D&D 5E Meaningful traps

[redrick]

I've seen a lot of discussion in a variety of threads that discuss traps as a waste of time, a HP tax, or otherwise meaningless. I have a few suggestions for folks that find traps to be hard to use meaningfully in a game. I'm sure others have a few more.

Observant PCs: Before I start on the advice about how to make traps meaningful, I will start by addressing how to make them meaningless in a fun way. 5E has some options in it that can make the location of a trap an effortless process. The right feat, class ability and ability score combination can make it nearly impossible for a PC to miss seeing a nasty trap. DMs are often frustrated that the party has nothing to fear from their traps. I believe that is the wrong mentality. The PCs can easily find these traps because a player devoted resources to being able to spot them. If a player devoted resources to something, we should reward that expenditure by making their abilities sound heroic. Don't stop including traps just because they can spot them - continue to include them and play up the moment when the PC finds the traps... and as discussed below, finding a trap doesn't always mean that the trap is of no concern.

Great post. I think this hits on a lot of the key elements of trap design. Thinking as a DM, about how a trap can be located, understood, and disarmed, leads to much more fully realized traps that will engage more of the party and move away from just, "you spot it or you don't" approaches.

On the Observant note — I once played an Observant Wizard (with a love of sleeping in high places). The character would make a point of trying to walk in front during dungeon explorations, as a way to help spot traps. The DM at one point admitted that he was just raising the perception DC on traps by 7 on everything whenever my character was in front of the group, which rather pissed me off, because the Wizard choosing to be at the front of the group was a big trade-off for him, as he had no AC and few hp. That Wizard took a lot of "spike shooting from random direction" damage.

 

[iserith]

On the Observant note — I once played an Observant Wizard (with a love of sleeping in high places). The character would make a point of trying to walk in front during dungeon explorations, as a way to help spot traps. The DM at one point admitted that he was just raising the perception DC on traps by 7 on everything whenever my character was in front of the group, which rather pissed me off, because the Wizard choosing to be at the front of the group was a big trade-off for him, as he had no AC and few hp. That Wizard took a lot of "spike shooting from random direction" damage.

Trying to think of something to say, but I only came up with :/

 

[cbwjm]

Great post. I think this hits on a lot of the key elements of trap design. Thinking as a DM, about how a trap can be located, understood, and disarmed, leads to much more fully realized traps that will engage more of the party and move away from just, "you spot it or you don't" approaches.

On the Observant note — I once played an Observant Wizard (with a love of sleeping in high places). The character would make a point of trying to walk in front during dungeon explorations, as a way to help spot traps. The DM at one point admitted that he was just raising the perception DC on traps by 7 on everything whenever my character was in front of the group, which rather pissed me off, because the Wizard choosing to be at the front of the group was a big trade-off for him, as he had no AC and few hp. That Wizard took a lot of "spike shooting from random direction" damage.

Ah man, that sucks. I can understand a DM wanting their PCs to have trouble spotting a trap because they want this element of danger and thus increasing the DCs. But I feel it's an urge that DMs need to resist, if a player has devoted his character to spotting traps then he should be able to spot them. It's similar issue people have with the latest line of feats (and, I guess, expertise in general) where they think that they will have to increase DCs to compensate which is just a bad idea since it makes the player feel like they wasted the resources they spent on their character.

 

[Horwath]

Great post. I think this hits on a lot of the key elements of trap design. Thinking as a DM, about how a trap can be located, understood, and disarmed, leads to much more fully realized traps that will engage more of the party and move away from just, "you spot it or you don't" approaches.

On the Observant note — I once played an Observant Wizard (with a love of sleeping in high places). The character would make a point of trying to walk in front during dungeon explorations, as a way to help spot traps. The DM at one point admitted that he was just raising the perception DC on traps by 7 on everything whenever my character was in front of the group, which rather pissed me off, because the Wizard choosing to be at the front of the group was a big trade-off for him, as he had no AC and few hp. That Wizard took a lot of "spike shooting from random direction" damage.

Well, for DM's it's kind of a two edged sword here.

Yes, he can seem like an asshat for doing so, but DM has to balance between giving players interesting and challenging game and making sure that everyone can get the chance to shine in their area of expertise.

Traps are that way. Sure I would give you that you could spot the traps but you would get most of the flak from surprise/first round of combat.

But then again, maybe biggest deal from Observant feat is that you can spot ambushes and react in 1st round normally as stealth of creatures is not that high.

But ranging traps between DC 10 and 25 will give best of both worlds. You would find most of it, but DM could hit you with some traps here and there.

 

[Lanefan]

Avoid Isolated Traps: A trap that is located by itself with no other threats nearby is often triggered and then negated by a rest. The PC that springs a spiked log trap in the jungle will take a few hps damage, but will heal it up by resting before the ne]xt combat. Instead, place traps near encounters that will be triggered when the trap goes off. That means that any effects for the trap have to be dealt with during the context of the battle.

The exception here, of course, is when an isolated trap is placed somewhere mostly in order to make intruders think there's something beyond it, when in fact it's just a red herring that makes noise and maybe alerts some guards elsewhere. Example: main entrance to a cavern, first thing reached going in is a 4-way junction. One of the passages leads to a dead end, and the cavern's occupants have put a pit trap 20' along that passage - they never use it (but now and then clear the dust so it at least looks used) so they make it a passive defense that the guards down the other two passages will hear if it's set off. And if the party chance to explore the other two directions first and then find the trap when they go the third way, who cares?

Avoid Flat HP Traps: A trap should do something more than just deal damage. It should create a challenge for the PC to overcome. A pit trap, chute, revolving wall or teleporting trap isolates PCs from their allies. Quicksand traps the PCs in place until they can be rescued or can escape. An alarm spell lures in extra enemies into a battle. Domination pits allies against allies. Slimes, oozes and puddings might destroy equipment. Make sure your traps do more than just HP damage... although ones that deal damage until you take an action to counter them (light someone on fire until an action is spent to put them out) can be fun.

Chute traps are my favourites, particularly when they a) slide you into a prison cell and b) are greased so as to negate attempts to climb back up.

Located Traps are Features: Once a trap is located, it is not negated - it becomes a feature of the location. If a combat takes place in the room, the participants can use the trap as part of the combat. Shoving an enemy into a pit can be a great moment in a battle.

Agreed...or if the opponents can fly, simply drawing the characters onto a pit trap by slowly retreating over it as they fight.

Give the Traps Personality: Someone setting a trap wants an enemy to fall for it. They'll use their best efforts to make it a challenge. Make sure you know which enemy made the trap and try to put yourself in their shoes when they make it. What would they be trying to achieve? What tools do they have to disguise the trap? What could they do to make it harder to avoid the trap? If you consider these things, the traps start to give more personality to the dungeon/setting.

This is excellent advice.

Lan-"and if your game has 4e-style forced movement effects available to the PCs' opponents a few traps can make a simple battle anything but"-efan

 

[Ath'kethin]

I don't have a lot to add here (do I ever?) but something else to keep in mind is that not all traps have to be man(or whatever)-made to be effective or useful. I am referring specifically to quicksand.

I ran an adventure not long ago in which jungle pygmies (just using the statistics of kobolds) had intentionally created pathways leading to pools of quicksand, and would wait to attack until creatures fell into the pools or were working to get over/around them. It made for a superbly nasty encounter. I enjoyed it so much I came up with a type of moss that would turn stone floors to quicksand, so I could use the same idea and setup in dungeons.

 

[dco]

I've seen a lot of discussion in a variety of threads that discuss traps as a waste of time, a HP tax, or otherwise meaningless. I have a few suggestions for folks that find traps to be hard to use meaningfully in a game. I'm sure others have a few more.

Observant PCs:

Observant PCs, if you've allowed feats don't cheat. Next time don't allow feats, you won't have sonars, fights will be more difficult, saving throws more epic, etc.

Avoid Isolated Traps:

I don't see a problem with isolated traps, but traps should have a purpose, if it is easily avoidable or it only does a bit of damage and there are no enemies near there is no point for the trap. If it is a trap that needs a lot of thinking, a puzzle, etc to let you pass that's a good challenge.

Avoid Flat HP Traps:

They are like flat HP enemies, if they make sense why not?

Located Traps are Features:

Great advice.

The Three Trap Issues:

Exactly, you have to find the trap, see how it works and avoid or disarm it.
Why make the live of the adventurers easier with less rolls? That would be like not throwing damage dice because they already have to hit and avoid hits.

Give the Traps Personality:

This, I hate when some adventures spam traps ( or monsters) without any purpose.

Anyone else have any other suggestions?

Not a suggestion but a reminder:
- Dim light gives -5 to passive perception, darkvision treats darkness as dim light.
- In a dungeon the players who write a map or try to navigate or follow tracks don't have passive perception rolls.

 

[Eis]

it can be fun and profitable for a DM to throw an already sprung trap into their dungeon....either previous adventurers set it off or possibly the dungeon inhabitants accidentally tripped it and haven't gotten around to resetting it etc etc

keep the party on their toes and add a little color to the game

 

[thethain]

The problem there is the observant feat. Passive checks are pretty much optional and arbitrary, so creating a feat to boost them specifically is silly. Instead it should have boosted checks to do the specific things it is trying to enhance (which I THINK is spotting traps, hidden doors and hidden creatures), instead of boosting a mechanic subset that may or may not align with those things.

While passive score usage is certainly optional. The same can be said of critical hits on a 20, or allowing the monk class or multiclassing.

Passive Perception. When you hide, there's a chance someone will notice you even if they aren't searching. To determine whether such a creature notices you, the DM compares your Dexterity (Stealth) check with that creature's passive Wisdom (Perception) score, which equals 10 + the creature's Wisdom modifier, as well as any other bonuses or penalties. If the creature has advantage, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5. For example, if a 1st-level character (with a proficiency bonus of +2) has a Wisdom of 15 (a +2 modifier) and proficiency in Perception, he or she has a passive Wisdom (Perception) of 14.

It doesn't say you may choose to use passive perception but its totally optional and a variant rule, it says use passive perception. You are free in your house to ignore any rule of DnD to better facilitate play. But that doesn't mean you are accurately applying the rules.

Why do they use passive perception instead of contested checks?
Because of two things. Consistency, and speed. If you roll high while hiding, you should have a good chance of successfully hiding. Under the old contested check system then you had increased randomness. AND it made it pretty much impossible to ever stealth in a crowded area. Sneaking across the rooftops above a crowded bazaar or encampment? Let me roll 20-30 opposed checks to see if one of the people hear you. Using contested checks as default makes hiding from large groups near impossible and very time consuming. That said contested checks still happen, whenever you use your action to look for someone, you get to roll, furthermore I would assign any person on watch would probably be doing this constantly.

What limits are there to passive perception?
It is limited to what it can see passively. If there is a secret compartment behind a picture hanging on the wall, you cannot see through the picture.

For example, a key is hidden beneath a set of folded clothes in he top drawer of a bureau. If you tell the DM that you pace around the room, looking at the walls and furniture for clues, you have no chance of finding the key, regardless of your Wisdom (Perception) check result. You would have to specify that you were opening the drawers or searching the bureau in order to have any chance of success.

You will never find that key with passive perception without actually mentioning you are going to look through the bureau. Even if your passive perception is 20 higher than the DC for the key. Passive perception doesn't look through walls and furniture. The problem is most DM's handwave the fact searching is supposed to be limited to the specified action. And just allow a search roll to reveal every single search DC listed in the room. When you apply this shortcut to passive perception, you create the unholy monster which is why people think it is too powerful.


Finally here is a news flash for many people: FEATS ARE POWERFUL. The healer feat allows you to heal 6-11 health on each member of the party each short rest, at level 1. For comparison that means a level 1 fighter with the healer feat can heal 42 HP per SHORT rest in a level 1 party. Compare that to the life cleric, who with a +3 modifier could heal 7-14 hp twice, or 21 HP per LONG rest. That's right, for straight potential healing done, a feat will allow potentially double the amount of healing that a class dedicated to healing can do, and recharge on a short rest instead of long one. Do I even need to mention Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master? Lucky? Seriously, playing with lucky is basically cheating, but using the RAW and a limited amount. "Oh no nevermind the crit you just hit me with, let me cancel that without even using a reaction." When you compare how powerful these other feats are, Observant isn't some special outlier. Its just another feat that is situationally very powerful.

/endrant.

 

[Saeviomagy]

While passive score usage is certainly optional. The same can be said of critical hits on a 20, or allowing the monk class or multiclassing.

Well... multiclassing is explicitly called out as optional. Critical hits are an assumed part of the game, as is allowing the monk class.

Sure your DM can say "we don't do crits or monks", but it's a fairly big departure, and I think you'd be pretty miffed if you make a monk character and then your DM secretly just ignores all your actions because he's decided they're not part of the game this combat round.

Passive score usage is only called out as opposing stealth checks. Everything else is "you might" or "you may" on a roll-to-roll basis. As such, adding a feat that may or may not apply on a roll-to-roll basis is not great, especially when thematically it seems like the actual goal of the feat was to make you better at spotting hidden creatures and traps : why rely on a mechanical maybe to do that instead of saying "you get the bonus in those situations"?