Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7800501" data-attributes="member: 6802765"><p>Thanks for clarifying! As a follow-up question, what about the following action declaration: "I try to make sure the lock is safe to pick by checking it for traps." Does reducing the scope from an entire passageway to a specific lock make the "checking for traps" approach specific enough to be valid at your table? Do you see more possible approaches for examining a lock for traps than you do for picking that lock?</p><p></p><p>For context, at my table I consider checking for traps to be a sufficiently-specific approach to be a valid action declaration, but I also interpret that approach as being purely sensory. So, by default, it falls into the "looking for anything out of the ordinary" approach you mentioned. With such an approach I'd call for a WIS (Perception) check against the trap's DC, which gives the character a chance to spot a trap with a DC above their passive perception. (I set trap DC by making a check a check for the trap with a predetermined bonus based on design and circumstances.) Failing to spot a trap I consider to always be a significant consequence, so I consider a roll to be justfied. If the character takes their time and the DC is reachable, then it's an auto-success. (And checking for traps will never be an auto-failure at my table, as described below.)</p><p></p><p>Non-sensory action declarations such as rolling heavy weights down a hall to trigger pressure plates will be resolved at my table based on the mechanics of the trap in question (if any) and will rarely require any kind of check.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Interesting. While I certainly don't go as far as some have suggested as to telegraph the presence of all traps, I'm still on the side of always giving the characters a chance to spot a trap, so I'll never include one that can't be noticed visually (or via some other sense). The Passive Perception DC at my table to notice a trap before taking an action that may trigger may be high enough that the character doesn't spot the trap, but it will never be so high as to guarantee that character could never notice that trap, no matter how badly the trap rolls. (See above for how I determine trap DC. I will never give a trap a bonus bigger than +8.)</p><p></p><p>When you elect to include a trap that cannot be spotted visually (or with some other sense) I assume you do not telegraph it, since (by definition) there is nothing for the characters to notice? Also, am I correct in understanding that, unlike [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/consequences-of-failure.666999/post-7800374" target="_blank">this post</a>, if a character at your table fails to declare an action that could result in discovering a trap that cannot be spotted visually (or through some other sense) the character does <em>not</em> get a Wis check (or passive perception) to notice it? If I'm incorrect, and you <em>would</em> give a character such a check to avoid triggering the trap, how do you set an attainable DC if you've already ruled that the trap can't be spotted visually (or through some other sense)?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 7800501, member: 6802765"] Thanks for clarifying! As a follow-up question, what about the following action declaration: "I try to make sure the lock is safe to pick by checking it for traps." Does reducing the scope from an entire passageway to a specific lock make the "checking for traps" approach specific enough to be valid at your table? Do you see more possible approaches for examining a lock for traps than you do for picking that lock? For context, at my table I consider checking for traps to be a sufficiently-specific approach to be a valid action declaration, but I also interpret that approach as being purely sensory. So, by default, it falls into the "looking for anything out of the ordinary" approach you mentioned. With such an approach I'd call for a WIS (Perception) check against the trap's DC, which gives the character a chance to spot a trap with a DC above their passive perception. (I set trap DC by making a check a check for the trap with a predetermined bonus based on design and circumstances.) Failing to spot a trap I consider to always be a significant consequence, so I consider a roll to be justfied. If the character takes their time and the DC is reachable, then it's an auto-success. (And checking for traps will never be an auto-failure at my table, as described below.) Non-sensory action declarations such as rolling heavy weights down a hall to trigger pressure plates will be resolved at my table based on the mechanics of the trap in question (if any) and will rarely require any kind of check. Interesting. While I certainly don't go as far as some have suggested as to telegraph the presence of all traps, I'm still on the side of always giving the characters a chance to spot a trap, so I'll never include one that can't be noticed visually (or via some other sense). The Passive Perception DC at my table to notice a trap before taking an action that may trigger may be high enough that the character doesn't spot the trap, but it will never be so high as to guarantee that character could never notice that trap, no matter how badly the trap rolls. (See above for how I determine trap DC. I will never give a trap a bonus bigger than +8.) When you elect to include a trap that cannot be spotted visually (or with some other sense) I assume you do not telegraph it, since (by definition) there is nothing for the characters to notice? Also, am I correct in understanding that, unlike [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] in [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/consequences-of-failure.666999/post-7800374']this post[/URL], if a character at your table fails to declare an action that could result in discovering a trap that cannot be spotted visually (or through some other sense) the character does [I]not[/I] get a Wis check (or passive perception) to notice it? If I'm incorrect, and you [I]would[/I] give a character such a check to avoid triggering the trap, how do you set an attainable DC if you've already ruled that the trap can't be spotted visually (or through some other sense)? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top