Design & Development: Traps is up!

[erf_beto]

Also, I want to note for folks.

In R&C, it says that there still are the 10ft pit trap and the poison needle on the treasure chest. Just that those are outside the norm.

Just like "elementals -- those beings of the four elements that exist so people can summon them and put them in dungeons -- still exist in 4th Edition." (from the Ecology of the Fire Archon article), only there's also something new in the books: you can still make D&D play as your old regular D&D, but they're saying "hey, look at all the shiny new stuff you can also do with this new D&D".

Loved the article, BTW.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I like the focus on what's actually fun: dealing with trap. As opposed to earlier editions, which put the focus on searching for the trap.

Exactly.

And FWIW, there have been numerous times in my gaming history when parties have detected a trap trigger, then set it off deliberately anyway 'to see what it does'.

I would imagine that traps near the lair of intelligent creatures would have different DCs for the trigger, the trap location and potentially the bypass mechanism - the low level party rogue might notice the trigger. The mid level heroic party notice the trigger and the rogue notices the trap location, and they decide what to do. The paragon party all spot the bypass mechanism straight away and can bypass the trap safely and quickly.

 

[One Horse town]

Also, I want to note for folks.

In R&C, it says that there still are the 10ft pit trap and the poison needle on the treasure chest. Just that those are outside the norm.

Why on earth would the simplest traps to make/implement be outside the norm?

 

[Simon Marks]

The poison needle trap is not the simplest of traps. It's a total nightmare.

A pit trap isn't a 'trap' in the same way that 4e uses the term. It's really an environmental hazard. Like a landslide or a fire.

Snares like a pit or a net aren't interesting in and of themselves. Only in context. A pit trap without context is like falling out of a tree on your way to the dungeon.
A pit trap in an dungeon that isn't part of an encounter is like a locked door.
A pit trap just before an ambush is part of that encounter.

Traps are an encounter by themselves. A pit trap isn't. Ergo, a pit trap isn't really a trap.

 

[Plane Sailing]

However, one hopes that there will be rules to allow the simple setting of traps (pits, snares, mantraps) by the PCs in their wilderness adventures (a la Rambo or Predator).

 

[One Horse town]

The poison needle trap is not the simplest of traps. It's a total nightmare.

A pit trap isn't a 'trap' in the same way that 4e uses the term. It's really an environmental hazard. Like a landslide or a fire.

Snares like a pit or a net aren't interesting in and of themselves. Only in context. A pit trap without context is like falling out of a tree on your way to the dungeon.
A pit trap in an dungeon that isn't part of an encounter is like a locked door.
A pit trap just before an ambush is part of that encounter.

Traps are an encounter by themselves. A pit trap isn't. Ergo, a pit trap isn't really a trap.

I would say that the poison needle trap is a bit more simple than the spears through the flagstone trap mentioned above wouldn't you?

Terminology and design decisions aside, are you really suggesting that folk wouldn't use the simplest and cheapest forms of traps to stop interlopers *if they could*? If so, it boils down to just another iteration of the "why is there a dragon in a 10 foot room in this dungeon?" question that has got peoples panties in a twist before. Why engineer hideously complicated traps when a simple/cheap one would have a detrimental effect on attackers to your inner sanctum? It might not be as cool as flying globes of acid flung by mechanical arms activated by changes in air pressure, but needs must.

Put it this way. I'm still having pit traps utilised by the badies as a cheap and easy way of slowing down and hurting interlopers. The Lich king might have the time and resources to create cunning engineering projects, but most folk won't. Which was the thrust of my original post.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

So, there's no point whatsoever to traps, right?

No, not right.

The DM simply decides whether the party spots the trap or not, by setting the DC for perception either above the party's max or not above it.

But he can't set it above their max, because that would just make him a jerk who deals arbritrary damage to the party.

And he can't set it not above their max, because then they would automatically avoid it and it would serve no purpose.

The article hints that the static perception score is for passiv use of the skill(s). This would be the mode for a trap within a dungeon corridor with no advance signs or hints for the PCs that the area may be trapped.

In this case you're right, the DM arbitrarily decides wether the party triggers the trap or not. But then again triggering the trap initiates an encounter with this trap, not a saving throw to avoid death or some amount of damage to the PCs.

For the next few rounds each character can try to work on a solution for the trap.

This setup only has the name in common with the old traps.

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

How did you handle trap detection in the old (3e) system? Had the players to roll a Search for each single square they wanted to cross? And did they fall for the trap when they didn't search? IMHO the 3e system was logical on paper, but in play it didn't work out. Only in situations where the party's rogue suspects a trap the Search roll was sort of meaningful.

---
Huldvoll

Baron von Bomberg

 

[infax]

I was replying to Morrus in the announcement thread, but I think it applies to this discussion as well:

Originally Posted by Morrus
I'm unconvinced by it. Basically, the DM knows before the party enters the dungeon whether they'll see the traps; in fact he just decides whether they will by setting the DC above or below the Perception score.

I imagine the Perception score will cease to matter in that respect - basically, it's up to the DM whether he wants you to see it or not.

What if there are a series of Powers that allow characters to change their chances of noticing traps. If it is an expendable (and renewable) resource, it could be interesting. Something like a per day (or perhaps "per encounter", depending on how that works out of combat) power that allows you to significantly add to your Perception and roll instead of taking 10. Then Rogues would use that at those "this is perfect for a trap" spots, on suspicious doors or on the treasure chest just before trying to open it, but not every 10 feet of the dungeon corridors.

I like their new approach to traps but I agree a static DC versus a static Perception score may be a little too bland and predictable.

Originally Posted by Voss

Because I highly doubt that noticing the trap is the same as being immune to it.

Its effective immunity, unless something is hiding behind you to push you in.

You may have to find some way to disable or bypass it, but if you can't your options are soak the damage or walk away. Unless you really, really have to go through a specific route, you take no damage from any trap found with a perception roll.

I would think that's where the puzzle component would come in. If it is a simple pit trap and you detect it, you have several options. The rogue could try to disable it (jamming the floor dropping mechanism). The Acrobatics guy could try to jump over it and help the others across with a rope or something. Maybe the mage could levitate and get across. Or the group could spend a little time and try to figure a way through (maybe they could take down a door from a previous room and use it as a crude bridge across the trap). And for a well designed adventure, the trapped passage would only be the best way to get to the other side, but there would be others, longer, or better protected (with monsters) paths to get to the same destination.

So, no, I don't think that after detecting a trap the group is reduced to either deciding to find another way or soak the damage.

 

[BryonD]

Traps are an encounter by themselves. A pit trap isn't. Ergo, a pit trap isn't really a trap.

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.


Edit: Ha Ha!! He said "role".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I would say that the poison needle trap is a bit more simple than the spears through the flagstone trap mentioned above wouldn't you?

Terminology and design decisions aside, are you really suggesting that folk wouldn't use the simplest and cheapest forms of traps to stop interlopers *if they could*? If so, it boils down to just another iteration of the "why is there a dragon in a 10 foot room in this dungeon?" question that has got peoples panties in a twist before. Why engineer hideously complicated traps when a simple/cheap one would have a detrimental effect on attackers to your inner sanctum? It might not be as cool as flying globes of acid flung by mechanical arms activated by changes in air pressure, but needs must.

Put it this way. I'm still having pit traps utilised by the badies as a cheap and easy way of slowing down and hurting interlopers. The Lich king might have the time and resources to create cunning engineering projects, but most folk won't. Which was the thrust of my original post.

I think most folks would refrain from using deadly traps in the first place - at least not on doors or chests or common passageways. Traps that spring an alarm are fine - if you accidently spring it, you can probably explain to the guard that it's okay for you to be where you are. But you can't tell that to the poison needle or the spikes at the bottom of your pit trap.

Deadly traps would be used in places where you can't or don't want to build a wall. You don't really expect people to trigger them, you expect them to try avoiding them to lure them in an ambush or force them to attack a stronger fortified position.