>I check this square for traps... >roll >...and this

Make it so they check the whole thing at once.

Also roll them yourself in secret and just tell them they find no traps and can't roll again. Better risk it or get clever.

>>53309175
Consider pointing out to him that a single 'check for traps' roll doesn't necessarily represent a single check, but rather a process that takes time, with the roll determining the general outcome of his understanding. Also have him consider that his character doesn't know he failed a trap-check test, so if he's paranoid to double-check then he should do so, even if he succeeds.

As for discouraging it from a social standpoint? I'm not sure, if he really doesn't want to stop it and you've pointed out reasons why it doesn't make any sense for his character or the game then he's simply strayed into That Guy territory, I can only recommend you give him the benefit of the doubt and explain why he shouldn't be doing it.

>>53309175
Have them check for traps once, then force their hand.
>I check this square for traps
>No, you check the hallway for traps. Congratulations, you find no traps.
>But I want to check the next part for traps
>You already did, so now we can move on.

>>53309175
I agree with >>53309189 first part: make him check for traps in the whole room automatically.

I disagree with the second part through. Rolling in secret is bullshit. Players always wonder if you aren't making them fail on purpose.

Have 1-3 (whatever feels right) rollsfor him to check for traps throughout the entire room. If he keeps trying to search square by square tell him the results from the earlier roll. Tell him he's being autistic and it's making the game worse.

>>53309175
Put the traps on the ceiling. He won't think to check the ceiling.
Then, when he's gotten paranoid enough to scan both the ceiling and the floor, put traps in the walls.
Then, when he's paranoid enough to be checking every panel of floor, ceiling and wall, one of the party members will stab him.

>>53309189
>>53309175
I would add that inspecting everything also takes time in game. Occasionally taking this time may be more dangerous.

Though putting random traps everywhere for the sake of fucking with the group is questionable to begin with. Which is why I never saw that anywhere but on /tg/.

>>53309175
Did you cause this by making traps particularly dangerous or not letting players roll for large sections of trapped passage at once?

Perhaps fix this by starting the dungeon off by saying they can check for traps for entire halls, and then have it immediately confirmed as he checks the first hall and finds one near the end of it.

Also, have the traps be relatively meager. Crossbows on tripwires and that sort of thing. Stuff that obviously wouldn't have killed them in one shot even if they failed.

That will get your players to adjust and to worry less about being meticulous about traps.

Then, all you have to do is not use it as an excuse to surprise them with a death trap.

>>53309175
Secretly attribute a time to each trap check. Have the party's horses or loot stolen and then tell the party "Well, you did spend 5 hours checking a hall for traps, what did you expect to happen?".

>>53309288
Adding on. This also works for a party that pokes literally everything with a 5 foot pole and, in general, bogs down the game with bomb squad levels of caution. Do it once or twice and have the party legitimately miss out on something excellent and you'll notice a swift change in their tactics when they realize you're marking their time.

>>53309175
The most constructive solution would be to make his rolls count for the entire visible area.

The dickish solution would be to describe something minor with each high roll (e.g. there's an irregularity in the wall, one of the tiles is marginally higher off the floor than the others, this corner of the room is oddly shaded, etc.) without any of it being meaningful.

The funnest solution would overthinking.jpg

>>53309286
I think the player's attitude has come from the fact that they've heard a lot of dungeon delving stories. We've run regular campaigns before, but any time the game veers into anything resembling a dungeon crawler they descend into pure paranoia. It's very unfortunate because I would genuinely like to run an actual dungeon delving game sometime, but I'm not going to if they're going to be like this. It's very hard to throw surprises or twists at the party if one of them has their face pressed against the floor to look at every square inch of cobblestone.

>>53309175
Well, what did you do to make them so paranoid?

>>53309175
Literally don't play dnd: a game about monsters and traps in dungeons. It's trained behaviour from the system. Not even memeing.

>>53309175
If they're metagaming point out that they're supposed to playing a character. The character doesn't know they rolled low and you need to react appropriately. If he keeps doing it start rolling for him behind your screen and if he complains tell him he brought it upon himself by metagaming.

>>53309380
>It's very hard to throw surprises or twists at the party if one of them has their face pressed against the floor to look at every square inch of cobblestone.
But anon, if you were in a temple with deadly traps wouldn't you go with utmost care to avoid getting hurt or dying?

As a party member I don't want to be surprised. I don't want to be ambushed by goblins, to receive arrows in my belly or suddenly fall into a pit fall of spikes.

>>53309380
In the dungeon delving games of old there were actually no perception checks at all - instead players were expected to look through things themselves, examine the walls and moose heads and fireplaces and whatever else.

Simply describe the room, ask them what they're looking into, then tell them if they found anything or not. No need for any rolls, nor any need to have another look. It should speed things up.

Add a trap that only goes when checked.

>>53309409
>The character doesn't know they rolled low
Nonsense. You can know if you've done a bad job and you can know how well you know something. It isn't quite that simple.

>>53309419
That's all well and good. Then lets hope you brought enough food and camping supplies so you can spend a week in that dungeon scouring every square inch of it for traps, secret doors and markings.

>>53309430
/thread

>>53309463
Turns out archaeology doesn't look like an Indiana Jones movie...

>>53309419
RPGs aren't simulators. They're games. Yes, realistically you'd go in with all the caution in the world and spend hours checking every single tile on the walls, ceilings, and floors a few hundred times. Even more realistically you'd ditch the dungeon, sell your broadsword and armor, and buy a nice plot of land to start a farm on.

But that isn't fun for anybody when you're trying to play a game.

>>53309380
>I check this square for traps...
>roll
>...and this square
>roll
>...and this square
>roll
>...and
>I'll stop you there. While you were meticulously searching the third perfectly normal floor tile, a small group of twenty six goblins took advantage of your lack of awareness and crept up behind you. Roll initiative.

That or install time restrictions into your dungeons. Have doors that will seal for all eternity if not unlocked within a certain time, have rising water levels or a legion of undead guardians slowly rising from their millennia-long slumber, anything that makes it very clear that stopping to molest every brick in the dungeon wall on the off chance there's a trap will have detrimental effects to their chances of getting out alive.

>>53309175
Let him check entire rooms with one roll, use traps logically and sparingly.

>>53309477
>77
Checked.

OH SHI-

>>53309452
How do you "look for traps poorly"? Why, in this situation, would you say to yourself "Y'know what? I wanna half ass this check".

A perception check isn't the same as a shoddy attempt at picking a lock. If you don't see anything you don't see anything.

If people behaved like you said they did, things like pedestrians being hit by cars would basically be a non-existent event.

>>53309430
I sort of did this. I had the room fill up with an odorless gas. The party spent so much time inside the room half of them passed out.

>>53309536
Have you ever done something you're unsure of? "I think it is but I'm not sure" or "I didn't see anything but i feel like I'm wrong"? Because that happens to people yknow. A good way to simulate that is dice roll numbers and hiding the dc.

Also
>reads a post saying the issue isn't as simple as he's putting across
>oversimplifies the other persons argument
No wonder you give such bad advice. You must be fun at parties.

>>53309596
Great, so you have a party member who will refuse to move on until they've got a roll of 15 or higher.

>>53309596
you're the player OP is talking about, aren't you?

>>53309625
Sure, it's an issue that this thread is about resolving. But it's not metagaming. Yet again: not that simple.

>>53309430
To add to this so you're not just a shitter.

Make a dungeon that was meant to be used on a daily basis as a form of temple, it didn't have traditional traps because who the fuck is going to tip toe every fucking step on daily job?

So they enchanted the place with perception and sensory based traps, if you think you're in danger then you are in danger, but the people who made it and use it are always safe.

>>53309175
Play a TSR edition of D&D where you just described shit to players and they said what they did.

>"Oh, you check for traps? How?"

Also, random motherfucking encounters. Checking for traps takes time. Time when monsters might wander by.

>>53309175
You could trap every single square they check. Don't trap them if they don't check for it.

Mandate one roll for every surface for every party member without the possibility of a re-roll unless they have a feat for it. Use modifiers and verbal clues if you're so inclined.

>Searching for traps takes excessive time
Whoever told you that must either be a fool, a person without any understanding on how the traps work, or someone wanting you to get killed in one.

To those of you who badly want players to be caught in their traps - use magical triggers rather than mechanical. The greatest thief would have no way whatsoever to tell if there's one, and mages are usually too stupid or arrogant to check.

>>53309430
>a player uses the skill he brought 'detect traps' to ensure the protection of his party
>that DM makes a situation where his skill is useless and may happen anywhere, just to punish him for using an ability, one of the few protections a PC may have
Really makes me think.

>>53309175
How about just letting him roll once?

If he refuses to move just tell him that his character looked everywhere and haven't found traps. If he still refuses tell him to stop metagaming.

File: Checked_dub_on_trap.png (105KB, 248x249px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 248x249px

>>53309521

Impose penalties for time; food, torches, etc...

>>53310105
Whoever still carries torches and food to the tombs of horrors is an idiot way out of his depth.
Really, there are countless ways to have everlasting food and light, and that's even not counting simply forcing the wizard to enchant anything to glow and putting a trinket of sustenance on.

>>53310272
So how about playing an edition that doesn't hold your hand and let you solve literally everything just by having a wizard in the party?

>>53309175
Have you tried talking to them about this behavior?

>>53310327
Reread OP:

>I've talked with them already about this issue, but they insist that it's because they don't want anything to surprise them.

>>53309175
>they don't want anything to surprise them

Have a monster surprise them while they're looking for traps.

>>53309175
I like the idea of giving folks a sixth-sense sort of trap detection ability. Like, it just *feels* like there would be a trap in this room (based on the layout of the dungeon, the style of architecture, the culture of the people who built the place, subtle clues that are only subconsciously realized, etc.).

This falls under the "find traps" skill, or whatever is equivalent in your game, but even unskilled people have a decent chance of sensing a trap, to the point where it's better to accept it when your roll (obviously made in secret by the GM) turns up no traps than it is to meticulously search the area anyway (because of wandering monsters and so forth). Just take the highest skill in the group and roll against that (if a trap is detected, have everybody roll vs. finding traps, and whoever gets the best result is the one who senses the trap). Why not just have everybody roll separately? Because large groups would be virtually assured of finding traps and if anything, large groups would end up being more careless and more likely to walk right into the fuckers.

When a trap is sensed, you don't know precisely what or where it is. You're just pretty sure there's one in the general area, so you have to go about locating it the old fashioned way: by describing in detail what you examine and where you poke and prod.

>>53310311
So how about playing a caveman?
Torches and rusks are only appropriate when you're a bunch of peasants armed with wooden spears and forks investigating a den because the people have been disappearing recently. It could be fun enough, though.

>>53310537
Alternately, just don't have traps in your game. They don't really make a lot of sense in any case, and if they screw up play, ditch the fuckers.

They only get to check once, and have a monster pop up on them, A silent one. You were too busy checking the square, and now you are surprised. Or just make traps that only activate when found.

If it was a game of Donjon the would find traps each time

>>53309189
This, also people could be upfront about the shitty parts of their systems and avoid this sort of thing by just giving a flat percentage for the checking the whole area or smaller bits of it.

Like: Ok I want to check this whole room for traps, that would be 30% success rate plus bonuses or specialties for whatever system because the room consists of thirty squares, and then increasing the flat percentage for smaller areas.

>>53310580
Bullshit. Someone looking for a trap is on high alert anyway. He is expecting an invisible, silent threat, or a cube, a mimic or roper or even plain old cave-in.

Mixing monsters and traps makes no sense. Unless they're undead and/or obsessive trapmakers like cobolds.

>>53309175
Inform them that they're constantly and consistently checking for traps as they travel, and that they don't need to roll for it unless you ask them to. Because success and failure doesn't actually *matter* if there's no trap there.

I got rid of rogues being the only ones able to find traps through homebrew anyway- instead they get a +5 to their search checks to find traps instead.

>>53310537
This.

Give them a tip when to roll.

File: both boys.jpg (302KB, 686x600px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 686x600px

Why not use 4e/5e's passive Perception?

>>53310580
That doesn't make any sense, why were all the other players just watching him check for traps?

File: that halfling pic.png.jpg (108KB, 701x456px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 701x456px

>>53309175
I occasionally have my players roll a perception check, then if they pass "there is something weird about here in the hall" what do you do?

Otherwise I'd probably have a trap every square they check and if they roll low it goes off in their face. Ironically there would be no traps in squares they didn't check.

Realistically I'd probably have the fucking drow army descend on them for spending 7 hours in a hallway.

Basically stop being a shitty DM

>>53309596
how about people who think they know everything

>rolls 2 on arcana check

you're positive it's a staff of fireball

this of course doesn't work if the player rolls in the open

>>53311562
>rolls 2
>has 8 points in arcana skill
>DC is 10

It works. If you want a character to know everything, you just need to pump up your skills.

>>53311595
>DC is 5
it's a staff
>DC is 10
it's a magic staff
>DC is 15
it's a magic staff that's not for combat
>DC is 20
it a staff of healing
>DC is 25
it's a staff of cure light wounds with 12 of 20 charges left

>>53309175
If they want to go super slow and carefully let them do it; it costs a lot of resources and increases the chance of wandering monsters encountering them. If they're refusing to roleplay out their failed rolls, that's METAGAMING and breaking the rules. They no longer get to roll their own trap checks, they've lost that privilege.

If it's getting super boring, it's your job to abstract it out. One idea is this: You want to go slow and careful, so I'm going to make time pass for what it takes to check for traps carefully each 5ft and give you a bonus to your trap skill check. You abstract this to a single trap check roll and roll on the wandering monster table and mark off some torches and rations. That's a strategy with tradeoffs and it doesn't waste a shitton of time.

>>53310813
Because OP is playing Pathfinder like the trash they are.

>>53311595
>If you want a character to know everything

they're not supposed to know everything ffs

>>53311691
>I want to become a physical powerhouse, able to wrestle dragons!
Sure. Be a fighter.
>I want to heal people, save lives, even bring the dead back to life!
Sure. Be a healer.
>I want to have powerful magic, able to call up firestorms from nothing!
Sure. Be a caster.
>I want to be able to know things!
NOEP. NEVER NOT ALLOWED

>>53309507
>Yes, realistically you'd go in with all the caution in the world and spend hours checking every single tile on the walls
no, because the longer you spend there, the more likely your being discovered

>>53311562
Then that's down for the player to roleplay. If you don't have players who step into bad situations willingly because it's in character then you have a bad group. Its not the gms job to play players characters for them. Of course you have to ensure that you have an environment that's going to be fun even if a character does something like that. Make it interesting rather than rocks fall. Within reason of course, there are some pretty dense fuckers out there
>I think the deadly poison
>you die
>Why didn't you make it interesting!? BAD GM

>>53311761
>no, because the longer you spend there, the more likely your being discovered
By who? The monsters who you came exactly to kill and steal the loot?

>>53309235
>Players always wonder if you aren't making them fail on purpose.
If you roll it on the table they will know its safe.
If you roll in secret, they will feel safer but won't know for certain, which is more interesting.

>>53311836
>If you roll in secret, they will feel safer
Except by the fact they will know at the first problem that you were actually rolling for them, and that you can literally say any number that pops on your mind?

>>53311761
>>53311830
>spend ages checking for traps on every single flagstone
>monster patrol appears at other end of corridor
>they very slowly advance towards the party, checking for traps on every single flagstone

>>53311892
Hahaha
>>53311830
Well depends on the system, in Old school games any encounter could mean death everyone having from 1 to 8 hitpoints at level 1 and all enemies dealing to 1d6 to 1d10 damage

>>53311892
Kek.

>>53309175
>Carefully checking a room or comparable corridor segment for traps takes an approximately 10 minute dungeon turn
>I check for encounters every 10-30 minutes depending on monster population density
>I play a system that doesn't give infinite free light and food
>I roll privately for trap-detection rolls

Sure, knock yourself out buddy

>>53309380
>It's very hard to throw surprises or twists at the party if one of them has their face pressed against the floor to look at every square inch of cobblestone.

OOH OOH I KNOW. Timer! You give them a deadline to meet! They literally CANNOT stop to inspect every inch of the floor because they simply don't have the time!

>>53311886
>not randomly checking their sheets and rolling a d20 every now and then, just to keep your players constantly on edge

>>53311941
Wouldn't that also mean that a trap (such as a flying arrow) was also very lethal?

>>53309536
unless it's a roll -5 below the DC, you are simply unsure.
Success is "know for certain"
Failure is "can't tell"
Failure by -5 is "false positive/negative"

>>53312017
yes

>>53312017
Everything is lethal in Old school, even a dog or a cat can easily kill you

>>53309224
T H I S
H
I
S

>>53309175
Honestly, get rid of traps
If you let him continue then it'll take the players years to clear a single dungeon
If you force them to stop the hyper cautious approach you'll look like a cunt if a trap ever gives a character more than a minor cut

>>53309175
http://theangrygm.com/traps-suck/
http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-traps-suck/

TL;DR ban rolling for spotting traps. Whenever there's a trap around, just straight up give them a clue. Alternatively, make traps big and obvious, and make whole encounters out of working around the trap.

>>53309175
You think rolling to check for traps is bad? At least it's a thing that people do in real life, and easy to understand what exactly they're looking for.
But once you make the mistake of using an illusion spell as part of a trap, you'll have a player asking to roll to disbelieve each cubic meter of air for the rest of the campaign!

>>53311691
>>53311717
Bards both get bardic knowledge and have 6+Int skill points to spend.
Investigators have inspiration and 6+Skill points.
A Phantom Thief Rogue has 8+Int, and can spend all their Skill unlocks on Knowledge Skills for bonuses, additional info, and rerolls.

It's completely allowed. Just realize you may get some complaints because your team may not recognize "guy that gives us the information to form our tactics" as a valid combat position. Kind of similar to how Big Stupid Fighter's like their big numbers because they don't realize a Controller is doing the heavy lifting that makes him capable of doing his job.

>>53313330
Oh yeah, and cloistered cleric, knowledge domain, memory subdomain.
And maybe lore oracle?

>>53311830
Or big hungry things just meandering about.

Look, there's a reason floor-based roguelikes always have a big, nearly unkillable thing that shows up if you grind on a floor too long.
It forces the player to move forwards.

We don't want unbeatable, since they do have to get out the same way they came down. But we do want it to drain their resources, and to attract more the longer they stay, forcing them to get a move on, get in and get out before we drain all our resources and die cause we don't have enough health, arrows, and spells to face the next one.

>>53312596

Those links are good though the author needs to tone it down. Damn.


The most direct method of curtailing infinite spot checks is to associate a cost with them. The easiest is time. Make it a 5~10 minute thorough search every time they roll, and put them on a timetable.

Second is to deflate the reward for searches. Make all traps be associated with something that players can pick up on, giving observant players a heads up to search when it actually makes sense to do so. Eliminate as many 'random' traps as possible.

>>53313788
>the author needs to tone it down. Damn.
I mean, it's in his name. You wouldn't tell AVGN to tone it down.

>>53313898
AVGN isn't trying to tell people how to make good video games either (well, on purpose anyways).

Maybe just let him know that his character is so good with traps he notices them peripherally (kinda like spies in mission impossible movies or something) and just have him roll the last moment you can before he steps on triggers a trap.

>>53310631
That would incentivize searching smaller areas at a time. You're reinforcing the problem behavior.

>>53314071
I mean let him declare where he's going to go and at the moment he would set off a trap detect trap roll and if he fails then he proceeds into the trip in which he declared if he succeeds then he may do over that move.

I feel like this approach would be more cinematic.

>>53310631
It needs to be streamlined not made more difficult.

>>53309175
OP, you have two choices
>1: The environment is deadly as fuck and a part of the narrative, so carefully edging through the area is a necessary evil that may present its own problems.
or
>2: The environment is only here to waste resources and can easily be handwaved so as to get to the more interesting bits in the story.
The worst thing you can do in anything that's cooperative and recreational is waste everyone's fucking time.

File: tgcomplaints.jpg (74KB, 831x445px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 831x445px

>>53309175
This hasn't been posted yet?

/tg/ you slippin nigga.

>>53314008
Seriously? Like, literally every game reviewer I've every watched goes into a "they should have done this" rant at some point.
Huh. Maybe I should go watch some of his stuff.

>>53314239

To be fair, this is not a problem exclusive to DnD. Maybe they're playing Shadowrun and pullling a heist on some big rival cooperation. OP didn't say. Stop making baseless assumptions.

>>53309175
It takes time both in and out of character. Make sure that they have some sort of time constraint, either in the form of needing to get shit done quickly, or in the form of enemies who gather and attack them while they're meticulously searching every nook and cranny for traps.

>>53309175
if he wants to find traps so dang hard, break down and just give him some traps.

He's playing a rogue, its the only way he's helpful. I'm sure a fighter playing an intrigue game would be just as frustrated, and be that one jarhead constantly readying himself for a fight chomping at the bit to solve things with violence cause that's his one chance to look badass.

>>53309175
time release traps that go off if you spend too much time in a room. Enemies that patrol. Or just tell him he found a trap every once in a while, that might lower his guard. I mean, it might make him worse too.

>>53309175
Oh shit, are we back to AD&D? Now those were good times!

>>53309175
Just tell him

"You find no traps"

Not if he passed or fails. That will shake it up. Also remind him that expediting the situation won't make his success less likely.

A good thing is hes probably been a part of a gotcha DM game before. try to avoid "gotcha" moments. (Like "i search the bed". Then later "oh the item you needed was under the pillow but you didn't say search the pillow") crap

>>53315288
>Just tell him
>"You find no traps"
>Not if he passed or fails.
That is literally already the issue, guy.
He knows when he rolled low, and when he rolls high he's still paranoid.

>>53314791
>specifically mentions squares
Nigga you played Shadowrun?

>>53310550
Okay. So in real life, if you were rich and for whatever reason exploring a dungeon?

Very easy solution to this

Searching for traps triggers a random encounter check, 1 in 6 chance.

>>53309175
>By checking for traps you've activated a trap

>>53315397
Roll for him. He should believe he found no traps if he found no traps, not that he just didn't open his eyes wide enough or some bullshit like that. That's how ALL thief skills were handled in 2e, to minimize that exact issue.

>>53309175
>players with sufficiently high passive perception (you're playing a system with that, right?) just fucking spot traps half the time, instead becomes a game of "how do we avoid it"
>previously mentioned time costs
>logical traps- a place meant to be used by people isn't going to have random deathtraps in the halls, it's going to have trapped objects or death corridors

>>53309380
Talk with one of your other players maybe to go in tapping around with a quarter staff

>>53309175
What you need to do is stab the actual player with a knife every time they fail a trap check because nothing else will work.

>>53315483
No, actually. I just knew the general setting. Poit still stands, it could be any system played on a grid, including systems not usually played on a grid but the DM has added one becuase some players don't into "theatre of the mind" well, especially if all they've known previous are OGL.

>>53310550
Pathfinder even has support for it in its stone age equipment and megafauna/dinosaur bestiary entries. You'd just have to limit classes a bit.

>>53315570
Real life doesn't have magic. Or monsters in the dungeons. Or riches there for that matter.

I'd get some equipment, and yes, that means lights and provision among things, hire a good spelunking team to find me a nice, interesting and, preferably, less known dungeon. And probably to accompany me there, since exploring alone is a very bad idea.

I've done some dungeon crawling when I was young. Abandoned factories, hospitals, labs, military bunkers and other crap. Nearly died a few times, and that's with me being reasonably cautious. Rusty ladders, hazardous chems, feral hobos, sometimes even armed bandits. Almost got squashed by the ceiling once. You never can be too cautious, only stupid about it. And checking things properly doesn't take much time ether. But then again, I've only seen a real lethal trap once, a badly wired grenade.

>>53316059
Name one.

>>53309175
Have you considered using wandering monsters, like every GM ever?

>>53316087
Been there, done that. It gets a bit boring when all of you are mostly same, and quests are little on the dull side.

>>53309175
Don't be a cockwit who does shit that warrants that, nobody wants to play a game where they have to check each and every individual tile for save or die retardation every single step unless someone acted like an asshat and caused there to be reason to do so,
he's probably doing it because some fuckwit of a gm completely screwed him or his entire party with lol fuck you die traps.
i bet your that anon who actively makes threads about how to royally screw people with traps.

>>53310689
>I got rid of rogues being the only ones able to find traps through homebrew anyway- instead they get a +5 to their search checks to find traps instead.
That's not even how that works anyways.
Literally everyone can find them and disarm them already, and rogues have a bonus of half their level to find and disarm.

The only thing exclusive to rogues (other than that bonus much larger than the one you're giving) is that they are only ones to be able to disarm magical traps.
Though many magic users can just destroy them outright, what with Dispel Magic, and Erase for the Symbols and Glyphs.

>>53316195
>Rogues (and only rogues) can use the Search skill to locate traps when the task has a Difficulty Class higher than 20
>Rogues (and only rogues) can use the Disable Device skill to disarm magic traps.

Not sure where you're coming from, because I'm talking 3.5

>>53315945
>quarterstaff
Nigga have you ever even played AD&D? You use a 10ft pole for that crap. Whole reason they exist, and way less chance of getting hit if it goes off.

>>53316129
another OGL system specifically, or just any grid-based system period?

>>53316233
Could never find those in shops so my characters just go with a quarter staff.

>>53312017
It's a balancing act how to use your time effectively in a dungeon, but as a general rule traps aren't mobile unlike monsters who can chase you, so it's better to check for them only at suspicious spots and not risk more monsters appearing.

>>53311836
If you roll on the table, players then know they did a shitty job looking, and act weirdly for a bunch of people who found no traps.

>>53309175
Wait you don't narrate what players do on unimportant scenes? Like they are walking down a corridor and you let them narrate every step? I don't get it.

>You're riding down the road and you notice an overturned carriage in the treeline a good thirty feet from the road
>A horse corpse is tangled in its harness near the front of the wagon, you notice what looks like an arrow sticking in its side
>You dismount and approach the wagon
>Bandits are currently pawing through the wreckage looking for loot but you haven't noticed them yet, what do you do?

Would having them tell me they dismount, letting them roll a bunch of checks to notice shit, or having them discuss whether its an ambush make any difference in this scene?

>>53316263
Should've bought 2 and some rope to tie them together

>>53316226
Show me one 3.5 official trap with a higher DC than 20

I'll wait.

>>53316252
A system where a player is going to refer to a square.

>>53316426
>he's never done anything with traps in 3.5

See, the way traps work in 3.5 is that traps each have a different challenge rating, the way monsters and encounters do.

A standard mechanical trap's spot DC is a 20. And it's only a +1 to the CR to make it 21+. There are tons in the SRD that have various DCs higher than 20, but I'll stick with the sample traps in the vanilla-god-damn DMG.

>CR1
Camoflagued Pit Trap (Search DC 24)
Poison Needle Trap (Search DC 22)
Razor-Wire across Hallway (Search DC 22)
Scything Blade Trap (Search DC 21)
Wall Blade Trap (DC 22)

>CR 2
Box of Brown Mold (DC 22)
Burning Hands trap (Magical, DC 26)
Inflict Light Wounds Trap (Magical, DC 26)
Well-Camouflaged Pit Trap (DC 27)

>CR 3
Fire Trap (Magical, DC 27)
Extended Bane Trap (Magical, DC 27)
Hail of Needles (DC 22)
Spiked Pit Trap (DC 21)
Stone Blocks from Ceiling (DC 25)

And that's only from the first three CRs.

>>53309175
>This whole thread.
This is exactly why I specifically point out at character creation that I do not and will not have hidden traps in my game so no points should be put into Detect Traps.
Because this is what happens.
And it's what should logically happen if there are hidden traps everywhere.
But it drags the game down to a boring slog.

So, in my game there are essentially no hidden traps, and never any traps that can't be found using perception or other methods.

IF you have hidden traps in your game, accept all this nonsense as a natural consequence of that decision.
And do this >>53309224

If you don't have hidden traps, like this anon suggests >>53310555
Tell any player before they sink points into trap detection.

>>53310537
>When a trap is sensed, you don't know precisely what or where it is. You're just pretty sure there's one in the general area, so you have to go about locating it the old fashioned way: by describing in detail what you examine and where you poke and prod.
This is more or less what I do when it absolutely, 100% makes more sense that a trap would be there than if there weren't.

>>53311892
heh
I like the internally consistent cut of your jib, anon.

>>53316598
I don't usually have traps unless it's specifically something someone would trap. I like verismilitude in my games- why in god's name would an ancient tomb, filled with the shambling undead, still have traps in it? The undead would have activated all of them centuries ago.

Why would a cave filled with mindless stupid monsters have traps?

Also, I just actually ask the players to roll their search trap checks when it's actually relevant, and ignore them when there's no traps around. Except on the few times I do it just to mess with them.

>>53309175
As the designated trap-checker of my party, I'd probably check for traps less often if there weren't save-or-die traps with crazy high difficulty checks in every dungeon.

Maybe if they weren't such an existential threat, I wouldn't be compelled to check every little thing. From my perspective, the consequence of failing to perform one of my primary functions not only undermines my character, but could actually kill him instantly.

>>53316624
I agree with this, my uncle, who taught me about running games hated rando traps in inhabitted dungeons. His reasoning was simple.

>Imagine if your bathroom door had two doorknobs, one above the other.
>One was electrified and would painfully shock you if you tried to use it
>How many times would you shock yourself in the middle of the night trying to get intro the bathroom to take a piss?

>>53309175
I wish I had a webm of that part from Gamers where the rogue gets hit by a trap, explains he was actually sneaking, get hit by a trap, explains he was actually crawling an inch at a time meticulously checking for traps every few seconds, gets hit by a trap, then they just get the Barbarian to go first and take the hit.

>>53316150
>when all of you are mostly same
well there was your first mistake.
Heck even in that "all barbarian party" greentext they all had specialized roles that made them unique.

Heck, I've been considering doing a post-magic-apocalypse all-human fighter westmarches game (think Fallout, but the nukes came from a space war, and were alien magic instead of radiation. A bunch of alien races like elves then made settlements on earth cause they thought it was abandoned, now humans are coming out of their bunkers. A bit Samurai Jack-ish.), where anything is legal so long as you can meet its prerequisites as a human fighter (the rest were lost to time or have yet to be discovered by humanity.), and there is a crazy amount of stuff you can do just using that alone. Figured I'd make it so that if you create a character that does things similar to an existing class, you are the first of that class, before the techniques were refined.

Grow Plant Creature and create Leshys? (DCs become harder but you don't technically have to know the spells.) Have an animal companion? Bam, first Druid.
Believer's Lay On Hands and Radiant Charge, with your Believer's Boon being the Loyalty Domain's giving +4 to resist fear and charms to an ally? That's a paladin.
Figment Familiar, with a bunch of Evolved Familiar on it? That's a Summoner friendo.
Mutation Warrior specializing in alchemy and splash weapons? Do I even have to say it?
Make something that doesn't resemble an actual class? Eh, never really caught on.

Was going to make it just New World/First Contact, taming the unexplored wilderness, but was in a "why can't fighters make magic items when they need them the most" thread and somebody brought up all the neat Technological stuff that fulfills most of the same needs and doesn't take a caster level and I thought, new idea, First Contact, AFTER an apocalypse, so that way we have all this neat space-age stuff lying around, plus it's one more specialty my players can choose from.

>>53316226
I specifically mentioned magic traps in my post, as well as alternate methods of dealing with them, and there are no DC20+ traps in 1stparty DnD or Paizo products that are nonmagical.

Your point is addressed already. Please reread.

>>53309175

Stop placing traps so often. Seems like you're the kinda guy who loves fucking players over with traps so he's paranoid and keeps checking.

>>53311836

Make them roll three dice and tell you their bonus. One of them you and only you know is the actual roll.

>>53316226
To be fair, in Paizo there is like, 90bajillion archetypes that can swap for Trapfinding. three kinds of Bard, Oracle, Sorceror, alchemist, two kinds of Ranger, and literally anyone with a wand of http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/trapfinders-focus/

>>53316226
>There are no DC20+ traps in 1stparty DnD
You missed this entire post: >>53316593 specifically mentions which ones are magical. Note that most of those are *not* magical, and note that that's low CR. Higher CR traps generally have a higher search DC. It's also 1st-party, since I took those directly out of the DMG.

Also, the 'bonus of half their level to find and disarm' doesn't exist anywhere in the rogue entry.

So in short, you're probably talking about a different version of the game. Please read the part where I said 'I'm talking 3.5' before responding next time.

File: I have won an internet argument.png (1MB, 800x1094px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x1094px

>>53317154
>>53317053
Oops, forgot the picture.

>>53316383
I feel my dr and fast heal take up some of the slack.

>>53316252
it doesn't matter, no matter what you say, he's just going to say it doesn't count.

>>53315483
I did, and we used a grid map to keep things organized, we refereed to the squares because "that square" and indicating it on the map was a more convenient way to say, "I run over there"

>>53313620

Only DCSS has out of depth monsters come at you. Other roguelikes just have a food clock. Spend too much time fucking around and you starve.

>>53309175
>'i check this square'

What square? There's no squares in the room, do you mean the cobblestones? There's at least two-hundred of them, you sure you want to check each one of those?

I force players to either declare a object they wish to inspect. This does make it so that I have to describe the room in detail, but that's worldbuilding, so who cares. If someone just wants to check the room, they get to roll once at regular, then at -5. Party members who are with them get -3 on their checks when they look around the room after the first guy hasn't found anything.

Also, don't tell them they failed. If it's too much of a problem, unless they've been hit by a trap recently, don't allow them another roll. You're in charge, don't let someone ruin the whole game because they don't want to take 3 damage.

>>53317368
3 damage? That adds up!

Tip 1: Passive perception determines if a character can spot a trap without doing anything. Active perception rolls require them to check things, and if they fail then they triggered the trap. If they just look around, they don't get any more rolls.

Tip 2: Stop having them roll for traps if there aren't any. Just tell them straight up "after an exhaustive search, you've determined there aren't any traps here."

Tip 3: Add a time constraint. Each search, whether successful, failed, or futile, passes time. This doesn't need to be a deadline. It can be a wandering monster check, or even a slow but steady need to consume water and rations. Make it cost them something to search.

Tip 4: Make traps into logic puzzles. If the players can figure out the logic behind the traps then they can just automatically bypass them. But now they have to think instead of just rolling. Which they'll do, because rolling is risky and costly.

Viola, traps are now fixed.

>>53317384
>oy vey, 3 damage, the cleric will never heal me

I have made healing traps for over-paranoid groups just because I've gotten sick of their shit and want to fuck with them.

I generally don't allow for:

>'Oh well I'm just being careful'.

"Well, congratulations, the evil wizard finished his spell. The town that's paying you to stop him has been melted."

I may put one to two traps for a dungeon unless the bad guy there has a fetish for them. Even then, they're always in described objects. This does lead to them checking every suit or armor they see, but if you vary shit enough, they'll take the general check.

>>53315483
I have. We use squares

>>53317141
Don't forget Pathfinder Delver PrC.

>>53316383
>bought
nigga quarterstaffs are free, just like clubs and wooden stakes; slings (including stitched), amentums and throwing arrow cords; and stingchucks.

The idea I think is that you just rip it off a tree somewhere and whittle it down. Or in the case of the sling, amentum, and throwing arrow cord, cut a strap of leather. Or in the case of the stingchuck, found a severed head and filled it with bees. Yes, you read that right. They actually do a fair bit of damage, what with 1d6+1d4+Nauseate. They just also weigh 9lb. I had a backwater grippli madness cleric use them though once, had them on a bandoleer.

Since they're all free and most are simple weapons, you should carry as many on you as you have empty space left after more important things. They're handy in a pinch, for more things than one. Like throwing at levers, poking at floor tiles, etc.

Lassos too. They're 1sp, and while they're exotic they're also touch weapons, so the -4 is basically cancelled out.
Blowguns and their ammo are also very cheap but very useful, mostly for delivering poison. You could probably just stick caltrops in your sling for a similar effect though.
Speaking of, buy those and bags of marbles, and powder.

>>53317299
Mystery Dungeon series has both. Or at least the pokemon ones for certain.

>>53316469
I mean, technically other than 4th, they're not even squares in DnD. Grid is optional. It's all in feet.

>>53317029
Not much to make diversity from without abandoning the stone age setting. Anyway, my initial point was against excluding the very things you're reintroduced in your example, and some few times where it's appropriate to do so.

Postapoc is probably the richest of barren environments as far as the possibilities go. How did it go?

Great idea on dropping the silly crippling specialisation thing. The D&D's eternal problem is in attempt to equalize a mage and fighter by kicking mage in the balls and making him epitome of bodily weakness and general incompetence. Anyone can be a fighter. Anyone can pick the locks, and it is epitome of silliness when mage can't unravel mystic lock and mechanic or artificer can't deal with extraordinarily sophisticated one, but illiterate and unintelligent thief can do both in seconds.

I've once played something similar, when mundane classes (fighter, hunter, rogue, healer and scholar) were your start, and mystic and tech classes were long-term prestiges, that also required extensive preparation.

File: 5a5ab2e88e6cc4e5e9bdc6770c334b87.jpg (100KB, 423x568px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 423x568px

>>53309507
>Even more realistically you'd ditch the dungeon, sell your broadsword and armor, and buy a nice plot of land to start a farm on.
>But that isn't fun for anybody

>tfw you'll never play a peasant campaign where you work your hardest to scrape by and survive
>tfw you'll never labor and survive by the sweat of your brow
>tfw you'll never roll for wheat height

>>53310537
>I like the idea of giving folks a sixth-sense sort of trap detection ability
TSR era thieves had that ability. They were the only ones who could find and disarm traps on a roll. Everyone else had to specify what they did

>"how long do you spend checking for traps? You get a +1 for every 5 minutes."
>30 minutes
>"Okay, roll to examine."
>Rolls an 8, give him +4 = 12 check
>"You find a trapped secret door but you don't know how to disable the trap or what it will do if you trigger it."

Always make it more than just a trap. It's a process.

>>53317720
>You get a +1 for every 5 minutes.
>30 minutes
>give him +4
>4X5=20

Who in the fuck taught you math

File: ruby-bench[1].png (237KB, 611x295px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 611x295px

>>53317558
if by original example you mean >>53310272, I can't read it it's deleted. Sorry.

I also don't understand what you mean by dropping specialization. I specifically said you should have been specializing. Different expertise, different techniques, different approaches, everybody with their own flaws, own personal goals... Think of TV shows where everyone on a team is technically the same thing. They all still have very distinct differences that make them people not clones.
Heck, pic related is a case of LITERAL CLONES and they still have major differences and specializations. An overenthusiatic "lemme at it!" type that eagerly takes point and cheers her teammates, a skittish and confused simpleton, a paranoid jarhead, a seemingly omniphilic ditz who is actually a vengeful manipulative sadist, and a focused, learned, and assertive leader who unfortunately has an inadequate amount of competency to make up for the lack thereof in her subordinates.

>Not much to make diversity from without abandoning the stone age setting
Warrior. Hunter. Shaman. Witchdoctor. Seems like the same 4 archetypes as always just labeled different, and treated different so they fall more in line with the setting.

As for quest ideas, go play Horizon Zero Dawn and just imagine the robots aren't robots. You'll get plenty of ideas.

>>53316107
>And checking things properly doesn't take much time ether
I gotta ask, for the sake of OP here, did you check every single floor tile one by one?

>>53309224
Clearly this is the best option

>>53316727
Bingo. Everybody started putting random traps in when tomb of horrors came out - and the traps made internal sense for that, as it was supposed to be the most lethal dungeon ever. Nobody else really made the traps make sense. Except for Tuckers Kobolds.
If you find a trap, its either an ambush, or a low traffic area to an important zone.

>>53309175
Can't you just have them do a take 20 or whatever on the whole room if they're going to check the entire thing for traps that meticulously?

>>53318389
>>53310272 is >>53310305
Emphasis on the "silly crippling" specialisation. When warrior can't read, thief can't sing, neither of them can do teeniest bit of magic, mage out of spells can't fight and so on. Of course, I exaggerate now, but I hope you get the gist?

I get the idea of personalisation. We had a game of Paranoia where all players were clones of a single person simultaneously activated, had to cooperate in the setting where backstabbing is mandatory, as they were hunted and had no more backups. They started and were played similar, but through their accrued experiences turned quite distinctive by the point when they died.

The problem with the stone age is that everyone was nomadic hunter-gatherer; the chief, shaman, whatever passes for a doctor and the only quest giver around is the one single NPC; quests typically entail hunting, gathering food, protecting the fire/women/children, and, variation of all previous, getting fire/women/children.

>I gotta ask, for the sake of OP here, did you check every single floor tile one by one?
No point. No pressure plates in real life and any oddity is immediately obvious. On the subject, I also encountered barbed wire literally everywhere, some still live wire once and things that I'm pretty sure were mines - I did not come close enough to be certain. Mines, modern equivalent of those pressure plates, are worse than pretty much every fantasy trap. Well hidden guaranteed TPK, and painful, too, from what I've heard. Every damned military plants them everywhere like no tomorrow, and never, ever, bothers to pick them up after they've done.

>>53311830
>By who? The monsters who you came exactly to kill and steal the loot?
yes. you don't see a difference between
>we'll kill them all room-by-room
and
>OMG, they are descending on us from all sides
do you?

>>53311689
Why not just implement passive Perception and use it anyway?

>>53309746
But but but muh stats, muh shell, muh mary sue min-maxed thief abloobloobloo ;.;

>>53309175
Have you tried not playing 3.pf?

>>53317909
Bernie Sanders

>>53315570
Just for the thrill. How many rich guys kill thenselves doing dangerous shit (and at least dungeoning brings revenue)

>>53309507
>Even more realistically you'd ditch the dungeon, sell your broadsword and armor, and buy a nice plot of land to start a farm on.
There's two types of people in the world - people who go on quests, and people who hand them out. Sell my sword to buy a plot of land, and within a year I'll get my crops burned by orcs, have my food stolen by bandits, or get captured by an evil wizard for magical experiments.

>>53309175
Let them roll once per room. Then let them describe what they check.

>I check EVERYTHING IN THE ROOM
Okay that will take... two hours. What do the rest of you guys do?
>I check the door handle and the coloured tiles you mentioned.
Okay that takes 5 minutes.

>>53309235
Rolling in secret is the only way to discourage meta gaming
OP said the player wouldn't progress if he rolled low, this textbook example of meta gaming is only dispelled with experience or rolling behind a screen

>>53309175
>And god forbid they roll low, they'll either refuse to proceed or just check again
Tell them to stop being metagaming cunts.

>>53309890
>To those of you who badly want players to be caught in their traps - use magical triggers rather than mechanical. The greatest thief would have no way whatsoever to tell if there's one, and mages are usually too stupid or arrogant to check.
Explicitly not the case with D&D.

>>53309175
Do what I do: one roll covers the entire fucking room.

If he succeeds he finds all of them if there was more than one.

>>53321296
>>53321317
>reeeeeee metagaming reeeeeee!
Unless your players are reading your notes, complaining about metagaming is the sign of a bad DM.

>>53311717
>I want to become the best wrestler in all universe, including gods
NOT ALLOWED
>I want to be able to heal everything with a cantrip
NOT ALLOWED
>I want to know everything
NOT ALLOWED

Fixed that for you.

>>53321296
>Rolling in secret is the only way to discourage meta gaming
Or a good way of having chaos at every bad roll.

Again, how do you prove to your players you aren't purposely making them fumble?

>>53321418
Complaining about people complaining about metagaming makes you an entitled cunt.

>>53321534
Nah, that's what complaining about complaining about complaining about metagaming does.

>>53321418
>Unless your players are reading your notes, complaining about metagaming is the sign of a bad DM.
I'm not certain that you understand what "metagaming" means.
Either that, or you just don't like GMs that complain.
There are lots of ways that metagaming can make the game worse.
And admittedly, a few that make it better.

File: consider.jpg (751KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 600x600px

>>53309175
Players don't get to roll dice unless the GM says "you need to roll to do that". This is literally in the first fucking paragraph of every GM guide every written.

If a player said "I roll Knowledge - Religion to become a god" and started rolling until they got a 20 would you let them? It's your game, don't be a fucking pushover.

>>53321359
Ah, yes. I should have mentioned my reasoning on that. Of course you refer to "magic traps may be spotted and disarmed by a rogue and only rogue" thing? It is a shitty rule from the point of any sense, common of otherwise, perhaps even worse than bloody path or what-have-you.

Typical thief doesn't have any knowledge of magic or capacity to detect magic, magic methods of surveillance or triggering the trap, and certainly doesn't have any ability to use magic to disarm it. Only items, and even that with a skill that should belong to the bard. I demand at least a double digit score in spellcraft, even if gained entirely from buffs or items. Rules lawyers can eat mimics, lurkers and extra deadly animated fullmetal furniture that springs on them immediately after. It sort of a dickish move, yes, but it forces players to take a level in the class whose brand of skills they intend to use. Likewise, a fighter or cleric fancying himself a lockpicker ought to take at least a level of roguish class or prestige.

Mind, if that was an arcane trickster (who does have very nifty trick that's extremely useful in a lot of things, and extraordinarily useful at disarmament of perilous magic traps) or any other sort of mage/thief, disarming most difficult magical trap should be a breeze.

>>53322193
>it forces players to take a level in the class whose brand of skills they intend to use
"Dealing with traps" is literally the ONLY niche rogues have. Throw that out, and you might as well just ban the class(es) entirely.

>>53316727
I like how traps were handled in the Seven Ancient Wonders books (airport thriller sort of stuff).

It's explicitly said that 90% of the traps have sequences or patterns that don't trigger them, and that those using the facility were expected to learn the patterns.

>Handholds over a pit, but some of the rungs are fake and will drop you. Authorised entrants know which rungs are safe.

>A climbing wall where each hand-recess is marked with a symbol. Authorised entrants know which symbols are safe.

>A trap system in two parts, where each tunnel's riddles disarm the traps in the other tunnel. Designed to be bypassed only by a group of scholars who know the riddles.

The heroes bypass the traps by reading up on the ancient architects that designed them.

The villains bypass the traps (much more quickly) using quick-set concrete and explosives.

>>53321596
No, I understand. But the vast majority of times metagaming is an issue, it's because the DM makes it one.

Take this example - your players act wary when they've rolled poorly. You could say that's a problem with the players. Or you could realize it's a problem with consequence-free rolls. Why not rule that if they succeed, they find the trap, and if they fail, they set off the trap? Now you never have to deal with that problem again.

>>53322278
On the contrary, rogue has most niches, perhaps even more than generalist with obtaining new scrolls fetish.
Rogue is a thief. Probably the most useful and most overlooked ability.
Rogue is a sneaky scout and spy.
Rogue is an assassin, capable of ending what otherwise would've been a long and arduous battle.
Rogue is your fixer and informant, either having a lot of contacts in criminal world or easily making ones.
Rogue is your appraiser and seller of ill-gotten and illegal goods that you come by. Which would be most of your loot in some campaigns. Even legit goods can be sold at a better price if you know who to sell.
And, of course, rogue is your primary man for dealing with traps and locks.
Don't scoff at his crits either, with little luck they can kill some really tough stuff way faster than fighters.

The only other class that can match the rogue versatility is the wizard, but getting wizard to do the tasks of 'lesser' classes is like squeezing the water from granite. Cussing and spell-slinging granite.

>>53322496
>Rogue is a thief. Probably the most useful and most overlooked ability.
Actually in many campaigns that's fairly useless.
>Rogue is a sneaky scout and spy.
Wizard can do this better, and anyone trained in stealth can do this as well as rogue.
>Rogue is an assassin, capable of ending what otherwise would've been a long and arduous battle.
Not in D&D.
>Rogue is your fixer and informant, either having a lot of contacts in criminal world or easily making ones.
Bards do it better unless you require that anyone with underworld contacts absolutely MUST be Rogue.
>Rogue is your appraiser and seller of ill-gotten and illegal goods that you come by. Which would be most of your loot in some campaigns. Even legit goods can be sold at a better price if you know who to sell.
Appraising is pretty useless without being able to detect magic - and even without taking that into account, wizard can still do it better.
>And, of course, rogue is your primary man for dealing with traps and locks.
Dealing with mundane traps is a very limited niche, and the doors the fighter can't just smash can be dealt in a different fashion, such as using Knock
>Don't scoff at his crits either, with little luck they can kill some really tough stuff way faster than fighters.
Fighters crit way harder than rogues, since sneak attack isn't multiplied.

>>53322596
>Fighters crit way harder than rogues, since sneak attack isn't multiplied.
It is in 5E.

>>53322624
I'm pretty sure fighters still crit harder in 5e.

>>53322478
You're still wrong, but don't let that undermine your smug sense of superiority

>>53322596
>Actually in many campaigns that's fairly useless.
Thus, overlooked. It gets you money, way-out-of-your-league equipment, and one good heist can derail the entire campaign. Or set you for life.
>Wizard can do this better, and anyone trained in stealth can do this as well as rogue.
How should I put this? Wizard always has the best tools for the job but sucks at the job itself, and the tools are one-use-only. No class suited better for stealth than rogue but rogue variants. If he has any wits left, he'd better buff rogue or enchant her gear for the undertaking.
>Not in D&D.
Yep in D&D. In any setting that isn't full-blown powerwank, really. Best way to bump off the BBEG is the way that doesn't spill over into an epic fight and causes untold collateral. Plus, majority of greater villains are wizards, and that's just asking for it.
>Bards do it better unless you require that anyone with underworld contacts absolutely MUST be Rogue.
Bards and Pallies are your face. Public, and, preferably, good. Even more preferably not trusted with anything valuable, lest they spend it on unsound causes.
>Appraising is pretty useless without being able to detect magic - and even without taking that into account, wizard can still do it better.
Like I've said before, to each their forte. Wizard does enchanted items, rogue does the rest. I'm certain rogue would have a better eye for precious valuables in particular.
>Dealing with mundane traps is a very limited niche, and the doors the fighter can't just smash can be dealt in a different fashion, such as using Knock
Fighter hits the enemy and is useless at everything else. Doesn't make him any less useful. Wasting a spell slot to open the door? If you want to open things with magic enchant an item to do that, or better yet, buy one.
>Fighters crit way harder than rogues, since sneak attack isn't multiplied.
Depends on the edition, still, there's plenty of ways to resneak each round. Just ask your wizard.

>>53323095
>Thus, overlooked. It gets you money, way-out-of-your-league equipment, and one good heist can derail the entire campaign. Or set you for life.
And one bad heist can land you on the prison if not executed.
>No class suited better for stealth than rogue but rogue variants.
Any class with good dexterity will be just as good at stealth as rogue
>Even more preferably not trusted with anything valuable, lest they spend it on unsound causes.
Which goes double for the rogue.
>Like I've said before, to each their forte. Wizard does enchanted items, rogue does the rest. I'm certain rogue would have a better eye for precious valuables in particular.
Which just goes to show just how little you apparently know about the rules. Higher intelligence means better appraise score, and it also means the wizard has skillpoints to spare, unlike the rogue who already has to spread himself thin.
>Fighter hits the enemy and is useless at everything else. Doesn't make him any less useful. Wasting a spell slot to open the door? If you want to open things with magic enchant an item to do that, or better yet, buy one.
What makes the rogue less useful is that you can have a bard in the party and cover all the bases rogue does, except better, since apparently bards can disarm magic traps while the rogue can't.
>Depends on the edition, still, there's plenty of ways to resneak each round. Just ask your wizard.
There really aren't, unless by "ask your wizard" you mean "ask the wizard to cast improved invisibility".

>>53322799
Same for you, hon.

>>53321497
If your players can't trust you find new ones that are gullible enough to trust your cheating ass.

>>53322624
Why?
Did they heavily nerf sneak attack overall or are rogues critting for a fuckton of damage now?

>>53323429
The latter. All dice damage are now multiplier, meaning sneak attack criticals are a very good way to drop someone in a single hit. Of course, the reverse also holds true - many a first level character has been bitchslapped through a wall by a Bugbear's surprise critical.

>>53323260
>And one bad heist can land you on the prison if not executed.
Odds are yours to accept or decline. Nabbing the trinket of power before the villain obtains it never gets old. Or replacing in with a cursed copy. Or simply destroying it.
>Any class with good dexterity will be just as good at stealth as rogue
Not just, but yes, in some ways some monks are decent scouts. Then again, few classes are there that prioritize dexterity over all other abilities. Rogues and archers, that's it. Dex in D&D just isn't nearly as useful as in other systems.
>Which goes double for the rogue.
Yep. Pick your rogue extra carefully, make sure he benefits the most within the party rather than without, discreetly make a 'killswitch' or two just in case. Rogue's predictable in his greed and trickery, Rogue wouldn't donate the entirety of your loot to orphanage or waste it on pretty clothes and instruments and manwhores.
>What makes the rogue less useful is that you can have a bard in the party and cover all the bases rogue does, except better, since apparently bards can disarm magic traps while the rogue can't.
Bard can't do all aforementioned things good and still be charming diplomat, encouragement and halfway decent fighter. Though it is certainly an option for LG party.
>ask the wizard to cast
Yep. The wizard, though giant dick, is there to help you and render your foes helpless while party makes short work of them, not fill his slots with knocks playing the rogue's senile grandfather, or, worse, fill his slots with nothing but badly chosen offensive spells.

Two immediate ways to solve this problem I can think of
>the next dungeon has literally no traps
>a kobold rogue with a ring of invisibility is following the party laying basic traps (like 1d4 non lethal damage) every 40 ft. If the problem player insists on inspecting every goddammit square see how close you can get the kobold to sneak undetected laying traps, maybe completely encircle the party. If bad behavior persists male the traps have no damage, they just splash urine on the player or pop notes up saying "look behind you"

>>53323260
Cut from previous post.
>Which just goes to show just how little you apparently know about the rules. Higher intelligence means better appraise score, and it also means the wizard has skillpoints to spare, unlike the rogue who already has to spread himself thin.
You know even less than me, it seems. Appraise isn't a class skill of a wizard, but it is one for rogue. The wizard has more important skills to take. The Int modifier will get the wizard ahead of rogue, but just as long as neither have put anything in appraise.

>>53317448
Yeah the one time I did a trap dungeon was the time the necromancer running it was a paranoid, smug asshole. The kind that insults the party while they're disarming her and then Cloudkills the entire room.

>Random traps on items like old cooking pots in an abandoned kitchen.
>Traps that only triggered if you walked down a passage in a certain direction (she always went around).
>Traps that went off when you tried to disarm other traps (connected to the ones above).

They were mostly shit like "bestow curse" or "blindness/deafness" that the party didn't have too much trouble saving against. I also had one of the traps half-kill a random encounter that got too close.

Mostly it was just me indulging a little DM sadism and making it a bit of a calling card for the necromancer in question, who proceeded to get curb stomped harder than anyone sharing an elevator with Ryan Gosling.

Didn't old versions of D&D have wandering monsters against that shit?

If you kept trying to roll for traps at every turn, eventually, you'd get a backlog of monsters searching for you and end up with 50 orcs pouncing your ass.

>>53321418
If I say "roll perception" it ruins the surprise of a tiger jumping from the brush, or likewise spotting the tiger first!

In GURPS, most knowledge based rolls need to be rolled in secret because the rules state that the GM can lie if the roll is bad enough. For example: if tracking a human through brush and the GM rolls in secret and it is a critical fail, you might actually be following the trail of a bear. If you roll in the open the player will know that he's failing his roll and just try something different, instead of the more interesting "you're actually following a bear."

>>53309175
TIME
AS
A
RESOURCE

You're in luck, the same guy who wrote >>53312596 's links just released an article outlining the problem and suggesting a new mechanic to handle it.

http://theangrygm.com/hacking-time-in-dnd/

>>53324204
That's what passive checks are for. The tiger rolls Stealth against their passive check unless they're actively doing something beyond just scanning the area, at which point it becomes contested.

Personally, I feel like passive knowledge rolls would work as well. If they have a high enough knowledge, tell it to them as part of the description; if not, they don't know it unless they take some kind of active steps like research or doing an autopsy on a dead monster.

>>53309746
A wild Geodude appeared!

>>53309175
>>53309215
>>53309274
>>53309288
>>53309890

This is the best solution, these stink.

Don't discourage them with metagame bullshit, they know what you're doing. Replace it with something they control, they love it.

Keep, for their searches, a nonrefilling "intense concentration meter" for each player with 100 points, and tell them you're doing so.

Tell them they get to choose how many points to spend on any search, with 10 being enough for anyone to puzzle out how to disarm a very simple trap, 40 a complex one, and 5 being the bare minimum to find anything.

This forces intellectual honesty on their part because in real life being hypervigilant for hours is fucking hard and you'll get careless (or at least you'll start being more conservative about what you care about), it makes RP easier of character mental fatigue so if it's bogging down the game other players can signal that without meta, and if you're doing any work to signal "not trap" versus "maybe trap", they're going to prioritize saving points to inspect specifIc concerns they actually have about the room, like they would in real life, rather than CHECK CHECK CHECK.

Plus, if this is all part of a secret desire for your traps to have teeth, backload them: villains can metagame too, they call that plotting.

>>53323556
Had a paladin one-turn solo an end-campaign boss with two crits in a row. Shit gets nasty.

>>53325490
Maybe? But then you have another variable to manage along with gold, hp, spell slots, ammunition, xp, class resources, x/day abilities and item charges.

Plus, why does trap-disarming cost concentration but not appraising items or performing rituals or maintaining complex illusions or remaining motionless in stealth...

It could work well in an attrition-heavy dungeon crawl campaign, for sure. The kind where you're also tracking each litre of water and weapon durability.

>>53325490
Honestly, any solution that makes trap checking require resources is a good solution.

>Costs precious minutes in a timed scenario
>Risk of random encounters costing health
>Adds stacking debuff (strain, stress...)
>Require special pool of "patience" points
Etc, etc.

>>53325691

Honestly, either charge 'em for it too,
or let them spend concentration for a bonus on their roll.

Alternatively, getting off the hook for that is easy, just say

>As an adventurer, I've presumed that you've practiced acting stealthy, illusions, and appraisal skills until most of the mechanics are muscle memory.

>Traps, however, are by definition adversarial and are designed to play upon your expectations and muscle memory as an adventurer and as such require a lot more focus to detect and disarm.

>>53309175
You're an idiot who is doing it wrong.
>or just check again.
What the fuck is the point of rolling if you let your players just reroll until they succeed? You're retarded.

>>53309175
idk which system you're playing, but I also don't know of any with a check-for-traps skill/ability that only covers 1 square/a small area at a time.
89% sure you're playing the game wrong.

>>53322478
>Why not rule that if they succeed, they find the trap, and if they fail, they set off the trap?
Wow! What a brilliant solution to metagaming caution over whether or not there are traps present, simply ALWAYS have traps present!
That sure is a solution with no downside!
You sure showed me how much you understand the rpgs, anon!

>>53309274
I've considered all the responses to OP's absurd predicament in this thread and concluded that this one reply is the most reasonable and most powerful method.
OP, you may never see that player again, but they will have learned their lesson forever and never forget.

File: 79518715538b9fb1b0ec7b9bfb475dc7539afda69c6c9c912515d6ea9cf67b2f.jpg (55KB, 625x262px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 625x262px

>>53326857
> Traps don't exist if you don't look for them
> Trap detection is actually trap invocation

No rerolls on failed skill checks.

If your trapfinder rolls low and fails his check, it's not because he suddenly became incompetent and forgot how to look for traps right, it's because the traps are too hard for him to find despite his best efforts.

>>53326857
I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse for the sake of belligerence or if you're just using your skull to store shiny things. Either way, here's a novel idea - why not just not roll if there wasn't a trap there? Just say "after a careful search, you don't find any traps."

>>53310305
>the wizard

Your games are shit.

Having wizards able to do anything ruins any form of tension the game could ever have.

>>53328131
>why not just not roll if there wasn't a trap there?
Wow even better!
Not only are all the points put into Disable Traps completely wasted, but all the points the player has put into Detect Traps are not really being used to detect traps!
It's genius!
You sure put the "Master" in "Game Master" anon!
I can't wait for your next brilliant idea!

>>53309175
Let him take ten for fuck's sake. If his take ten isn't high enough to spot a trap, let him roll just before he sets it off.

Better idea: design traps that are easy to spot but difficult to bypass/disarm.

>>53309175
Roll behind the screen and just tell him if he finds traps if be rolls high enough and there is one present. Make him roll for a whole area. If he says it is only for the first square, say it applies to everything. Checking takes time, which means more random encounters.

File: Garak.jpg (73KB, 692x530px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 692x530px

>>53328131
>Only rolling checks to determine if characters notice something which's presence the players are not meant to know of if they fail, if such a thing is in fact present

>>53329640
>Encouraging players to waste ability check boosting features (e.g. Dark One's Own Luck in 5e) on "it was nothing all along!"
Do you at least give out refunds for your cute fakeouts?

File: JohnnyDangerously.png (342KB, 700x378px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 700x378px

>>53329978
>playing systems with magic luck points

>>53329511
It's hard to just articulate how dumb your complaint is. So... because you don't roll for traps if there aren't any traps... you wasted your skill points? Yeah, those points are totally being used well when you roll to search for traps in a location without any. Those disable trap skills too! Man, how could you live without randomly disabling nonexistent traps?

>>53329640
And that's why failure means they set off the trap. See how everything fits together?

>>53329978
Assuming unrelated tangents doesn't make anon's point less valid.

>>53330098
Also this.

>>53309175
the dungeon conga line

fighter stand in front of rogue, rogue can search square 10ft away as a full-round action, then tap the fighter on the shoulder and the whole group moves up 5ft

they travel through unexplored parts of the dungeon like this, at 5ft per round

*IF* there is a trap, you roll the rogues search check, otherwise no actual rolling takes place

GEE THAT WAS HARD

>>53330146
>And that's why failure means they set off the trap. See how everything fits together?
I'm just criticising the idea of only rolling for search if you have traps present. If failing while none are present doesn't do anything but failing when some are present causes them to trigger, that's fine by me. Though it makes it so you absolutely must roll them publicly, and personally I don't like the players "knowing" they did poorly on a skill check which revolves around noticing things. That's up to taste however.

But only rolling detection skills when there's something to be detected can really throw players off their game, because suddenly if they aren't informed of anything, they'll be disconnected from their characters by the meta knowledge of their failure.

There's a bit of it too when in meta-knowledge they'd know they'd be dead right now if there was a trap, but it's less drastic I guess.

>>53330239
I've always found the reverse, for the same reason you note - if they roll low, then they're going to know they rolled poorly and act paranoid. Same if you roll behind the screen and say "you don't find anything" instead of "there aren't any traps."

On the other hand, with my way, they immediately know that they've failed at the same time their character does - when the trap gets sprung. Yeah, my method means they'll be confident if I don't call for a roll, but I'd rather have that then the stupid "shh, I just failed a spot check" paranoia.

File: Will You Be My Neighbour.jpg (497KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1280x1280px

>>53330466
In my experience, if you do it for a couple of sessions, and just keep rolling without comment as to what kind of rolls you're making (and sometimes just rolling dice without rolling for anything) eventually the paranoia dies down pretty quickly.
That being said, I see your point, and can see how it would work in-game.
To each their own.

>>53309175
this kind of behavior usually only happens when the party has been hammered heavily by traps to the point that they are looking 30 seconds before they even roll the dice since they expect the table to snap at their arms like a mouse trap

>>53311689
Pathfinder, for those who think fantasy RPGs are meant to be "won"

>>53311886
Who cares if you designed the whole scenario to begin with? If the DM wanted to fuck the party over there are so many better ways.

>>53330194
>*IF* there is a trap, you roll the rogues search check, thus telling the players that there is indeed a trap so that they know it with certainty even if they fail the detection roll.

>>53331953
The players will know there's a trap there if they fail the check. So will the characters, because the poison darts will start firing or the gunpowder charge will explode.

That's the point of this model. No "hold on guys i rolled badly let's go around." Any time the players check for traps they immediately know whether or not there is one, and it's resolved in that same roll.

>>53330146
It's hard to just articulate how dumb your idea is, but I'll give spelling it out for you a try:
If there is no trap, there is no roll and the player is 100% certain there is no trap.
Auto success for trap detection regardless of their skill in trap detection.
A blind ferret is equal to a master theif.
Anytime there is a call to roll for Detect Trap, you might as well roll for Disable Trap, because even the blind ferret knows there's a trap and a success means another roll anyway.
You are just making players roll to detect something they know is there.

So, just use Disable Traps and get rid of Detect Traps altogether and just warn the players not to put any points into it.
As was suggested earlier.

Understanding this is as easy as understanding why a GM might complain about metagaming.

>>53332429
Ok, I guess you really are that stupid. Well, if you want to roll to disable a crossbow trap that shot you in the leg, or a pit trap you fell into, or an explosive trap that already detonated, then don't worry about search checks. Have fun with that, dumbfuck.

>>53332537
Did you read the post you replied to or are you set to auto-snark?

>>53332563
Did you read anything I wrote? If you look for traps, you roll. Success means you find the trap without setting it off. Failure means you find the trap by setting it off. Disabling it won't do much good after that unless it's a repeating trap, and even then it won't heal the damage that trap just did to your character.

>>53309175
We don't dice for trap detection, we roleplay it.
If there's a trap, the ref give some verbal cue in the room description for the players to investigate.
Same deal for hidden treasure.

Tomb of Horrors gets a lot of flak for (a) being a piss easy dungeon, (b) being arbitrary, linear garbage (linear with puzzle deadlocks!), and (c) pissing of new players; but the trap descriptions in that module are /excellent/ examples to refer people to.
All the traps telegraph from a fucking mile away. The clues are even drawn into the handouts in case the referee is doing their job poorly.


As to checking everything everywhere, that stills happens. But it gets swept under the rug into a "search routine."
The players tell the ref how they search the room, or walk through the doorway, or whatever, they often say "unless I say otherwise, we do this going forward."
The default out-of-combat movement rates even assume you're searching everything as you walk. Your move speed is something like double the listed rate if you jut walk normally.
If your routine would detect a trap, the ref just forgoes the cue and tells you about the triggered-at-a-distance (or possibly even untriggered) trap.

>>53309175
All that aside; if you are going to roll for it, you should roll for it correctly.
>I've been thinking of just rolling the dice myself behind the screen,
You should be doing that anyways, it's not an activity where you would know if you failed.
>but is there anything else I could do to discourage this kind of behavior?
Limit them to one search per room? (for the whole room) Should be the same average chance of detection, retries notwithstanding.
As for retries, if they start by saying they want to be meticulous, then give them a bonus and a time penalty. Otherwise, say no.

>>53332682
>Did you read anything I wrote?
Did you read everything you wrote?
>>53328131
>why not just not roll if there wasn't a trap there?

And here's my point again in case you forgot:
>>53332429
>If there is no trap, there is no roll and the player is 100% certain there is no trap.
>Anytime there is a call to roll for Detect Trap, you might as well roll for Disable Trap
>You are just making players roll to detect something they know is there.
You are just adding rolls, doubling their chance to set off the trap, and forcing them to pretend that they don't know the trap they are trying to detect is there.
It's dumb.

I don't understand GMing in a system without passive perception ratings that haven't just pre-rolled/generated a bundle of die rolls before the game for hidden rolls. The players don' know you rolled so there is no rolling paranoia and they still roll their own checks when they want to manually check because they think something is suss.
Doesn't help OP, you are just fucked, but might help any people who are going on about behind screen paranoia.

>>53332880
I honestly don't understand how you have the fine motor skills necessary to type and be so dumb. Are you dictating these posts?

If there is a trap, then you have them roll to see if their character finds it. If they succeed, they find it and can now roll to disable it, or find a way around it. If they fail the roll, then they activate it. They cannot try to disable it or find a way around it until after the trap goes off. They don't get to interrupt a pit trap crumbling the floor beneath their feet by trying to disable it.

It's exactly the same as any other search for traps. Fail and you don't find the trap, then go through the area with the trap in it, and trigger the trap. Succeed and you find the trap, then get to try and disable or evade. The only things which change are the unnecessary rolls, and the ability for the players to decide a low roll means there's a trap they didn't detect and try again until they get a 20. Both of those are features.

>>53333523
Notice how you are completely and utterly ignoring the downsides of making every detect for a trap that isn't there an autosuccess, and thereby making "detecting" pure useless pretense?
We noticed too.

Even if you include as many insults about my intelligence as you want, we will still notice.

>>53333661
I give up, anon. What are the downsides of not finding something that isn't there?

>>53309516

This, man. I wanted to say something similar but couldn't put it any better than this.

>>53333753
>I give up, anon. What are the downsides of not finding something that isn't there?
Well to start with, with your idea nobody is actually *detecting* anything with Detect Traps.

>CLASSIC TRAP DETECTION (more or less):
>Step 1. Player rolls to detect if there is a hidden trap.
Either a.) No trap is detected and the player can choose to search again or proceed at their own risk.
Or b.) GM announces there is a trap and the player can choose to try to avoid the trap or try to Disable Trap with Step 2.
>Step 2. Player rolls to determine if the trap is triggered.
Either a.) It is triggered and they receive the negative consequences of the trap.
Or b.) It is not triggered and the player can proceed.


>YOUR IDEA:
>Step1. GM announces there is a hidden trap.
>Step 2. Player rolls to determine if the trap is triggered.
Either a.) It is triggered and they receive the negative consequences of the trap.
Or b.) It is not triggered and the player can choose to try to avoid the trap or try to Disable Trap with Step 3.
>Step 3. Player rolls to determine if the trap is triggered.
Either a.) It is triggered and they receive the negative consequences of the trap.
Or b.) It is not triggered and the player can proceed.

>MY SUGGESTION:
>Step1. GM announces there is a trap detected. Player can choose to try to avoid the trap or try to Disable Trap with Step 2.
>Step 2. Player rolls to determine if the trap is triggered.
Either a.) It is triggered and they receive the negative consequences of the trap.
Or b.) It is not triggered and the player can proceed.

Do you see how your method has repetition with no gain other than engaging in the pretense that a trap is being “detected”?
Why bother with the pretense?

There’s more…

>>53334590
And actually, I shortened your First Step a bit.
This is how it initially would go:
>YOUR IDEA:
>Step1. GM announces there is a trap.
“Now roll to detect the trap.”
“The trap you just announced was there?”
“Yes, roll to see if you detect it.”
“Can I just go back the other way?”
“No, we have to see if the trap goes off.”
“The one you announced but we haven’t detected yet?”
“Yes, exactly.”
“Okay, I raise my shield in case the trap goes off as I detect-“
“No, you can’t do that because you didn’t say you were doing it earlier.”
“Because I hadn’t detected it yet?”
“No, because you weren’t doing it as you were detecting earlier.”
“But I wasn’t detecting.”
“Yes you were, they were just all successes because there were no traps.”
“But we weren’t making any rolls.”
“Yeah, because you can’t detect a trap that isn’t there, so they’re automatic successes.”
“That’s stupid.”
“Just roll, damnit.”
>Step 2. Player rolls to determine if the anon is triggered.

In addition, by making it so that LITERALLY ANYONE can detect the absence of traps, you are fucking devastating any attempt at pretending that trap detection is anything other than just a game mechanic.
In D&D: Only the most skilled trapmaster can ever truly be 100% certain a hallway is not trapped, even if no traps go off on the first pass through.
With your idea: If a brain damaged chicken walks safely across the hallway, you can be 100% certain the hallway is not trapped at all.


Also, by including hidden traps but making the rolls passive and taking them out of the players control, you are leaving the constant threat of the negative consequences but denying the players the comforting illusion of control that proactively searching for traps provided.
This is true of a number of the solutions suggested in this thread.
I'd rather just not include hidden traps.
>inb4 ignoring everything else to attack this subjective viewpoint

>>53309175
Mmm, you could try what i did.

A specialized trap designed by a wizard to discourage paranoid trap checking.

It was an entire hallway laden with clockwork devices, each carrying a synchronized counter. Every time someone would look for traps, the counter would decrease by one. The traps themselves were easy to find, but impossible to disarm or trigger before the counter was at 0. At that point, they'd all release either some weakling thrash monster or do something equally harmless but still silly, with some designed to humiliate and annoy whomever was looking for traps.

For a lark, one of mine had the rogue pulled into a shotgun wedding with a demonic trap, with the priest booming "If you like traps so much, why don't you marry one!"

>>53309175
1) He checks the whole area, not just a square.
2) you roll the dice and don't tell him what you got, just whether he finds anything
3) if he keeps pulling this shit and the other players don't reign him in for slowing the game down, have him trigger a trap. Even if there wasn't one there. Something nasty but not fatal. Make the trigger something stupid that they wouldn't have done if they hadn't been obsessively been checking for traps.

"Spraying your laser-tripwire-spotting smoke triggers the fire alarm. Four large security bots burst into the room and the sprinklers go off, so you're now all wet to boot."

That kind of thing. Good luck!

>>53309329
>Not using a 7 feet pole
It's like they want to be killed

File: argonian.jpg (111KB, 596x596px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 596x596px

>>53334631
>I'd rather just not include hidden traps.

Actually I'm going to agree with that subjective viewpoint. The whole need to continuously check for traps is tedious as fuck, and the consequences of failure tend to be really severe.

I don't mind traps integrated into overt encounters, where they aren't so well hidden that there's no chance of finding them. I also don't mind hidden traps that are largely harmless and further the plot. But "oops, you weren't paying attention and fall down a 40-foot shaft in the floor into a pit of poisoned spikes that then fills with lava" is a bit shit, and personally I can do without it.

>>53336955
Yep, that's why I just don't have 'em.
Like I suggested here >>53316598

>>53323095
>Thus, overlooked. It gets you money, way-out-of-your-league equipment, and one good heist can derail the entire campaign. Or set you for life.
The actual problem with heist is that it derails the campaign. Instead of following the plot everyone else wanted to the session is now about watching the Rogue's sneak into a bank. It is rude and simply not what a team player would do in the first place, because it draws the spotlight on you and what you want to do not the actual story the game was supposed to be about.

>>53311892
This could be good for a little comic.

>>53336767
What happened to the other 3 feet? Previous traps?

>>53337202
Everyone gets to shine a little at times. Bard does diplomacy, wizard does magic, cleric does praying, and no one befits to stall the hordes of monsters more than fighter. Druid more often than not buggers off to hump trees and unfortunate animals anytime you venture into particularly polluted city, lest his god takes away his powers. Compared to bard any spotlight rogue gets is so insignificant it may as well not exist.

Also, involve other players in the heist. Let bard do distraction, let fighter and barb do heavy lifting, let wizard provide magic to ease the deed. Bonus points if no one realizes what it is they're helping rogue to do, more if the rogue fudges it and turns entire party into fugitives.

>>53334590
>>53334631
Ah, got it, you're just a massive, screeching autist.

If you announce you are searching for traps, and there is a trap, you make a roll. You do not get to take back that action because I told you that you have to make a roll. You do not get to do take-backsies if you announce you're going to sneak through a corridor and I say that you have to make a stealth check to not get noticed by the monster patrolling it. You do not get to say"wait, I didn't mean to do that" if you cross a rickety bridge and I say to make a reflex save to avoid slipping off. When you declare an action, and I tell you the results require a dice roll, you're locked in.

And honestly, I don't give a shit if players are certain a hallway isn't trapped. It doesn't take anything away from the game unless you're playing with an asperger's support group. Because everyone else understands that it's an abstraction, like any other game element. Rolling for nonexistent traps adds nothing to the game, it just slows the game down. Every unnecessary dice roll is time wasted.

As for your last argument? No, you're an idiot. Searching for traps is still just as important for the players. If there is a trap and they succeed, then they've just avoided a shitty situation. If they don't bother to search, then they're going to wind up with their asses filled with poison darts. One single check to did it or not find it, and no check if they don't, doesn't remove any of that from the game.

>>53340462
The thing is, sometimes the rest of us don't want to do a heist game because we're already in the middle of a different game we're enjoying.

Plus I find most of the time Rogue players ironically tend to be the worst fucking type of people to do heists, considering the last 5 I've seen attempted just open with the Rogue smashing a window into some place and stabbing everyone he comes across to death on the way to whatever shiny triggered his OCD that week.

>>53309175
>How do I stop a player from doing this shit?
Ban rogues

Allow player characters to take 1 Rogue skill for free.

Disable random traps, use set dressing to warn of potential dangers instead of letting your player resort to minesweeping.

>>53341306
So don't then. Do whatever you want. Any heist is entirely voluntary, and, indeed, should be discouraged in some cases.

That's shitty players' fault, not class. The same shitty players that adamantly spare the villain as paladins, fill their spellslots with whatever the party doesn't need as casters and try to inconvenience and backstab you and everyone around just because they have 'chaotic' or 'evil' in alignment.

>>53342068
So the Rogue only really gets to shine in a completely optional thing that only they want to do? Assuming the Rogue is the best heist class anyways, which they aren't when spellcasters exist.

>>53309175
HAVE
YOU
TRIED
TALKING
TO
THEM?

>>53309175
>Make one roll
>say it takes time equal to amount if squares * normal searching time
>they find any traps they meet the dc of

>>53342187
Rogue shines in a lot of things if you play her right. Playing right implies it will be no more than one-three things a time, though.

Wizards aren't the best class unless you fight one fight a day and know who you'd be fighting, and even then the buffed and dressed up fighter prestige is better. Clerics, druids and their variants are so broken the wizard might as well kill himself. And, to salt the injury, they're rater good at combat even without their spells, while wizard out of spells can't fight his way out of wet paper bag and dies from a goblin's fart in his general direction. Just throw a handful of fights at players in a single day, even before they reach the questplace to make the calmest wizard to tear their hair out and ragequit from being utterly useless.

As for their fabled versatility... You waste an entire day to wait for him to memorize a Knock, then fail at it as the lock is rogue-only. Wizards are only as good as their DM is lenient.

Breaking broken wizards is fun. Now, if only you could do that to optimized cleric.

>>53342675
>then fail at it as the lock is rogue-only

Knock doesn't say anything about not being able to unlock only non-rogue-only locks. It just rambles on about being able to unlock basically everything except for ropes and lowered portcullises.

And anyway, in that case a wizard just needs enough UMD to emulate being a rogue.

>>53309175
I print out a list of random numbers between 1 and 20 to simulate dice rolls. As I place traps, I go down that list to see if one of the characters detects it. If they do, I note who it was and where, and work off of that. I do the same for every pre-planned passive check in the game. It saved literally years of mine and my players' time.

>>53342455
> I've talked with them already about this issue, but they insist that it's because they don't want anything to surprise them.

>>53342675
>Wizards aren't the best class unless you fight one fight a day and know who you'd be fighting
Well gee, you have me there. It's a shame the Wizard doesn't have spells and abilities that let them see the future and work around this problem....oh wait.

>even then the buffed and dressed up fighter prestige is better.
laughingwizards.jpg

>while wizard out of spells can't fight his way out of wet paper bag and dies from a goblin's fart in his general direction.
If the Wizard is out of spells and in a situation where he's at actual risk of taking HP damage, he's already severely fucked up.

>Just throw a handful of fights at players in a single day, even before they reach the questplace to make the calmest wizard to tear their hair out and ragequit from being utterly useless.
And the Fighter right behind him as he's rerolling his character, since any combat day long enough for the Wizard to risk running out of spells is going to get the Fighter killed.

>You waste an entire day to wait for him to memorize a Knock
Oh, you're assuming Wizard players have literal brain damage. Your arguments make a lot more sense now.

> then fail at it as the lock is rogue-only.
And then half the table gets up and leaves because you're just acting like a petty shithead at this point.

>Wizards are only as good as their DM is lenient.
90% of problem patches thrown at Wizards fuck over non-spellcasters way harder. See you're stupid "throw more fights at them every day" thing, and the common "enforce spell components" meme that usually pops up in balance discussion threads.

>>53342850
Meh. Things that're wrong with the D&D. Rules for rogue prattle on and on about how rogue and only rogue can do things he logically should have no way of doing. Like picking a magic lock or spotting and disabling a magic trap. Rules for mage on the other hand give you a spell for anything. Even summoning of a master rogue.

If your DM's a dick just pick a rogue familiar, preferably flying one. It also gets you a scout, a sneak attacker and ranged touch.

>>53342675
>Even the buffed and dressed up fighter prestige is better
Ha. Ha.

When my wizard had a few days away from adventuring, I prepped and buffed a few dozen different unintelligent summons and stuffed them into genie-style 'time is stopped for you' flasks. Then later, whenever I needed to fight, I could just throw out the summon and order it around for an entire fight without spending a single spell.

Plus, I could spontaneously divinate and even more spontaneously cast other spells.

>>53342963
Divination is fickle at the best, won't help you with running out of spells or enemies than can think and adapt problem, and more often than not dropped for specialization. Mind, I find Divination extremely useful when I play the wizard.
Even the videogame enemies are smart enough to go for the wizard first, especially when ambushing, or turn him into a pincushion the moment his ugly mug shows up on the horizon, if he was stupid enough not to protect him from projectiles.
If Fighter, can't last longer that it takes your average braindead wizards to run out of relevant spells then whoever plays him has very little understanding of the game mechanics. Or naked and unbuffed, which is the same, really.
Yes, we're talking about braindead wizards, or rather, braindead wizard players that're convinced that they're better than the rest of the classes combined. This thread is made of what you call petty shitheads, player and DM, you and me included. Wasn't it you who defended the rogue lock and trap monopoly just yesterday?
Spell components must be. Of course, it stands to a reason that you can metamage them away when needed.

>>53343367
>this entire post

I feel like I'm being baited.

>>53343367
>dropping divination
Except that's a complete violation of the rules?

Also, Divination is awesome beyond belief, but I might just be thinking that because I just recently retired a level 18 wizard who had spontaneous divination.

>>53309175
Traps are not the most fun mechanic anyway.

>>53343159
Once you can get a few dozen summons prepped and buffed and equipment of that grade rules cease to matter. Hell, you can summon a party that would be better than yours on your own. It's more about getting there.
>>53343411
It's another one of those utterly pointless and contradictory rules that virtually everyone ignores. Even official games and books. That said, divination's probably the most useful school of magic day-by-day when you have nothing to do, divine your day away. It also has some neat spells for battle, but its main use in gaining every sort of knowledge you can. And you save a school on the specialization, which is handy, though I prefer to specialize on other schools.

>>53343713
I would probably specialize in Divination if I hadn't been going with Immediate Magic- in which case I went Conjuration

>>53309175
This isn't checking for traps. This is searching an area. It takes *at least* an hour. If it's a large area (like a cavern) it takes *hours.*

Remind them that if they're there for hours, reinforcements are likely.

The other players will get them to stop.

>>53316233
No you use an 11ft pole with a live chicken tied to the end

>>53309175
>2012+5
>Not making the plot of your game time sensitive
What are you doing?

>53343367
>If Fighter, can't last longer that it takes your average braindead wizards to run out of relevant spells then whoever plays him has very little understanding of the game mechanics.

This is some of the laziest bait I've seen all week. Doesn't even warrant a (You)

>>53311886
>>53309235

Players who don't respect you as a game master enough to trust your scenarios to be balanced and judgment fair should not be at your fucking table to begin with. EVERYTHING in RPGs begins with trusting and respecting your GM. Everything. You cannot have a game otherwise.

>>53309175
Have something chase them so they can't spend infinite time searching.