D&D 5E Traps and DCs

[slaughterj]

TL;DR Summary: If trap DCs are static and passive Perception is static, then you either auto-find (boring) or auto-fail (annoying) traps, so I reduce DCs of traps by 10 and replace with a 1d20 roll to allow for variability, which allows even low Perception PCs to possibility spot hard traps, and avoids the foregoing issues with opposed static numbers.

So I saw a recent thread about traps sucking (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471800-Why-traps-in-D-amp-D-usually-suck), and thought it would be about my issue with traps in 5e, but unfortunately not, so here's my issue with traps in 5e.

Traps in 5e have a DC to detect them.

Traps are detected by Perception. Conceivably they could be detected by passive Perception (which takes no time) or making an active Perception check (which takes time, both game playing time rolling and in-game it takes an action).

If one detects Traps based on their DC, a flat score, by passive Perception, a flat score, then traps suck because either (a) your passive Perception is high enough and will auto-detect the trap, largely making the trap moot (yes, it takes time to disarm or avoid, monsters may wander by while you take the time, etc., but you get my point), or (b) your passive Perception is not high enough, you auto-fail to detect, and you will fall prey to the trap. The result is basically the DM, who knows the party's passive Perception scores, either sets trap DCs low so you will auto-find them and are basically a boring non-event, or or sets trap DCs high so you won't find them and fall into them, an annoying result.

So it seems to avoid the foregoing issue, that a roll should be involved. It could be a requirement for an active Perception check to try to find a trap, but that is a problem because (a) there will be an excess of time spent on constantly rolling and checking for traps, and (b) it seems like someone should be able to passively notice a trap, no different than passively noticing an imminent ambush and no being surprised, etc.

So instead of an active Perception check, I decided to instead rely on passive Perception, as it should be able to detect traps, and avoids wasting the time in-game and playing the game with constant rolling in places where there are no traps. But a roll still seems desirable, and I instead incorporate it on the trap DC itself. Basically take the static listed trap DC, reduce it by 10 and replace that with a d20 roll (i.e., a listed DC 15 trap would instead be a base 5+1d20 to be detected by a PC). That way there is some variability, and anyone can still detect (or not) an easily found trap or well-concealed trap (i.e., high Perception scores are still useful and are more likely to find traps, but don't auto-find easy ones or auto-fail hard ones).

PCs can still take an active Perception check when they would like, e.g., in an area that they might have reason to believe there is a trap, but this method (1) avoids the issue of auto-find / auto-fail with static passive Perception scores vs static trap DCS, and (2) avoids the issue of wasted game time with constant rolling for active Perception checks.

Any thoughts?

 

[Rya.Reisender]

You know, if passive perception is high enough, you don't need to say "You found a trap", you could also just narrate what the PCs see, like a pressure plate, or holes in the walls, etc.
If they then say they want to check if a trap is involved, you have your active roll and the group still isn't forced to constantly tell you they are looking for traps all the time.

Also if your passive perception isn't high enough, there's usually still a roll involved. A saving throw at the very least. And according to the starter set, you still roll actively for perception when the passive perception isn't high enough.

 

[iserith]

I'm going to suggest a different way of looking at this issue:

Traps don't have a DC to find them.

A Perception check isn't what's used to find traps.

Rather, traps can be found by players describing what they want to do and the DM narrating the result of the adventurers' actions. When the result of is uncertain, the DM sets a DC according to his or her estimation of the difficulty based on the player's stated goal and approach and asks for an appropriate ability check.

Thus, you cannot even set a DC for a Perception check (passive or otherwise) until you've described the environment and heard what the player wants to do. So setting them beforehand isn't advisable because it does not take into account the player's goal and approach.

Further, consider that passive Perception isn't "always-on radar." It's just a mechanic used to resolve uncertainty when the character is performing a task repeatedly. So if a player has established his or her character as "keeping an eye out for hidden dangers" while traveling through the dungeon, the DM can use the PP score to determine an outcome if it is uncertain. If the character is doing anything else that is at least as distracting as navigating, tracking, foraging, or map-making, the character fails to detect the trap and passive Perception doesn't apply. The character must also be in the fictional position to notice the trap to at least have a chance of success. For example, if the party is traveling shoulder to shoulder and the trap is on the left side and the PC is on the far right, the DM may say that the character has no chance of detecting the trap.

Consider also that detecting or not detecting the trap is not the challenge. It's just the beginning of the challenge and if you've telegraphed the existence of the trap by including a clue when you describe the environment, you encourage players to meaningfully engage with the environment and thus the exploration pillar. This also removes the perception that the trap was a "gotcha," since it wasn't just a matter of comparing a DC to a passive Perception score before narrating the result. The opportunity to meaningfully change the PCs' fate was offered to them and they just didn't take it.

 

[jrowland]

I essentially treat passive perception for traps as the "Auto-Detect" but not the "Auto-Fail" like Rya mentions above.

Passive Perception > Trap DC? Describe trap in description of area
Passive Perception < Trap DC? Have PCs roll perception if applicable*
Active Perception > Trap DC? Describe trap
Active Perception < Trap DC? Activate trap when triggered. Laugh Maniacally.

*Using the Dash Action, at my table, foregoes passive perception, for example.

 

[Creamsteak]

I actually typed up and then junked a response to that other thread a while ago. The short of it was that I have some excellent trap books at my disposal... and they are completely system-less. Some of them can be "solved" by using mechanics like a perception check, but most of the good traps are actually just clever events and encounters. A good trap isn't a binary pass/fail. It should be dynamic to some degree. Maybe once you figure it out, you should be able to turn it to your advantage.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

What I don't like about this modern "Let's not give traps DCs" approach is that it nullifies the effects of the PC stats and also the trap disarming then depends on how smart the players are rather than the PCs.

 

[iserith]

What I don't like about this modern "Let's not give traps DCs" approach is that it nullifies the effects of the PC stats and also the trap disarming then depends on how smart the players are rather than the PCs.

Don't you think a player's smarts should matter when it comes to playing a game?

In any case, the PCs' stats aren't "nullified." They are used to modify ability checks when the player articulates a goal and approach to overcoming a challenge that has an uncertain outcome.

 

[slaughterj]

I essentially treat passive perception for traps as the "Auto-Detect" but not the "Auto-Fail" like Rya mentions above.

Passive Perception > Trap DC? Describe trap in description of area
Passive Perception < Trap DC? Have PCs roll perception if applicable*
Active Perception > Trap DC? Describe trap
Active Perception < Trap DC? Activate trap when triggered. Laugh Maniacally.

*Using the Dash Action, at my table, foregoes passive perception, for example.

Active Perception takes an action though, unless you are dropping that requirement.

Also, asking the PC to make the Perception roll puts them on alert.

 

[slaughterj]

I actually typed up and then junked a response to that other thread a while ago. The short of it was that I have some excellent trap books at my disposal... and they are completely system-less. Some of them can be "solved" by using mechanics like a perception check, but most of the good traps are actually just clever events and encounters. A good trap isn't a binary pass/fail. It should be dynamic to some degree. Maybe once you figure it out, you should be able to turn it to your advantage.

That's all well and good for interesting, involved traps, but many traps are just simple pit traps, poison needles in locks, darts/spears launched, etc., and warrant a simple mechanic to resolve. And the simple mechanic offered in 5e seems broken when it operates on an auto-find / auto-fail binary system based on static Perception vs static trap DC comparisons, so I am offering a simple alternative here that solves the aforementioned problems.

 

[Ristamar]

Trap rolls versus the PCs is a variant that has been tossed around since 3rd edition. Merely swapping the random element from the PCs to the trap itself won't suddenly turn a bad trap encounter into a fun, revelatory experience.

There's is no "one true way" when it comes to traps since they are best when tailored to the players' tastes. If the group loves hashing out complex puzzles, a trap can be an engaging encounter without the need for any dice. On the opposite end of the spectrum, groups not looking for brain teasers likely prefer to roll their way out of most traps with minimal effort. The ideal trap encounter for most people is probably somewhere in the middle.

Regardless of the approach, if a trap doesn't feel like a "gotcha" moment, doesn't seem completely arbitrary within the context of the adventure, and is at least moderately entertaining then you're doing it right by your table.