Finding Traps Stinks - Or Am I Doing It Wrong?

This has confounded me since 4e came out.

If you use the idea that the trigger is in a square, and the player detects it with passive perception, but doesn't know what it does, every player will avoid that square. Now, it could be a set of squares, but in 4e, it's not so hard to get to other squares with the new diagonal movement method of walking, teleport powers, and jumping and climbing being rather easy. They simply bypass the square. Fun? I think not.

I do like the idea that when they enter a room their passive perception tells them something is amiss, and they have a chance to learn more by making a perception check, outlined by bganon above. But I came up with a method awhile back that adds a bit to that scenario. Lurker traps.

When I thought about it more, the thing that got to me about wotc's rules for traps is the placement of those traps in a specific square, or set of squares. Since those were generally outlined in sparse amounts I was like, well, I'm just going to make the triggering area "four strategically placed squares" to "10 strategically placed squares" and go digging for monsters that can use forced movement. But then I thought to myself: why do i have to plan on where the trigger square is? That meant it was a hassle for me to remember and keep track of of those squares (should the players not detect them). What if even *I* didn't know where the square was? However, I knew the *vicinity* of where the trap might go. That was easier.

The idea goes like this: choose an area on your battle map that makes sense where a trap might be located. Pick a square or squares in the middle of that area and call it the "vicinity square." Now, depending on how mean you want the trap to be, determine how big of a vicinity the trap will be laid. In most cases I would choose a burst 1, burst 2, or something like a line (get to that in a second). Now, the player walks in the room, and the passive perception says to them "there's a trap—or traps—laid somewhere in that area" and you mark an X in the vicinity square. The players might avoid it, sure, but they don't know how far out they should avoid, so it takes on a ticking bomb sort of feeling. Now, let's say it's a standard trap vicinity of burst 2. When a player (or i guess monster too, but more on that too in a second) enters a square within a burst 2 of the vicinity square, call for a perception check. Effectively, the player is trying to move through the trapped zone without stepping on the freaking trap. But the trap probably isn't like one wolf trap, it's probably several well hidden wolf traps with multiple lures and deceptions, so the player needs to watch where they're going. If they fail your DC, they trigger the trap, if they succeed the Perception check, then they can move through the entire trapped zone until the end of their turn. If they start their turn in a trapped zone, they have to make the check again (oops, that back step i took when i turned around, and clamp, there goes my foot).

The point here is to reward the players with the higher perception without giving away where the one or two squares on the board are that they should avoid. I don't know about you guys but my players can easily avoid 1-4 squares if they find out it they are trapped. But avoiding 3 burst 2 areas is harder, and they don't know if they are burst 2 or burst 4, so they're still walking on eggshells.

Few more details. Disabling the traps is easy: use a move action to make a thievery (or appropriate check) to disable 1 square in the vicinity, 4 vicinity squares disabled and the whole trap is disabled. Do they know where the vicinity squares are? No. That's the point. If they want to try disabling a square that isn't in the trapped zone, let them. If they succeed or fail in a square that is within the zone or not, they know if the square is within the trapped zone. The move action is worth at least that much. With deduction or bravery, the players will eventually learn what the trapped zone is. Failure to make the DC in the trapped zone does NOT set off the trap. Success on the DC may or may not (depending on the type of trap).

I don't like to have my monsters make the same perception checks as the pcs. Of course it all depends, but if they set the traps, then they know where not to walk. I typically make them immune, give them a circ bonus, or make them just as vulnerable to the traps as the players (if they are beasts, or mindless or something). Traps are supposed to be a challenge and stack the threat against the pcs, not become just as much a threat to the monsters as they are to the pcs. I've ruled before that, although moving into a square means they don't have to make the check, being forced into the zone means they do. Again up to the dm.

Also, the trapped zone need not be just a burst 1 or 2 or 3 or whatever, why not make it a line? or a zag? Make two vicinity squares in squares adjacent to two opposite walls and make the trapped zone all squares between them. Or put the vicinity squares in all the corners of the room and make the trapped zone any square adjacent to the walls. Heck, put down a vicinity square that is a fake trap to make them think they should be walking on eggshells. Tons of options, and you don't have to know exactly where the trapped squares are.

I have a ton more ideas about how this is a good tool to go by, but I think I've said enough. Let me know what you guys think.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Like the 3e method of finding secret doors - rub the elf on the walls.

You crazy kids and your euphemisms...

:D
It's their amazingly high [-]Comeliness[/-] Charisma that enables them to find traps!
givekiss.gif
 

In my experience traps have been too easily uncovered in 4E making them nearly meaningless. However, that is almost entirely the result of party compositions. I've never had a group that didn't have a perception mastery characters in the mix...be it a druid, shaman or something else. Their passive perception spots everything.

I'd personally rather treat it as an active perception rolled in secret by the DM. Which, for what its worth will be my personal houserule in a future campaign.
 

I think the 4e paradigm for traps has shifted away from being stuff that a rogue finds and disarms and then the party goes on its merry way to traps being an integral part of the terrain during an encounter. Used as such, traps are suppose to not be too difficult to spot. The challenge comes not from avoiding being surprised by the trap, but from avoiding it and/or using it to your advantage during the encounter.

This!

There are mainly 2 differences regarding traps, when comparing pre-4e D&Ds and 4e.

1) Regarding traps, what is the challenge?

Pre-4e, FINDING a trap was the challenge. Rogues were trap detectors. If they could find a trap, usually, a party could deal with it. Or could not, at all. Often, trying to disable a trap was the worst idea. Most of the traps could be just easily avoided (by not walking on it, or by choosing another corridor). Or, too complex to disarm and Disintegrate spell was the right solution (or dispelling, in case of magic traps). In 3.5e, dwarf (or someone with stone cunning) of a class with trapfinding class feature was a must have for a hard core adventuring party. Or your party rogues should search all the 5x5 foot squares spending a round each. That was, IMHO.... very boring and tasteless.

Now, in 4e, finding trap itself may not be that difficult. But the challenge starts AFTER finding a trap. A rogue or other characters tend to commit several skill checks in the right place, and often in the middle of the combat. That is the challenge. Often a skill challenge.

2) Is a single trap makes a challenge (encounter)?

In pre-4e, a lone trap could be a challenge or encounter itself. That was a rogue's (or thief's) show time. Though, tend to be manneristic and boring. And basically, only a rogue/thief and maybe a mage who tries to blast or dispel the trap, have attended that "against a trap" encounter. Other members were just taking safe distance, doing nothing.

In 4e, basically, a lone trap does not make an encounter. A trap is meant to be a PART OF an encounter which of course involves all the party members. It adds some additional fun to a simple hack'nSlash combat.
 

The way I run it, I use passive if the player is not actively looking for traps and moving. In this form, the player can only detect a trap if he or she is adjacent to it and about to move through the trap. Kind of like an extra saving throw for those with high enough perception.

Rogue: "I move 6 squares this way."
DM: Checks passive perception vs trap DC... "Stop on square 4. Right before you step into square 5, you notice something peculiar about it. You may stop to investigate, change course for the rest of your move, or continue onward."

I'll switch things up, occasionally doing this for non trap squares (such as special terrain, or just something of note in a square that isn't obvious or drawn on the map) so they the players don't instantly think "IT'S A TRAP!" every single time and change direction. They might very well want to stop and investigate.

If the players are actively using perception, it costs a standard to check an adjacent square, but they will be certain of what they find.
 


It's not exactly about the DM choosing to set the DC low enough or high enough for the PCs to notice. There are DCs by level guidelines for a reason.

For me, if the PCs are going to be interacting with a trap, I know how perceptive the most perceptive character is, and I know how well hidden I want it to be compared to their level (easy, medium, or hard).

The thief in my current group is 9th level, and only has a passive perception of 12. Therefore I know that the only traps he's going to be able to notice, amidst the ones that he's going to run into adventuring in places a 9th level character is going to be, are the ones that are sloppily hidden (12/17/25).

Beyond that, the thief noticing a trip line, trigger, or spring loaded death blade in the squares next to him doesn't know anything about what other trip lines or triggers or death blades there might be elsewhere in the room.

In general, I have the passive check tell me whether or not the character is going to get a chance to roll. If the player's action puts them into a position next to (or traveling through) a trapped square, I have them roll and have them stop short if they make the roll.
 

This issue occurred to me recently. I though it would be best to note all the passive perceptions and have variable DC for the Trap.

So a trap might have a +6 to hide and I roll as the PCs wander toward their doom. So for premade traps just take ten from the perception DC for the hide modifier.

That's my solution anyway.
 

I believe that there are two methods of finding traps in 4E:

1. A passive Perception check; or
2. A perception roll.

This doesn't seem like much fun to me.

Either the DM sets the DC low enough that the PC can always find the trap, or sets it high enough that the PC has at best a 50% chance to find it--because passive Perception equals rolling a "10" on a Perception check.

Is that right?

Not exactly. Let me quote the DMG:

DMGp85 said:
A PC whose passive Perception is equal to or higher than the DCs notices the trap or the relevant aspect of the trap. Other skills might also play a role in allowing PCs to notice traps or identify hazards, such as Dungeoneering and Nature.

PCs most often decide to roll an active Perception check when some aspect of the trap becomes apparent.

So, as others in this thread have pointed out, keep in mind that:
  • just because passive perception notices something amiss, it doesn't necessarily reveal the entire trap.
  • active Perception checks can always role low.
  • And just finding a well-placed and designed trap does not mean the entire encounter is ruined, it means the trap has become a hazard to be dealt with
.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top