Design & Development: Traps is up!

[Stoat]

With regard to the static Perception score:

I don't see it as a tremendous change from 3E. By the RAW, a 3E rogue can take 20 to search for traps. In my experience, shrewd rogues did exactly that. A rogue taking 20 automatically detects all traps with a DC less than his Search score + 20 and automatically fails to detect all traps with a DC More than his search score + 20. In my experience, disarming, rather than finding, the trap is where the uncertainty lies.

The differences in 4E appear to be:

1) The rogue player is excused from the formality of saying "I search for traps."

2) The in-game time required to take 20 could be significant, and that occasionally mattered in adventures I DM'd. The 4E method takes less in-game time.

3) 4E aspires to make the trap itself more interesting by replacing deadfalls and spring-loaded spears with elaborate James Bondesque death machines.

 

[BryonD]

By the RAW, a 3E rogue can take 20 to search for traps. In my experience, shrewd rogues did exactly that.

Not if the DM used the rules for Take 20 correctly. The time required to do this made simply assuming it quite unreasonable.

However, a few tiers of status could be a good addition for the 4E approach. You could have normal, cautious (with Perception bonus but decreased speed and maybe other penalties), and rushed (best pace but significant Percption penalties).

 

[Nikosandros]

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 role 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.

Sounds like a good idea. Instead of having a static value for a trap, just roll a "sneakiness" attack, using the perception of the characters as a defense.

 

[glass]

Not if the DM used the rules for Take 20 correctly. The time required to do this made simply assuming it quite unreasonable.

So you Take 10 instead. The DM still knows your SOP and still knows what DC you will hit.


glass.

 

[BryonD]

So you Take 10 instead. The DM still knows your SOP and still knows what DC you will hit.
glass.

Agreed, but that is not what I replied to. And I never played in a game where take 10 was always assumed. Not a big deal, but this is a significant change.

Heck, even just assuming a toggle between take 10 and take 20, (which oversimplifies my experience significantly) a flat static DM knows beforehand result is a big change.

 

[Steely Dan]

It looks like they are trying to make traps seem less contrived, which is often how they came out in previous editions.

I'm all for static Perception, but I do not like it versus a static DC.

 

[Cadfan]

To change a static DC to a d20 check, subtract 10 and roll d20.

Technically that's still off by .5, but its as close as you're going to get.

 

[Stormtalon]

I find it interesting that there seems to be a default assumption going on here (at least among those against the static check) that detecting a trap is tantamount to identifying a trap. I don't think that's a valid assumption; I know for a fact that when I DM in 3.x, I usually make rogues do two search checks (unless they beat the first one's DC by a high enough margin): first roll is a general "is there anything out of the ordinary here" search. The second roll, which can be either Search or Craft: Trapsmith is the one that actually identifies just what the trap does.

With this system, it looks like I could dispense with the first roll and just give a note to the Perceptive character(s) stating: "You spot something out of place, but it's going to take a closer look to see just what it is." Then, they'd make an ACTIVE perception roll against a DC that's, say, 5 higher than the default, 10 if it's a particularly well-concealed mechanism.

The static perception check seems more like a character noticing something like, "Odd, that stone looks a bit funny. Better be careful here...."

 

[Nikosandros]

To change a static DC to a d20 check, subtract 10 and roll d20.

Technically that's still off by .5, but its as close as you're going to get.

The average of a single roll is meaningless...

 

[Yergi]

A thought just occurred to me; could this explain the Perception and Spot scores that appeared on the Spined Devil card?