Design & Development: Traps is up!

[BryonD]

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.

So I am disagreeing with you.

Now you have changed the topic. Your prior post was all about damage or effect resolution.
I'll respond to your other statements, because they are worth discussing, but changing the topic doesn't help your prior comments.

If you want to argue that the trap is static then fine. That just gets into beside the point details. If your reasoning that that DC must be static because the trap is static applies then you must apply the same reasoning to the searcher. The searcher is active and may be dealing with a large degree of distractions or limitations or none at all. So therefore the searcher must NOT be static. So the searcher roles against a static DC, which is a perfectly logical scenario and is how it works in 3X. I think that makes a lot more sense than what I have proposed for what we just read in the preview. However, people have complained that it may be logical to have to search each time, in play it is a drag. So we look for a better option. The trap attack role need not reflect any activity on the traps part. It is just as easy to see it as an abstraction of how the players assumed perpetual searching interacts with this static threat. But it puts chance in play and increases fun while also maintaining the search "always on" assumption.

If it makes it easier for you to accept, just assume that the DM roles for the player when a trap may or may not be observed. I do that now for Listen, Spot and other such checks all the time already. The 4E convention is that the threat makes a roll against a static resistance. This being an abstraction doesn't bother me the way you statement indicates it does you.

You think traps aren't terrain features.

Wrong. I think traps are more specific than terrain features.

However, that is PRECISELY what they are. However, there's no reason that has to mean that they're boring. Because it doesn't have to be a question of making the trap "easy to find" and therefore a non-event versus making it "hard to find," and therefore auto-damage.

Hard vs. easy is not the question. It is predetermined vs uncertain.

I'd rather it goes more like "you might trigger the trap, and you might not." But whether or not it triggers, that's where the fun starts. If it's triggered, you can try to avoid its effects, disable it, or destroy it. If you find it before it triggers, you now have to figure out how to disable it, destroy it, or pass it without triggering it.

Both of those situations are compelling. And they have nothing to do with how hard the trap is to find. They're different kinds of challenges, certainly, but they're both, IMO, valid uses for traps.

And exactly how does the DM making exactly one roll to determine the might or might not part get in the way of the fun? I'd say it does not at all. Whereas completely removing any player interaction from the detection process does spoil fun because, as has been stated by multiple people, either the DM pre-hoses the PCs or he gives them a freebie.

With an attack roll the PC has a sporting chance without ever once requiring an "I search" statement. Its win-win.

And also, you are implying statements that I haven't made. I didn't say how hard the trap is to find influences any of these things, and your obvious statement that they don't doesn't add to a response to the concern I have actually stated. Those parts remain true both if the detection phase sucks or if the detection phase is improved. I vote for improved.

That's in sharp contrast to the pit trap you don't see until you fall into it. That's, IMO, a crappy trap.

Well, if we do it the way you are defending then pit traps with to high a DC will automatically be exactly that every time. And pit traps with a lower DC will be no different than a hole. So, yeah, that would be a crappy trap.

But if you think that bads guys being able to place a well concealed pitfall that the players face a threat of falling into during their explorations (or even battles), but also stand a chance to discover and avoid, is not a good thing, then you and I see things very differently.
Plus I tend to think that pit traps should work the way pit traps actually work.

 

[Hussar]

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?

That's exactly the way it is in 3e. The rogue (typically) is the only one with significant ranks in spot and search. You want something found, you turn to the rogue and send him in. Everyone else is pretty much walking around with blinders on.

 

[Imaro]

That's exactly the way it is in 3e. The rogue (typically) is the only one with significant ranks in spot and search. You want something found, you turn to the rogue and send him in. Everyone else is pretty much walking around with blinders on.

Yet you still have the variability of the d20 roll with a range of 1 to 20 the Rogue character can have a +18 in the skill, roll a 1 and still be beat by a character with a +2 who rolls a 20. Likely? No, but the possibility still exsists. That's all I'm saying...if a player chooses to do this or not is entirely up to the player, but the possibility is there.

 

[Abstraction]

Yet you still have the variability of the d20 roll with a range of 1 to 20 the Rogue character can have a +18 in the skill, roll a 1 and still be beat by a character with a +2 who rolls a 20. Likely? No, but the possibility still exsists. That's all I'm saying...if a player chooses to do this or not is entirely up to the player, but the possibility is there.

According to RAW, only someone with Trapsense can find a trap with a DC higher than 20, no matter how high their Spot. So, even in 3.X only a Rogue can find the trap.

As for the "fun", what fun is it if you are the trap-finding guy and are beaten to it on a consistent basis by one of your other four teammates simply rolling high on d20?

EDIT: I just realized that 4E might be the first edition where you can have a fighter good at finding traps. All he has to do is invest a little in cross-class training and Trained perception. Not bad, WOTC.

 

[SkidAce]

That's in sharp contrast to the pit trap you don't see until you fall into it. That's, IMO, a crappy trap.

True the trap is not as much "fun", but the whole point of a pit trap is to not see it until you fall into it. So that makes it an effective trap.

Now how to "balance" that for fun. PUN intended.

 

[Stoat]

Yet you still have the variability of the d20 roll with a range of 1 to 20 the Rogue character can have a +18 in the skill, roll a 1 and still be beat by a character with a +2 who rolls a 20. Likely? No, but the possibility still exsists. That's all I'm saying...if a player chooses to do this or not is entirely up to the player, but the possibility is there.

This possibility exists at lower levels, but, IME, disappears somewhere in the mid-level range. At some point, a search DC high enough to challenge the skills of a character with max class ranks is undetectable to a character with no ranks.

To continue your example, even if the character with +2 search rolls a 20, he will fail to notice the DC 23 doodad. Meanwhile, the rogue with +18 search rolls finds the thing almost automatically.

And of course, if you're searching for traps as opposed to secret doors or hidden treasure, a rogue or some other character with trapfinding is absolutely necessary in 3E.

 

[DonTadow]

Not... exactly. Though it strikes me as a large problem.

Clearly, traps as an element of a bigger encounter (with fighting) is going to be a big thing.
Second, splitting the party.
Third, possible environmental modifiers. Though, there is really only so many times you can pull this on a party.
Fourth, verisimilitude. If the trapped pyramid of al'Khalef doesn't have traps, its going to feel weird. And the party may well be in a hurry on the way back out...

But yeah, it is a problem. But its been a poorly handled problem in every edition I've played since '85. Its just that this time, instead of being tired of bad die rolls, we're going to be tired of fighting at the edge of a pit with enemies that like to bull rush. (Or, possibly, Flying Buffalo Tackle).


@RyukenAngel- it sounds like monster hide checks will still be rolled. For what its worth.

@kinem- can you pull a quote of the bit thats suggesting active Perception checks? I'm not seeing it.

My fix for this is to do what I do now. Roll perception for all my pcs vs. the dc search of the trap. I'm actually surprised this was not thought of considering that their own software and many other software now allow of random hidden pc rolls to made swiftly.

 

[Stogoe]

My fix for this is to do what I do now. Roll perception for all my pcs vs. the dc search of the trap. I'm actually surprised this was not thought of considering that their own software and many other software now allow of random hidden pc rolls to made swiftly.

Note that only a small minority of gamers are going to want to have to go over to the computer and run a program that randomly rolls the characters' perception skills.

Besides the Game Table, 4e is a completely tabletop affair.

 

[cr0m]

This is a really interesting look into how different people run their games, not to mention gaming preferences.

Arguments about realism aside, it seems to me that if we're right about what they're doing in 4e, you lose the random element of stumbling into traps, but you also lose the plodding, 5' square searching tedium that is many dungeon crawls. To me, that's a win.

Also, sure, if you have a trap with a DC that's under the rogue's passive score, he's going to find it. But that's assuming that he'll find it before someone else triggers it, that he won't be weakened or under some condition (poison, spells, etc). It's assuming that the party has dispatched with other obstacles so that he is free to scout ahead with impunity... in short, it assumes that we're talking about a poison needle trap on a chest in the middle of an empty room. I don't mind glossing over that sort of trap.

edit: p.s. to the DMs who are making your players roll once to "notice something weird" and again to find the trap... you're cheating! Two rolls where one would do penalizes the players by reducing their chances of success. It's the difference between flipping a coin and getting heads, or flipping two coins and getting two heads.