious to happen on a natural 1 (not necessarily a failure). Same goes for ability checks. A character with 18 dex will never drop a weapon due to a natural 1 on an attack roll (as s/he would always pass the dex check DC 5 to avoid mishap... is that RAW or just my thing btw?)