Reclaiming Blingdenstone (Traps)

[On Puget Sound]

This is exactly the "mother may I" style of play that I hate. "It falls from the ceiling." "But I said I was looking at the ceiling." "Yes, but you forgot to say you were holding your torch up high; the ceiling is dark so you didn't see it."

You're in a dungeon. Dungeons have traps. You're an adventurer; this is probably not your first dungeon. Therefore, of course you're looking for traps; there should be no need to say so.

Now if there is time pressure for any reason, and the GM gives you a choice - "You can proceed at normal speed, or with extra caution at half speed; which would you like to do today?" - with consequences for losing time - then I'm OK with it . But unless time really matters, assume that the competent adventurers are adventuring competently, and let the character that put resources into Find traps/ Perception get use out of the investment.

 

[bogmad]

Or just treat the wisdom check as a "saving throw" for the trap. PCs walk into a room without actively "looking for traps," say "give me a wisdom roll" and if they fail don't give them time to realize "hey I should roll my Int," just spring the trap on them. If they make the "save at DC15" say "you notice a pit trap ahead of you." Simple.

 

[the Jester]

You're in a dungeon. Dungeons have traps. You're an adventurer; this is probably not your first dungeon.

Unless you're first level and it is.

Such as is the case with many, many playtest groups.

The section on searching doesn't mention "passive" skill checks at all. Though at first I really liked them in 4e, after a while I came to realize that an optimized searcher takes all the mystery out of exploration without even doing anything when you have passive skills. Especially for traps, I prefer going "old skool".

 

[Libramarian]

This game is so confused. They say they want the DM to apply the ability check system flexibly, so the players can just say what their characters are doing and the DM will choose how to resolve it. But this trap isn't written like that at all.

The text basically implies that Int and Wis checks are buttons that the player pushes to get past obstacles. The DCs are predetermined; there's no way to allow verbal description to change the mechanical interaction of the situation. You roll the dice and then you fluff.

The DM says "hey guys, uh...you can either make a Wis check or an Int check, what do you choose?" Everybody chooses their highest ability score. Then the DM narrates them methodically searching if they chose Int or immediately perceiving it if they chose Wis.

Sounds like a blast.

Oh well there's a fight right after it so just get through it quickly. Remember combats are where the fun is. Get to the fun as soon as possible.

This is exactly the "mother may I" style of play that I hate. "It falls from the ceiling." "But I said I was looking at the ceiling." "Yes, but you forgot to say you were holding your torch up high; the ceiling is dark so you didn't see it."

You're in a dungeon. Dungeons have traps. You're an adventurer; this is probably not your first dungeon. Therefore, of course you're looking for traps; there should be no need to say so.

Now if there is time pressure for any reason, and the GM gives you a choice - "You can proceed at normal speed, or with extra caution at half speed; which would you like to do today?" - with consequences for losing time - then I'm OK with it . But unless time really matters, assume that the competent adventurers are adventuring competently, and let the character that put resources into Find traps/ Perception get use out of the investment.

I'm guessing you're going by the thread and haven't read the text, because the trap as written is your kind of trap.

It says characters can either attempt a Wis check or an Int check. It's not 100% clear, but to me this implies that the DM is literally supposed to give the players this choice. There are no other ways to resolve the situation, so why not. No point beating around the bush about it.

 

[MarkB]

EDIT: Nevermind

 

[Baileyborough]

I think MarkB is correct in the mostly - the party does Wis for a general look, and Int for trap specific. But I think that Wizards might need to look into this aspect a bit more.

By changing trap specific searching to be Int (something I have no real issue with, mind), I feel all it will achieve is to ensure that the average party will do TWO rounds of rolls (Wis, then int) at every new room. Nothing inheritly wrong with this, but it does to some degree take the more 'natural' feel out of exploring. Am I wrong?

 

[jrowland]

I think in terms of narration, i would never say "you walk into the room and due to your high wis you spot the pit trap"

rather, I would say "you walk into the room and you notice scratches in the flagstone in the center of the room. You also realize the scratched section of floor roughly marks out a square."

In this case, using perception/spot etc I describe what they see, but not its function. If they "search" the scratched floor, then I tell them its function: "After carefully inspecting the scratched section of the floor, you discover that it is a trapdoor, likely concealing a pit, and meant to catch intruders unaware. The scratches are likely from armor as victims fell in."

Use perception for the 5 senses: but do not describe function, motive, purpose, etc unless these are obvious (ie a barrel is a barrel, not a wooden cylinder about 3 feet high that slightly bulges midway up)

With perception you spot "a bit of thin twine crossing the path about ankle high" NOT "a tripwire".