Design & Development: Traps is up!

[Nikosandros]

I'm not sure how it will work, but we have to remember that traps will be treated as bona-fide encounters instead of "roll then avoid" obstacles. In many monster encounters, Spot checks are rolled when the PCs encounter the monsters in order to determine who has surprise. PCs or monsters who aren't surprised get a free surprise round.

I believe this kind of thinking is more along the lines of what the Perception check means for 4e traps. If you fail the perception check, it means the trap gets a "surprise" round.

A very interesting idea.

 

[Nikosandros]

Your forgetting that 4th Edition really seems to like flipping Saves to attack rolls. I am sure that it looks more like this:

1) PC has a Perception score of 15.
2) Trap / Hidden monster has Stealth of +8
3) Dm rolls 1d20 + 8, compares to Stealth score. If the DM roll 8 or more, the player does not see the trap.

From the article it seems that enemies will roll a stealth check, but traps will have a static number to compare to the perception of the PCs.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Similarly, most parties just said "I search the area for traps as I go" when out of combat (which is where most traps were located), which is essentially the same as taking 10 most of the time unless the player says they are spending special time on it (taking 20 or rolling specifically to search). This new system takes those realities into account.

It seems most groups used the "player announces each occurence of trap-searching" mechanic. The replies in this thread and the actual article seem to point to this mechanic as the default. I allow the rogue to roll as needed to assume that he is always on the lookout for traps when the party is not rushing through an area, so this isn't a big change for me, but to assume most groups use the "I search the area for traps as I go" mechanic seems to be incorrect.

 

[Simon Marks]

... to assume most groups use the "I search the area for traps as I go" mechanic seems to be incorrect.

However, I'd wager that every group use the "I search the area for traps as I go" mechanic once they have hit the first trap.

At least for a bit.

 

[Black_Swan]

Hunters gain this perception ability in Iron Heroes. Once they reach a certain level they take ten on all perception checks while outside of combat.

It saves a lot of time in game and makes it fun for the Hunter as a support class. If the Rogue gains a bonus to this check against traps it will definitely give the player of the rogue a feeling of accomplishment when he finds one and saves his friends some trouble.

 

[JohnSnow]

Or put another way , in 4E traps are not Traps. In 4E traps are terrain features. I like everything else they said, but this part seems silly to plain stupid to me. And what is worse is, if you look at other parts of 4E the solution seems obvious. Let traps make an attack roll against the character's Perception. Now you acheive the goal of assumed constant searching but retain the uncertainty that is essential to the concept of a trap.

Actually, if the trap is a static DC to detect, stepping on it could trigger it. That doesn't mean it does damage.

In Iron Heroes (which Mike Mearls designed), traps were a type of zone - a catch-all term for handling terrain effects, environmental conditions, and things that might be triggered, either deliberately or as a trap. Many "zones" had attack bonuses. They worked like the one from Secrets of Xen'drik that Rechan posted on the first page.

In other words, even if you don't see it, it's not auto-hit. So, even if the rogue sees it, the party might still have to cross the square to disarm it. Or maybe the fighter wades in and tries to block it.

For example, a fighter in full plate and carrying a shield might have dealt differently with the spiked needle trap at the beginning of Raiders than Indy did. His response was that of a typical rogue: use your brains and dexterity to avoid triggering it.

To my way of thinking, truly disarming a trap ought to be tough - REALLY tough. It should be a puzzle for the party to solve. Where's the trigger? How does it work?

Bypassing traps is, in my opinion, far more interesting than disabling them completely. The second should only be possible under certain conditions. And in those conditions, the trap IS the encounter - like the ones in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Another good example of traps of that kind are the various booby traps encountered by the kids in Goonies.

 

[jester47]

New thread idea-

Trap Movies...

 

[Gundark]

Sounds to me like the old system is much better. (And the even older system was even better IMO.)

The purposed 4e system isn't without it's warts that's for sure. However I'll take it anyday over the old system of making pointless search checks every so often. The problem in sticking in a few traps here and there is that it causes players to look for traps at every chance they get. For my group this is extremely unfun.

 

[BryonD]

Actually, if the trap is a static DC to detect, stepping on it could trigger it. That doesn't mean it does damage.

You sound like you think you are contradicting me, but I don't see where you are.

I didn't say anything about damage. It seemed an obvious assumption that the topic was about detection. If the trap's roll beat the character's perception then the trap goes unnoticed an play proceeds from there, just as if a rogue failed a Search check in 3X. Resolving the effect of the trap would be completely separate. It may even be that the trap "wins" the check, but then is blindly bypassed by the none-the-wiser party. Or they set it off and it misses. Or they get zapped. Or something else.

 

[Mistwell]

GRIMTOOTHS TRAPS - These rules bring back the cool traps and make them workable. Awesome.

Passive perception- I think this probably operates when you are not in a hurried situation. If you are running from the Ogre expect to roll. Also, entering a certain room, a party could decide to take a long look- but then again, the article seems to imply that the 3.x rule of not being able to take 20 when searching for traps holds.

Also I suspect a class feature of Rogues would be that their passive perception increases as they go up in level. So at first level a rogues passive perception is 11+skill+stat+other. and at level 10 it is 20+skill+stat+other...

Or maybe rogues just take 20 and everyone else just takes 10.

Who knows... But this has a lot of room to work with.

I never understood the logic behind not taking 20 when searching for traps. If my character takes 20 to search a wall for secret doors or hidden treasure, and there is a trap on that wall, the DM can't well say "You cannot take 20" because it would give away that there is a trap. However, it doesn't make any sense that my take-20 search check somehow doesn't take-20 on looking for traps as well, as whatever care I use to find a secret door on that 5' section of wall will apply equally to finding the trap there while I am looking!

I mean, my PC would find a hidden plate behind which is a purse full of gold, but wouldn't find an identical hidden plate behind which is the disable-lever for a trap?