Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Design & Development: Traps is up!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 3973383" data-attributes="member: 957"><p>Now you have changed the topic. Your prior post was all about damage or effect resolution.</p><p>I'll respond to your other statements, because they are worth discussing, but changing the topic doesn't help your prior comments.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Wrong. I think traps are more specific than terrain features.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Hard vs. easy is not the question. It is predetermined vs uncertain.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>With an attack roll the PC has a sporting chance without ever once requiring an "I search" statement. Its win-win.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>Plus I tend to think that pit traps should work the way pit traps actually work.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 3973383, member: 957"] 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. Wrong. I think traps are more specific than terrain features. Hard vs. easy is not the question. It is predetermined vs uncertain. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Design & Development: Traps is up!
Top