Poison needle traps

[Inglorin]

How, mechanically, would you achieve that? The lock allows the insertion of a key within. If your picks follow the same path, and trigger the same drums, there is no reason that the trap would trigger because the lock is not mechanically triggered any differently than with the key.

With the lock pick you put force on the drums rather randomly until there is some kind of resistance while turning the cylinder slightly. You only have to have one drum that's not really needed for the lock to unlock but only used to trigger the trap. While inserting the right key all drums are pressed according to the key. Let the trigger react to any pressing deeper than max key and you are done.

 

[iserith]

As interesting as it is to read about how lockpicking actually works, I would say that it's almost entirely irrelevant in actual play. All the DM need know is that there is a trap, how it triggers, what its effects are, and what countermeasures the PCs can reliably take to avoid or disable it. The intricacies of how tumblers work and such are unnecessary in my view and are likely to be lost on most players.

The trap sequence in a play sense is typically Search (Perception), Figure Out (Investigation), and Disable (Thieves' Tools), when the outcome of related tasks is uncertain and carries a meaningful consequence of failure. Those are usually ability checks rather than passive checks in my experience at least when it comes to trapped objects like a chest as opposed to traps that are part of the structure (e.g. pit traps, deadfalls, etc.). The latter sort are often detected with passive Perception (assuming it is high enough) when the PC in the front rank of the marching order is Keeping Watch.

And, of course, I hope the DM is telegraphing these threats! Otherwise it's a gotcha and not everyone is so keen on those sorts of "challenges."

 

[Inglorin]

How, mechanically, would you achieve that? The lock allows the insertion of a key within. If your picks follow the same path, and trigger the same drums, there is no reason that the trap would trigger because the lock is not mechanically triggered any differently than with the key.

With the lock pick you put force on the drums rather randomly until there is some kind of resistance while turning the cylinder slightly. You only have to have one drum that's not really needed for the lock to unlock but only used to trigger the trap. While inserting the right key all drums are pressed according to the key. Let the trigger react to any pressing deeper than max key and you are done.

 

[Skyscraper]

That's not how lockpicking works. When you pick a lock, you try to push all of the drums in the lock until it opens, without being able to see the drums. You are basically relying on feeling, not on sight. If a lock was specifically designed in a way that there are drums that actually trigger an internal mechanism instead, then lockpicks would totally trigger it by accident (and such locks exist by the way!). Because how would a Rogue know what drums to push?

This is a fair point.

 

[Imaculata]

-snip- Then I adjudicate the results of the player's actions. And they don't get to just say "I attempt to disarm the trap;" they have to tell me something like "I'll press the button and apply a drop of Sovereign Glue to hold it in place," or "I'll yank the needle out with my tiny pliers."

Exactly. This is why I think it might be useful for traps in adventure modules to have an actual explanation how the trap works. And here is where I'm going to disagree with one of the things Iserith said:

"As interesting as it is to read about how lockpicking actually works, I would say that it's almost entirely irrelevant in actual play. All the DM need know is that there is a trap, how it triggers, what its effects are, and what countermeasures the PCs can reliably take to avoid or disable it. The intricacies of how tumblers work and such are unnecessary in my view and are likely to be lost on most players."

I don't think it is irrelevant at all. I think that having a basic understanding of how locks work, or how a trap works, can result in better play. I feel this is what the investigation check is for: To determine that there is a trap, but also how it works. The DM provides the information about the lock and the trap. I also think many adventure modules fail to properly explain how a trap works exactly, and I think it is important that the DM is able to relay this information to the players. Because as Satyrn said:

A trap, to me, should be handled rather like a puzzle. I make them rather easy to notice, to the point where I'm often telling the players it's there without any sort of Perception check, because I'd rather focus the game on how they get around it, aiming for scenes like the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark, or the bits in the Last Crusade just before Indy reaches the Grail.

I think it should indeed be like a puzzle, and less about the gotcha. Some books for older editions, such as The Book of Challenges, provided very detailed illustrations and descriptions of how the trap works. And I think this is essential for creating a clever puzzle-trap for your players.

 

[Wyvern]

As interesting as it is to read about how lockpicking actually works, I would say that it's almost entirely irrelevant in actual play.

I think it's relevant insofar as it could allow the GM to justify to a player why the trap was sprung even though they succeeded at their lockpicking check.

OTOH, I'm ambivalent about Satyrn's suggestion that players should be expected to describe how they disarm a trap. It's all well and good if the GM wants to encourage them to do so for flavor reasons, possibly allowing them to forego a check if they come up with a convincing means of bypassing the trap -- but the player shouldn't be made to feel that *they* have to know how traps work in order to play a character who knows how traps work.

Wyvern

(P.S. This article has some examples that are relevant to what I'm talking about.)

 

[Imaculata]

-- but the player shouldn't be made to feel that *they* have to know how traps work in order to play a character who knows how traps work.

This is where I think the DM should provide the players with all the info they need to make an informed decision. Usually what I do, is assume that the PC has some inherent knowledge about traps (if they are playing a Rogue) that the player himself might not have. And so I consider it my job as a DM to tell the player what their character knows about traps and about locks. The player is not required to know these things, but the DM should know how the trap works.

For example, lets say there's a firespitting trap in the wall. I think the DM should know whether the trap is magical in nature, or uses some sort of flammable gas or oil. The DM should also know how the trap is triggered exactly, so that he can make a ruling on whether the player's attempts to disarm the trap are effective. Maybe when traps are mentioned in an adventure module, they should also describe how the trap could be disarmed, rather than just the DC?

 

[iserith]

I don't think it is irrelevant at all. I think that having a basic understanding of how locks work, or how a trap works, can result in better play. I feel this is what the investigation check is for: To determine that there is a trap, but also how it works. The DM provides the information about the lock and the trap. I also think many adventure modules fail to properly explain how a trap works exactly, and I think it is important that the DM is able to relay this information to the players.

I think it's relevant insofar as it could allow the GM to justify to a player why the trap was sprung even though they succeeded at their lockpicking check.

I would say the Intelligence (Investigation) check, to the extent one is necessary, is to reveal only that the trap goes off unless a particular key is used and to essentially "unlock" the ability to disable it with tools. That is the relevant, actionable information the players need. How tumblers work and the like is somewhat superfluous in my view. Prior to the Intelligence (Investigation) check, we might have had a Wisdom (Perception) check to detect the needle since the trap procedure is generally Detect > Figure Out > Disable.

 

[Ristamar]

This is where I think the DM should provide the players with all the info they need to make an informed decision. Usually what I do, is assume that the PC has some inherent knowledge about traps (if they are playing a Rogue) that the player himself might not have. And so I consider it my job as a DM to tell the player what their character knows about traps and about locks. The player is not required to know these things, but the DM should know how the trap works.

I believe a DM should also consider the time required to create and complete a trap encounter relative to the knowledge and game interests of his players. How much "fun" is the trap and is it worth the time and effort?

Taking a basic lock/poison needle trap and crafting it into a puzzle-like encounter assumes:

• The DM has a firm understanding of the inner workings of the lock.
• The DM can clearly explain the inner workings of the lock to his players.
• The DM has created a set of game mechanics based on the interaction of the lock and the trap.
• The trap's game mechanics give the players a set of meaningful decision points.
• The trap's game mechanics don't neuter the investment in associated PC skills (e.g. Thieves' Tools and Investigation)

That's a lot of work and consideration for a simple poison needle trap. Is it worth the effort?

If the trap is a critical component of your adventure or if your players love puzzle encounters, then the answer is likely "yes". For a vast majority of groups, however, I'd posit that the required investment in prep and in play isn't commensurate with potential player enjoyment. The standard Detect/Deduce/Disable die roll sequence will often suffice, and the use of Passive skills can further expedite interactions with simple traps while still providing flavor and logically informing the environment.

To be fair, the frustration people often ascribe to the effective use of simple traps is directly linked to the game's search mechanics which are not terribly interesting or engaging. Many DMs advocate providing clues or creating decision points outside the basic search checks. I find the added complexity to be a hindrance to the flow of the game since the decision points are often too obvious or—even worse—too obtuse and may grind the game to a halt.

I prefer to err on the side of speed and simplicity, looking for the opportunity for players to avoid or fall prey to a quick BANG moment that will keep them on their toes. If the potential BANG turns into a long drawn out discussion and subsequent dissection, I've probably made a mistake.

 

[Imaculata]

That's a lot of work and consideration for a simple poison needle trap. Is it worth the effort?

I don't agree that this much work is needed to make a poison needle trap interesting. A DM could for example simplify it to two simple options, such as "risk picking the lock" or "destroy the lock".

To be fair, the frustration people often ascribe to the effective use of simple traps is directly linked to the game's search mechanics which are not terribly interesting or engaging. Many DMs advocate providing clues or creating decision points outside the basic search checks. I find the added complexity to be a hindrance to the flow of the game since the decision points are often too obvious or—even worse—too obtuse and may grind the game to a halt.

Well that's my objection to your point, I don't agree that it needs to be complex.