Design & Development: Traps is up!

[Scribble]

I don't see why the trap needs to "roll" its stealth check. It's not moving, it's well concealed, it's in no danger, and it's in no hurry. In effect, it's "taking 10" - which means a static DC.

Well... If you have a static number for the trap, then it becomes a case of, either the party sees it, or they don't depending on what you make the static number... If Bob has a Perception of 20, and you make a trap with a score of 15, then you might as well just put in your notes, "as characters walk into the room tell Bob he sees a trap."

If you make the trap roll, characters are still always assumed to be looking for traps, but not always guaranteed to see it... Perhaps something caught their attention or something.

Of course the same effect could be had by randomly rolling the traps hiddenness before the game... but I guess then it becomes a question of which is more fun. Before or during...

 

[JohnSnow]

Well... If you have a static number for the trap, then it becomes a case of, either the party sees it, or they don't depending on what you make the static number... If Bob has a Perception of 20, and you make a trap with a score of 15, then you might as well just put in your notes, "as characters walk into the room tell Bob he sees a trap."

If you make the trap roll, characters are still always assumed to be looking for traps, but not always guaranteed to see it... Perhaps something caught their attention or something.

Of course the same effect could be had by randomly rolling the traps hiddenness before the game... but I guess then it becomes a question of which is more fun. Before or during...

I'll take option 3. How well-hidden the trap is has nothing to do with what makes the trap fun. From an adventure design standpoint, I think there's more "fun" in the question of who sees the trap (if anyone), and what they do after they spot it (or trigger it).

If the players are walking down the hall and the trap-monkey is out in front and spots a trap, noticing it isn't the encounter. Instead the encounter is how to bypass it or disable it.

If they're walking together and one guy notices a trap first, the trap gets a surprise round against the rest of the party. The guy who sees it might shout "freeze" or something, like the scouts who spot tripwires in military movies, and then have to disable it before it blows his friends to pieces.

Or there might only be a chance of setting it off...even tripwires get stepped over once in a while.

Like I said, seeing a trap (or figuring out it's there) shouldn't be the end of the encounter. It should be the beginning.

Just my opinion.

 

[Abstraction]

I always had problems with traps in my game. Sure, traps make sense in the Grand Old King's tomb. You'd expect lots of traps and few monsters. But it always seemed like you had to have a couple traps in order to validate the Rogue's skills. In the secret evil temple, are the acolytes forced to contend with the traps every time they need to use the privy? What's even worse are the puzzle/question traps. On the door is the question "How disciples did Kane the Mad have?" with six numbered doorknobs. The wizard makes a Knowledge check and the group turns Handle 4. Well, wouldn't it be a better trap if the "correct" knob was the wrong answer? Better, if all the knobs are trapped! But, it breaks the game.

I like the 4E take on it. The trap isn't necessarily hidden from the party, but it is still dangerous. I like the way the residents of the area aren't blindly sitting in a room hoping a trap will catch the unwary, but actively pushing the intruders into the pit or the scything blade.

I also like traps as terrain features with static Perception DCs. After all, in 3E, quicksand is essentially a "trap", just not set by anybody. When I design an area, I could have the master trapmaker roll for how well each trap is disguised, or have him take 10, or just set the static DC myself. None of those make any difference to the player. It might be important if the Kobolds are using Perception-draining poisons (although we don't know if ability damage exists), the Rogue is unconscious, or if the group uses Perception-enhancing magic. I could also see Perception as having a distance cutoff, like Listen checks in 3.X. The rogue can auto-perceive that trap as soon as he gets within 15 feet, but the fighter is twenty feet ahead. Oops, sorry. Change marching order time!

 

[Scribble]

I'll take option 3. How well-hidden the trap is has nothing to do with what makes the trap fun. From an adventure design standpoint, I think there's more "fun" in the question of who sees the trap (if anyone), and what they do after they spot it (or trigger it).

If the players are walking down the hall and the trap-monkey is out in front and spots a trap, noticing it isn't the encounter. Instead the encounter is how to bypass it or disable it.

If they're walking together and one guy notices a trap first, the trap gets a surprise round against the rest of the party. The guy who sees it might shout "freeze" or something, like the scouts who spot tripwires in military movies, and then have to disable it before it blows his friends to pieces.

Or there might only be a chance of setting it off...even tripwires get stepped over once in a while.

Like I said, seeing a trap (or figuring out it's there) shouldn't be the end of the encounter. It should be the beginning.

Just my opinion.

Oh I'm not saying that the noticing part is the entire fun of the trap. Just part of it. Is it more fun for you as the DM to roll it before hand or on spot. Sometimes as a DM I just like rolling dice. Yah know?

Either way it's personal preference.

I agree that the rest of what you mentioned is the rest of the fun of the trap.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I think traps are indeed terrain features, but another way to think about them may be that they are mechanical monsters, in some cases stationary and in some cases motile. Thus the conventional way of handling traps (search for them, roll to disable them, move on) just doesn't apply. You have to "battle" traps essentially the same way you battle monsters (because, in effect, they *are* monsters), with each character doing their own thing.

It wouldn't surprise me if 4e traps had "hit points" and defenses like other monsters - "attack" rolls to hit the trap could be actual weapon strikes or they might even be rolling trap disarming skills such as Thievery, Nature, or Arcane (depending on the trap). So you "damage" the trap with a skill roll. I'm really not sure this is how it will work, but I think the philosophy behind traps in 4e could be as "different" as my speculations.

 

[kinem]

I have stated reasons for disliking the proposed system.

About 'encounter traps' that are challenging even if you see them coming - yes, they could still be viable; no, that does not excuse the problems with regular traps. Also, there is certainly nothing new about the idea - it is in NO WAY anything to do with 4th edition, just a kind of trap that always existed in all editions (just ask the poor rogue I played for my last PC).

What should be done? My suggestions are:
- Roll the check. If you pass the same way twice, you might notice something new the second time around. The DM can do this secretly to keep the 'passive' feel.
- Allow active search checks. This would be better in some way than a passive check, allowing multiple checks or a bonus.

and possibly

- Power Search: You can choose to take a penalty of up to -5 on your Initiative rolls, and add an equal amount to your passive Perception checks against traps. (You look around carefully but get somewhat distracted looking at details.) You would do this in areas where you expect traps more than monsters, so you have to use a little bit of thought.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the take 10 on both aspects (trap "stealth" and skill) is a good idea to avoid the metagaming of "I think I just failed a Spot check".
More eloberate traps that don't do just a single attack will mean that even if nobody in the group spots the trap, there is still something to do about the trap, and not spotting it doesn't hurt as much as it used to do.

Personally I think the simple "one attack" traps should just be used to alert NPCs. That's a lot safer for the inhabitants of the trapped room/building/dungeon. Using a net or something similar to imprison a character for a short time would be the next (sensible) type of trap. Only beyond that, real death traps would occur, and from a pure playability point of view, they are more entertaining if they are not reduced to a single attack. (Even if they might sometimes feel "unrealistic").

 

[Stogoe]

Yeah, I like that the DM won't have to ask for a Spot check, instead using the 'passive' take 10 value; and only having the player roll when (s)he decides to actively look harder.

 

[Imaro]

You know, as far as the active search goes, one thing I do in my games is have the characters roll five Spot rolls beforehand then I place them in random order. These scores are what I use to determine whether they locate a trap, secret door, etc. when they declare they are looking. After those five rolls are used five more are made and replace those. This isn't that hard to keep track of on a sheet of paper and it keeps the variability.

Another thing I don't like about the static perception vs. static trap DC is that there is now no chance for someone with a lower perception score to notice something that those with higher scores don't. This ultimately means that unless a party seperates alot, they really only need one character (whoever can get the highest total) to invest ranks in the perception skill. Everyone else is basically useless as far as noticing something to save the party. I know D&D is a game first, but their are plenty of examples in various media of a character with a lower perception score noticing things, through happenstance or luck, that those with a higher score don't. In fact whole...more fun... and... not being useless 4e design philosophy seems to fall apart here. How boring will it get once everyone except the player with the highest perception score realizes they really don't have any chance of noticing things any player with a higher perception won't notice?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know, as far as the active search goes, one thing I do in my games is have the characters roll five Spot rolls beforehand then I place them in random order. These scores are what I use to determine whether they locate a trap, secret door, etc. when they declare they are looking. After those five rolls are used five more are made and replace those. This isn't that hard to keep track of on a sheet of paper and it keeps the variability.

Another thing I don't like about the static perception vs. static trap DC is that there is now no chance for someone with a lower perception score to notice something that those with higher scores don't. This ultimately means that unless a party seperates alot, they really only need one character (whoever can get the highest total) to invest ranks in the perception skill. Everyone else is basically useless as far as noticing something to save the party. I know D&D is a game first, but their are plenty of examples in various media of a character with a lower perception score noticing things, through happenstance or luck, that those with a higher score don't. In fact whole...more fun... and... not being useless 4e design philosophy seems to fall apart here. How boring will it get once everyone except the player with the highest perception score realizes they really don't have any chance of noticing things any player with a higher perception won't notice?

Well, in some cases, it might be important that each individual notices something - for instance to avoid a surprise round.

Happenstance and luck is still possible if players actively search for something. I think it's nice to know that your high awareness skill really counts usually, but also to know that a lower awareness skill doesn't make you useless when the group is actively working together to find something.