Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8151100" data-attributes="member: 82106">But now imagine a dungeon full of traps, like Raiders first sequence. Using this technique won't really make that very exciting. Your character progresses through the scene randomly setting off or not setting off the different traps depending on what the check value is to find any given one (he may find all, some, or none). In fact in the scene Indy FINDS every single trap. The process you describe would IMHO just mean you'd take 'X damage' (maybe none if you can see/disarm/avoid all of them) on the way in and out. I guess the 'boulder trap', if it triggers, would still be interesting, the rest less so IMHO.I'm not sure how what I described diverges from this. You either detect the trap, or else you will surely set it off, right? I assume a Perception Check is the gate for active searching to be successful. I suppose there is room for the party to devise some specific approaches, assuming the GM uses that option.I think the rules CAN BE exactly as I've described. This is not going against them AFAIK. In fact I've been through at least 2 5e modules, and that was exactly how they were handled, a check to determine if you saw the trap, and then if you did you got a check to see if you disarmed it. Even if the character picks a specific action related to the fiction describing the trap, a role was called for.Part of the problem here is that 'the 5e rules' is not a thing. At least not in this regard. Half of 5e's 'rules' are too vague to say there 'is a process/rule' and a LOT of them are optional, including everything to do with skills and checks! Technically you could run a subset of 5e, just the most core non-optional rules, that would handle it essentially the same as OSR. I'm not exactly sure how a thief would work in that configuration, so I don't know if they would still invoke the skill system or some other mechanism to adjudicate 'thief abilities'. If it is the current system, then at least some of what I described is still accurate (and similar to how many people interpreted F&RT even in AD&D even if that was incorrect strictly speaking). So, yeah, maybe, depending on what you call '5e rules' you could be partly correct, but I think my analysis still largely stands and doesn't involve some gross misrepresentation of the game. It certainly DOES represent how a lot of D&D has been played, and how many modules seem to think it is played.</blockquote>

Verification