Poison needle traps

[ad_hoc]

At our table the thieves' tool check is to see whether the trap can be bypassed.

Other reasons for checks include: unlocking without making noise, unlocking to keep the lock and item intact, etc.

If there is no meaningful consequence for failure on a lock then no roll is made, the character just unlocks it with their tools.

 

[Ristamar]

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".

My mistake. Perhaps I made a false inference to your point earlier regarding the required knowledge of how the lock operates, assuming you were applying that knowledge in a manner significant to the methodology and relative game mechanics required to disarm it.

If the exact operation of the lock doesn't affect the mechanics, I agree with [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]. The workings of the tumblers are largely superfluous.

 

[ad_hoc]

There is no such thing as Passive Investigation. By definition, investigating something is an activity. Passive Perception might notice an external clue if such a clue exists, but otherwise, unless the player says "I am investigating the lock" assume they don't find the trap. A cracksman who tries to pick a lock without investigating it first deserves all they get.

Active and Passive in 5e doesn't refer to the character, just the mechanic.

Something is a Passive Check if there is no roll.

That is all it means. Every Ability Check can be Passive.

As to the latter part of the quote, I find it tedious to make players announce things over and over. It is safe to assume that they want to check for traps. If they pass their Dex (Thieves' Tools) check they disarm the trap, if not they trigger it.

 

[Satyrn]

My mistake. Perhaps I made a false inference to your point earlier regarding the required knowledge of how the lock operates, assuming you would were applying that knowledge in a manner significant to the methodology and relative game mechanics required to disarm it.

If the exact operation of the lock doesn't affect the mechanics, I agree with [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]. The workings of the tumblers are largely superfluous.

For me, the exact operation is totally unnecessary, but I'd like a bit more general info about this specific lock and trap than the description gives. Primarily: what is it about the proper key that makes it the proper key?

If I had that info, I'd be able to answer the OP's original question unequivocally (does successfully picking the lock trigger the trap?) and the players, if they learned this, would have the key info they needed to decide on an approach.

 

[iserith]

As an aside, I'm getting ready to run Sunless Citadel while another DM is on summer hiatus. I'm using it as an opportunity to test out a few ideas including a more structured Exploration Phase. Taking a page from the Olden Days, Exploration will take place more or less in rounds of 10 minutes long at the end of which is a wandering monster check. This automatically puts stakes on the line for tasks which deals with the issue of "meaningful consequence of failure." If you fail, that means you may have to stake another round of wandering monster checks. It's just a matter of determining uncertainty as to the outcome at that point.

The basic procedure is everyone declares an action, the resolution of which takes 10 minutes and, once resolved, there's a wandering monster check (18+ on d20). Checking for traps, figuring out a trap, and disabling a trap would therefore each take 10 minutes (since you can't do a given task without the preceding ones being successful) for a total of 30 minutes of interaction - three wandering monster checks. Because you can't both do that and Keep Watch, you're at risk of being surprised if a wandering monster (who is trying to be stealth) shows up. Allies can choose to Work Together to either (1) grant advantage as normal if possible or (2) grant an ally another task in that round. So you could in theory Work Together to resolve the trap faster and thus have fewer wandering monster checks as a result but, again, that comes with the risk of surprise and at the cost of not performing any other useful tasks.

So for a trap like the one being discussed in this thread, I think there's good potential for the players to make a lot of meaningful decisions as they deal with it and for a certain level of risk to keep things a bit tense. It also helps the DM with managing time, if that's important to the adventure.

 

[Satyrn]

So for a trap like the one being discussed in this thread, I think there's good potential for the players to make a lot of meaningful decisions as they deal with it and for a certain level of risk to keep things a bit tense. It also helps the DM with managing time, if that's important to the adventure.

Measuring time was the primary factor in creating a sort of Exploration Turn in that arena-esque Megadungeon I've mentioned recently. The "arena" is a cylindrical cavern with several buildings built into the wall and a castle in the middle of the floor. I'm counting "passing through a building" or "exploring a room" as a turn.

"Passing through a building" means exploring through with nothing of consequence happening, except a couple combats or similarly brief encounter. (Actually running through a building just takes a minute and gets wrapped into the previous turn or the next)

"exploring a room" means spending a substantial enough time in a single room: dealing with a trap, solving a riddle, whatever. What your rule would require 30 minutes for, mine requires only 10.

Although it remains more abstract than what you propose, it flows well. It gives them a chance to decide a room is worth checking out and do something before that random encounter is rolled for, yet knowing there will be a check if they do something.

I kinda think your proposal would work better with 5 minute turns (and 10 minute encounter checks), is what I'm getting at.

The first round would be for checking out the room for anything worth checking out (locating a hidden door, etc), and then with the second round they'd get to decide whether to play careful (check the door for traps, but spend more time) or barrel through the door, risking a trap in exchange for moving on before the random encounter check.

 

[iserith]

Measuring time was the primary factor in creating a sort of Exploration Turn in that arena-esque Megadungeon I've mentioned recently. The "arena" is a cylindrical cavern with several buildings built into the wall and a castle in the middle of the floor. I'm counting "passing through a building" or "exploring a room" as a turn.

"Passing through a building" means exploring through with nothing of consequence happening, except a couple combats or similarly brief encounter. (Actually running through a building just takes a minute and gets wrapped into the previous turn or the next)

"exploring a room" means spending a substantial enough time in a single room: dealing with a trap, solving a riddle, whatever. What your rule would require 30 minutes for, mine requires only 10.

Although it remains more abstract than what you propose, it flows well. It gives them a chance to decide a room is worth checking out and do something before that random encounter is rolled for, yet knowing there will be a check if they do something.

I kinda think your proposal would work better with 5 minute turns (and 10 minute encounter checks), is what I'm getting at.

The first round would be for checking out the room for anything worth checking out (locating a hidden door, etc), and then with the second round they'd get to decide whether to play careful (check the door for traps, but spend more time) or barrel through the door, risking a trap in exchange for moving on before the random encounter check.

I'll think about the 5-minute round. I like 10 minutes and how it aligns with the wandering monster check frequency - it's a bit less fiddly. And I need that since I drink when I DM. I'll try both when I run Sunless Citadel and report back.

How I have it now, you're either "Traveling" (moving around the dungeon doing Activities While Traveling resolved by passive checks) or "Exploring" (as I already mentioned). It's kind of like dropping into and out of specific modes during play.

I'll do a separate thread on this at some point if I get some interesting results in actual play.

 

[Satyrn]

How I have it now, you're either "Traveling" (moving around the dungeon doing Activities While Traveling resolved by passive checks) or "Exploring" (as I already mentioned). It's kind of like dropping into and out of specific modes during play.

I have no idea how I didn't think to call passing through "Traveling."

And yeah, the fiddliness of a 5 minute turn is why I just went with saying "exploring a room takes a turn" and left thee specific number of actions the players can take abstractly being enough to search the room and deal with a bit of stuff.

Time's not exact measure in this dungeon, anyway. In the arena, time is marked in "half day" intervals measured by a tidal river that ebbs and flows in a 12 hour cycle . . . give or take an hour (in 10 minute increments) because the tide is caused by the breathing of a Great Old One asleep at the bottom of a lake).

 

[iserith]

I have no idea how I didn't think to call passing through "Traveling."

That's just me being somewhat pedantic in using the same terminology in the rules so that my rulings have the slight whiff of being official.

And yeah, the fiddliness of a 5 minute turn is why I just went with saying "exploring a room takes a turn" and left thee specific number of actions the players can take abstractly being enough to search the room and deal with a bit of stuff.

Time's not exact measure in this dungeon, anyway. In the arena, time is marked in "half day" intervals measured by a tidal river that ebbs and flows in a 12 hour cycle . . . give or take an hour (in 10 minute increments) because the tide is caused by the breathing of a Great Old One asleep at the bottom of a lake).

I'll PM you the draft of my Exploration Phase handout so you can see my full thinking on it.

 

[Satyrn]

That's just me being somewhat pedantic in using the same terminology in the rules so that my rulings have the slight whiff of being official.

Ah-ha! that's why!

I really ought to read the DMG one of these days.