D&D 5E Brief Thoughts on Traps and Player Agency

[Tony Vargas]

I invented (or deduced?) their existence a while ago because otherwise nonlethal traps in D&D just don't make any sense at all. But you need nonlethal traps in order for gameplay to be fun.

It also helps rationalize the fact that you get XP for defeating (most) traps. It's the kill XP (life force) from the gremlin.

Waitaminit. 'Kill' XP is 'life force?' So adventurers are going around collecting the monsters' quickening to level up? That's priceless.

 

[jrowland]

Waitaminit. 'Kill' XP is 'life force?' So adventurers are gong around collecting the monsters' quickening to level up. That's priceless.

Now tell them "There can be only One"

Self-Inflicted TPK: Priceless

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

The Perception skill only applies to things you *percieve*.

I would rule that the character with Perception obtains the information "The floorboards in the middle are a much lighter colour than those at the edge of the room", rather than "the floorboards in the middle are likely to break".

Interpreting the percieved information is up to the player (perhaps using the character's Investigation skill).

For example, in the case of a trapped chest, a good Perception roll gives the infomration "there are several small holes around the edlge, it looks like something small and sharp in the holes".

 

[Agamon]

I'm not sure I'm totally down to giving no clue to the PC - they are receiving a stimulus that is causing them concern but they don't know what it is? Personally I'd prefer to give them some clue:

* You feel something catch your foot, what do you do?.
* You hear a click, what do you do?
* The floor begins to give way, what do you do?

But that's me

Not just you. Putting that kind of time pressure on the player while being very vague about what's happening feels very "gotcha"-y to me. Which is odd, Angry hates "gotcha" monsters, like mimics, rust monsters, etc. Randomly picking a response, with little to no info and no time to think about it, and getting rewarded or penalized for it, isn't really my cup of tea as a GM, and certainly not as a player.

I agree with some others in that Perception isn't some sort of magical problem radar. Telling a perceptive player about things that don't seem right without being completely blunt is the way I prefer to do it. The play gets some information to act on and isn't under some arbitrary time restraint to reply.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Waitaminit. 'Kill' XP is 'life force?' So adventurers are going around collecting the monsters' quickening to level up? That's priceless.

Yep. I tell my players straight-up that PCs are basically vampires. "You grow stronger from participating in the death of powerful creatures." And yes, Highlander is a direct inspiration.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The Perception skill only applies to things you *percieve*.

I would rule that the character with Perception obtains the information "The floorboards in the middle are a much lighter colour than those at the edge of the room", rather than "the floorboards in the middle are likely to break".

Interpreting the percieved information is up to the player (perhaps using the character's Investigation skill).

For example, in the case of a trapped chest, a good Perception roll gives the infomration "there are several small holes around the edlge, it looks like something small and sharp in the holes".

Why are they lighter? Is that something that happens when wood rots?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why are they lighter? Is that something that happens when wood rots?

I was thinking the same thing. Would saying that they're "sagging" give away too much? Maybe you see little bugs running around, and if you inspect closely and pass a Nature check you realize they're termites or carpenter ants or something.

 

[Iry]

It also helps rationalize the fact that you get XP for defeating (most) traps. It's the kill XP (life force) from the gremlin. You wouldn't get this XP from bypassing a wizard's magical Sepia Snake Sigil spell, because there's no gremlin involved. You would, however, stand a good chance at retrieving whatever it was that he was protecting with the Sepia Snake Sigil.

XP = Execution Points.
LV = Level of Violence.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yes. Most traps (and especially the rotten floor you postulate) aren't that hard to detect. They're successful because they're somewhere or something that doesn't get looked at closely and/or are things that can't be avoided (a large pit trap that can't be jumped across by normals blocking a narrow hall, for instance). Your method is placing traps on the level of "normal people will always fall for them unless they pick the right pixel first." Most traps should be able to be found by a normal actually looking for them.

See, here's the point we disagree on. I don't actually share your belief that most normal people could visually identify a rotten floor (if I'm wrong about that, then rotten floors are a bad example) or reflexively identify the odor or taste of cyanide or notice pinholes without looking for them. I therefore think it's okay for these things to have DCs so high that normal people don't normally detect these traps, because it's realistic.

But maybe I'm wrong! When I was in Army Basic Training (actually OSUT, but that's just Basic + AIT for infantry) I once lost my locker key in the field where we did PT. I got permission from the drill sergeant to look for it after dinner, and he gave me ten minutes or so to go with my bunk buddy (an amazing guy by the name of Jake Weston--99% on the ASVAB and a natural leader) and look for it. To me this was a hopeless task, but I was prepared to give it my best shot. We showed up at the field and I started looking around. About thirty seconds later Weston says, "Found it!" In D&D terms, does that mean it was a DC 10 task and I've got a passive Perception of 4 while he's got a passive Perception of 14? Or is it a DC 20 task and he's got a passive Perception of 23?

You're arguing the latter (DC 10), and I'm assuming the former (DC 20). I don't know who's right, but I'm going to run my game in accordance with my perception of reality, and assume that guys like Weston are amazing and special.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I think this thread demonstrates that traps are one of the hardest areas of the game to have fun with. There's been threads on traps before and no consensus has emerged, from what I remember.

I some ways I like the OSR approach to traps before thieves existed at all - everyone just says what they do, and tries to navigate past the trap. It's probably the most interesting approach. For a long time however, we have had the thief class, and I guess you don't want to devalue that aspect of the thief too much. Perhaps the thief should be remodeled from "good at disarming traps" to "good at resisting trap effects" instead (of course, a player could still choose options to make the thief good at disarming, too, but don't make it the default). Keep everyone on the same page disarm wise, so everyone is encouraged to participate. But if it all goes horribly wrong, the thief is most likely to come out unscathed (like the 5e trap feat, forget the name now).

In my experience you use traps when it makes sense, and either for (i) simple resource attrition (not a big thing, simple trap, a few dice rolls/fluff sorts it - this would work particularly well with a "trap resistant" thief class/feat) or (ii) a set piece thinking trap, like a Grimtooths, this is a proper encounter type of trap. For a set piece trap, there is either (a) some kind of telegraph or (b) setting the trap off is only stage one of a two stage (or more) trap. And the whole party needs to be engaged to bypass it/navigate through it/disarm it.