Design & Development: Traps is up!

[Nikosandros]

I never understood the logic behind not taking 20 when searching for traps. If my character takes 20 to search a wall for secret doors or hidden treasure, and there is a trap on that wall, the DM can't well say "You cannot take 20" because it would give away that there is a trap. However, it doesn't make any sense that my take-20 search check somehow doesn't take-20 on looking for traps as well, as whatever care I use to find a secret door on that 5' section of wall will apply equally to finding the trap there while I am looking!

I mean, my PC would find a hidden plate behind which is a purse full of gold, but wouldn't find an identical hidden plate behind which is the disable-lever for a trap?

The issue with taking 20 is one of time. Not always can the party spend 2 minutes on each square of the map.

 

[Minicol]

Wow. Some ideas from WOTC that make sense at last.

This is the 2nd thing I like about 4e. Way to go...

No seriously, at least, this seems like a good thing to me. Really. No sarcasm here.
If only it had been done earlier ...

 

[Stalker0]

From the article it seems that enemies will roll a stealth check, but traps will have a static number to compare to the perception of the PCs.

This is what I disagree with. As others have stated, basically the DM is creating a trap that will either definately be detected by the party or definiately be noticed.

A simple stealth roll for the trap fixes this right up.

 

[Nikosandros]

This is what I disagree with. As others have stated, basically the DM is creating a trap that will either definately be detected by the party or definiately be noticed.

A simple stealth roll for the trap fixes this right up.

Oh, I agree with you. I was merely stating what the article seems to be implying. Luckily, it's an easy house rule to implement.

 

[Ragnar69]

I don't think it will be forbidden for the rogue to announce that he's searching for traps when he suspects one, meaning he gets a roll or even a take20 if he wants.

 

[BryonD]

OK, nevermind. I guess I misremembered.

 

[Nikosandros]

I don't think that a failed search check can set off a trap.

 

[Spinachcat]

I run D&D tournaments and one of my major rules is that your characters are ALWAYS alert and looking for danger. You can always take your time to search for something if you like, but when there is a trap, I ask the person about to trigger the trap to make their roll. If success, then I say that they spotted the danger only seconds before and noticed something weird.

Then we go into figuring out what the weird danger may be. Once they learn that is a trap, then we go into the disarm phase which is sometimes just a roll, but sometimes more than that.

Remember the Elf's 1 in 6 passive search for secret doors? I do the same thing with traps and I have never had a problem. BTW, I usually don't put a thief in the party because I want them to deal with traps as more than a die roll.

I am NOT sure about the 4e "Perception Radar" and having to keep track of everyone's radar score as they move about the game board. I wonder about that in practice. Especially with the +1 from an Elf if you are within 5 squares which makes all the other player scores become variable. I will probably houserule this to...if you can see the elf, you get +1.

 

[IanB]

Wait, what? Taking 20 on search checks to FIND traps is perfectly acceptable by the rules. It is the disable device check you can't take 20 on. Failing to find a trap with a search check does not set it off!

 

[JohnSnow]

You sound like you think you are contradicting me, but I don't see where you are.

I didn't say anything about damage. It seemed an obvious assumption that the topic was about detection. If the trap's roll beat the character's perception then the trap goes unnoticed an play proceeds from there, just as if a rogue failed a Search check in 3X. Resolving the effect of the trap would be completely separate. It may even be that the trap "wins" the check, but then is blindly bypassed by the none-the-wiser party. Or they set it off and it misses. Or they get zapped. Or something else.

I don't see why the trap needs to "roll" its stealth check. It's not moving, it's well concealed, it's in no danger, and it's in no hurry. In effect, it's "taking 10" - which means a static DC.

So I am disagreeing with you. You think traps aren't terrain features. However, that is PRECISELY what they are. However, there's no reason that has to mean that they're boring. Because it doesn't have to be a question of making the trap "easy to find" and therefore a non-event versus making it "hard to find," and therefore auto-damage.

I'd rather it goes more like "you might trigger the trap, and you might not." But whether or not it triggers, that's where the fun starts. If it's triggered, you can try to avoid its effects, disable it, or destroy it. If you find it before it triggers, you now have to figure out how to disable it, destroy it, or pass it without triggering it.

Both of those situations are compelling. And they have nothing to do with how hard the trap is to find. They're different kinds of challenges, certainly, but they're both, IMO, valid uses for traps.

That's in sharp contrast to the pit trap you don't see until you fall into it. That's, IMO, a crappy trap.