D&D 5E New DMG Excerpt: It's A Trap!

[Zoetrope]

There was a previous suggestion that traps could make a check to not be noticed, rather than just applying its passive DC against the Passive Perception of the party. So, the trap would roll d20 + whatever, and compare that to the Passive Perceptions to see who would notice it or not.

Ah, gotcha. Glad they dropped that, it doesn't make sense to me for a trap that is already in place! However, it does make sense for the creation of the trap in the first place, to set the appropriate DC level, of course.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Ah, gotcha. Glad they dropped that, it doesn't make sense to me for a trap that is already in place! However, it does make sense for the creation of the trap in the first place, to set the appropriate DC level, of course.

I am very unglad, because it f*cks up the whole trap system. Here's why. The DM knows the party's best passive perception before the game starts. When he applies static trap DC while prepping his material for the next session, he is already deciding, ahead of time, whether the party auto detects it or auto fails against this trap. This is Lametown. What it will lead to is players constantly declaring "I check for traps, active perception test" all the time, in order to avoid auto fails, or just as bad, it will lead to traps becoming non-existent because they are auto detected!

From a DM point of view, having static trap DCs and static passive perception = unglad. Still there is hope that elsewhere there will be a throwaway line about rolling for trap DCs, or some other variable mechanic. Otherwise I guess it's a pretty easy houserule, but really, Mearls (I think? not sure, one of the devs) even tweeted about the problem during the playtests. There should be a fix in there.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ah, gotcha. Glad they dropped that, it doesn't make sense to me for a trap that is already in place! However, it does make sense for the creation of the trap in the first place, to set the appropriate DC level, of course.

It's not the trap actively hiding, but a reflection of the uncertainty. It might gain a bonus on the check for being small and well-hidden, but the d20 represents all of the variables we don't know about - how the light hits it, from what angle, and specifically where everyone is standing in going to look for it.

It's kind of important, at the very least from a gameplay perspective, that you're not just comparing two static values in determining whether something very bad happens.

 

[Zoetrope]

I guess there's no ideal solution, so each DM can choose to modify the rules to suit their requirements as always.

When he applies static trap DC while prepping his material for the next session, he is already deciding, ahead of time, whether the party auto detects it or auto fails against this trap.

I've never preempted whether the players will trigger a trap or not, mainly because they either will or won't search for traps when that situation arises, may have/do something which boosts their chance of spotting it, etc.

What it will lead to is players constantly declaring "I check for traps, active perception test" all the time, in order to avoid auto fails, or just as bad, it will lead to traps becoming non-existent because they are auto detected!

Bit sad if it devolves down to this. "Ok, you spend an hour meticulously searching the corridor for traps, nothing. So far you've moved through two rooms and a corridor, it's taken you all morning." I'm sure it can be made clear to players that constant dice-rolling to check for traps would become pretty tedious!

Still there is hope that elsewhere there will be a throwaway line about rolling for trap DCs, or some other variable mechanic. Otherwise I guess it's a pretty easy houserule, but really, Mearls (I think? not sure, one of the devs) even tweeted about the problem during the playtests. There should be a fix in there.

As you say, just houserule to fix the problem as you see it.

 

[hardvice]

I think the idea is that, if you're relying on passive perception, you auto succeed or auto fail, but a character actively searching for the traps has a chance to roll better than a 10 and thus beat their passive result. So there's value to both using the skill passively (it sets a bottom threshold) and actively (a chance to see harder-to-spot traps). And of course there are spells and effects that can raise or lower your Wisdom and thus your perception.

Still, it kind of makes you wonder why a DM would bother putting in a trap he knows the party is for sure going to spot — but I guess disabling/avoiding it is still fun even if there's almost no chance of stumbling into it.

Also, IIRC, you can't make passive checks if you're moving too fast, so there's always the option of chasing the PCs into a trap.

 

[Zoetrope]

It might gain a bonus on the check for being small and well-hidden, but the d20 represents all of the variables we don't know about - how the light hits it, from what angle, and specifically where everyone is standing in going to look for it.

I get what you're saying, but I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that the DC value accounted all those points? After all, the trap is meant to be hidden so lighting, etc shouldn't make a difference (it's captured in the players passive perception).

And if they're looking for it, they're no longer using passive perception anyway....

 

[ExploderWizard]

I am very unglad, because it f*cks up the whole trap system. Here's why. The DM knows the party's best passive perception before the game starts. When he applies static trap DC while prepping his material for the next session, he is already deciding, ahead of time, whether the party auto detects it or auto fails against this trap. This is Lametown. What it will lead to is players constantly declaring "I check for traps, active perception test" all the time, in order to avoid auto fails, or just as bad, it will lead to traps becoming non-existent because they are auto detected!

From a DM point of view, having static trap DCs and static passive perception = unglad. Still there is hope that elsewhere there will be a throwaway line about rolling for trap DCs, or some other variable mechanic. Otherwise I guess it's a pretty easy houserule, but really, Mearls (I think? not sure, one of the devs) even tweeted about the problem during the playtests. There should be a fix in there.

I agree that static vs static comparisons kind of suck, so I would suggest not doing that.

I have found that not doing something that I find incredibly lame enhances my gaming experience quite a bit.

Here is a suggestion that might work without having to have players roll perception every step of the way.

When a PC is in a position that would trigger a trap, use a random roll to determine if it is detected before getting triggered. Take the passive perception of the PC and cut it in half (round down). Do the same for the trap DC. Roll a die and add the modified values to each roll. The bigger the die, the less impact the relative skill vs DC will have on the outcome. Use a d6 or d8. If the PC wins the he/she notices something at the last moment. If the trap wins then it gets triggered.

Random chance influenced by skill/DC FTW!!

 

[hardvice]

One thing I have to say I do like about the passive perception: it makes traps a whole lot less of The Rogue Show all the time. If your party's rogue has crap Perception, the keen-eyed Elven cleric with the high wisdom can helpfully point them out, even if he doesn't know anything about disabling them.

"Huh, that's funny. That stone in the floor is taller than the others. I wonder what that's all about?"

 

[Chocolategravy]

I am very unglad, because it f*cks up the whole trap system. Here's why. The DM knows the party's best passive perception before the game starts. When he applies static trap DC while prepping his material for the next session, he is already deciding, ahead of time, whether the party auto detects it or auto fails against this trap.

I don't know if it can even legitimately be called a trap if you can passively detect it. It's just terrain.

You can get sneaky with various pit traps that are detectable, not detectable and fake. Having monsters who know where they all are, including the obvious ones that are fake that they can retreat over can make things more interesting. And if you want to be mean have some only look fake and they trigger when the second person goes over it (a chasing party member), not the first (a monster).

Traps can be lots of fun. Hopefully we'll see some of that.

 

[cheops]

Awwww... I was so stoked that rolling for trap DCs had made it from the play test. Bummer. It's so simple and elegant. Really disappointed now. If it's not in the I'll just houserule that all traps make a d20 + (static DC - 10) against the passive perception of the characters anyway, but I would really have liked to see it in the RAW. Weird, but this is the first thing in 5e that's really disappointed me this far. Well, maybe it's still in there somewhere.