D&D 5E Traps and DCs

[jrowland]

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.

In narrative mode, ie outside of combat, and action for rolling Perception is unnecessary. Yes, rolling puts the PLAYER on a alert, but the PC is assumed alert when checking passive perception (if the PC is not alert, no passive perception). Having the PLAYER put on alert is an issue of meta-gaming PLAYERS, not with traps or rolling perception.

 

[slaughterj]

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.

I agree that complex puzzles can and/or should be resolved by more than a simple die roll. I am just addressing simple traps and the broken nature of the current resolution system. If PCs auto-find such traps, they become a boring non-event. If PCs auto-fail such traps, they become annoying, non-entertaining events. The option I posted avoids that issue. But I agree it should not necessarily supplant complex puzzles, just dealing with simple traps.

 

[Ristamar]

I agree that complex puzzles can and/or should be resolved by more than a simple die roll. I am just addressing simple traps and the broken nature of the current resolution system. If PCs auto-find such traps, they become a boring non-event. If PCs auto-fail such traps, they become annoying, non-entertaining events. The option I posted avoids that issue. But I agree it should not necessarily supplant complex puzzles, just dealing with simple traps.

Unfortunately, the variable you're adding to the equation is completely invisible to the players. From their side of the screen, auto-pass/fail looks the same as random die roll by the DM.

 

[iserith]

I treat simple traps the same as complex ones because the resolution process is always the same no matter what you do in D&D 5e in my view. This keeps things simple, consistent, and fair.

See this example for how I would adjudicate a simple trap interaction.

 

[slaughterj]

Unfortunately, the variable you're adding to the equation is completely invisible to the players. From their side of the screen, auto-pass/fail looks the same as random die roll by the DM.

So what? The DM secretly rolls Stealth for the bad guys setting up an ambush as well. When the party gets jumped, some PCs might not be surprised because their passive Perception met or beat the Stealth check, some will be surprised, and the fight happens. Same with traps with the roll. The DM secretly rolls the trap DC, some PCs might spot it and be able to respond accordingly, while others may not and get caught in the trap. Works the same. What works differently is at least the PCs have a chance on the hard traps rather than auto-fail (which sucks) and might miss on the easy traps (which otherwise if auto-found, would be boring). All I'm doing is making traps consistent with stealth/ambush situations and more interesting.

 

[slaughterj]

I treat simple traps the same as complex ones because the resolution process is always the same no matter what you do in D&D 5e in my view. This keeps things simple, consistent, and fair.

See this example for how I would adjudicate a simple trap interaction.

I saw that in the other thread and it was good, and that can work well. But my original post was about noting an issue with the how the RAW handle traps by comparing static scores against one another, and making a simple suggestion on an alternative way to resolve them simply and similar to the RAW.

 

[Scorpio616]

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.

K, here's the rub, The DMG doesn't say TO use both active and passive, it says you (the DM) can use passive {for those wanting the 4E experience). It's only those with a 'Player Brain' read that as the DM should use both.

You can also compare the DC to detect the trap with each character's passive Wisdom (Perception) score to determine whether anyone in the party notices the trap in passing.

Also there was a slightly more complex way of detecting traps in at least one wotc adventure; traps that were tacked on (like a tripwire) and had components visible had Passive DCs bases on how easy to spot the tripwire. It was notably higher Passive to spot a tripwire that had rubble mixed around it. The trap built into the dungeon's masonry on the other hand had no passive DC.

 

[Ristamar]

So what? The DM secretly rolls Stealth for the bad guys setting up an ambush as well. When the party gets jumped, some PCs might not be surprised because their passive Perception met or beat the Stealth check, some will be surprised, and the fight happens. Same with traps with the roll. The DM secretly rolls the trap DC, some PCs might spot it and be able to respond accordingly, while others may not and get caught in the trap. Works the same. What works differently is at least the PCs have a chance on the hard traps rather than auto-fail (which sucks) and might miss on the easy traps (which otherwise if auto-found, would be boring). All I'm doing is making traps consistent with stealth/ambush situations and more interesting.

The "so what" comes down to the fact that switching the roll to the trap won't save it from being a poor encounter. Consistent mechanics don't suddenly make it fun, fair, or interesting.

As for an ambush on the PC's, the surprise round is only a minuscule part of the equation. The fight that follows is the interesting piece, at the very least. If the assailants reasons are unknown, that can lead to more interesting encounters as the PCs try to figure out who wants them neutralized and why.

 

[slaughterj]

K, here's the rub, The DMG doesn't say TO use both active and passive, it says you (the DM) can use passive {for those wanting the 4E experience). It's only those with a 'Player Brain' read that as the DM should use both.

The issue I raised is with static trap DCs, and I raised issues with that by either passive or active Perception, so I addressed either situation, regardless, so I don't see that your comment is really applicable.

Also there was a slightly more complex way of detecting traps in at least one wotc adventure; traps that were tacked on (like a tripwire) and had components visible had Passive DCs bases on how easy to spot the tripwire. It was notably higher Passive to spot a tripwire that had rubble mixed around it. The trap built into the dungeon's masonry on the other hand had no passive DC.

That's all well and good, but it still results in a static trap DC, which is problem for the reasons I mentioned, the PCs will either auto-fail or auto-find it.

 

[iserith]

I saw that in the other thread and it was good, and that can work well. But my original post was about noting an issue with the how the RAW handle traps by comparing static scores against one another, and making a simple suggestion on an alternative way to resolve them simply and similar to the RAW.

What I'm suggesting is RAW though. DM describes the environment, players describe what they want to do, DM determines success, failure or uncertainty. In the case of the latter, DM either asks for an ability check or uses the passive score (for tasks performed repeatedly). Once resolved, DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions.

I think the problem you identify is because the DM is setting the DC before hearing the players describe what they want to do. The DM is jumping the gun here and creating the problem.