Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 3596107" data-attributes="member: 38357">I've had a chance to get a glance at encounter traps. Just a glance, really; I'd certainly want to see them in action before I passed any kind of final judgment. However, I'm not entirely sure what to think about the idea of turning traps into, basically, combat encounters. Traditionally I've seen trap-based encounters as a break from combat, so that the dungeon doesn't turn into just a long series of fights. And I can't really say that I see all that much cooperation among the PCs in combat ~ they're each only really "there" for their own turns. I'm also not sure I like the idea that the PCs first notice the encounter trap when it goes off. It seems like this kind of forces the PCs hand.I think the concept of a "zinger" is pretty much what I would call an "invisible trap". I can totally understand not enjoying randomly-placed damage that can only be countered by more-or-less blind luck (or really stubborn die-rolling). Why bother placing a trap if the PCs aren't going to find it and have to decide how to deal with it? It seems like bad DMing to me.I really haven't seen Rogues run off and split the party much. In fact I see very little splitting of the party at all, players seem very gun-shy of the concept. "Scouting ahead" tends to mean no more than 60', so that the rest of the party can reach the Rogue within 1 round if something goes wrong. If the Rogue was actually going to try and have his own little adventure up there then I'm pretty sure the rest of the party would move up and join him. I certainly can't see any PCs just sitting back and letting that go on.I agree that skills could be apportioned much better in D&D. Really it could be better if niche protection could be handled by the players instead of the rules. Of course, there are some pretty big pitfalls to that method...Well, my examples where a bit weak, I guess... For one thing, there's more than one way to avoid a trap. Often the first question comes up when the PCs find something suspicious is "Is it even worth checking for traps, or can we just avoid the whole thing?" Usually the answer is "check it", because I usually put some reason to do so in there. I want the Rogue's player to get his chance to roll the dice.Now, I think what you're getting at (and apologies if I've misinterpreted you) is that you shouldn't have to have a Rogue in every party. I can agree with that. However, in the last three campaigns I've run I had a player who immediately wanted to play a Rogue in each one. So, I'm making the assumption that there is a Rogue in the party. If there isn't, then traps should be very few, and they have to be handled at least a bit differently. Also, I'm kind of assuming that the Rogue's player wants chances to use the Treapfinding ability (since it's on his character sheet). I haven't really ever asked about that, it's something for me to think on for the future, I guess...Now, let's go back to my example of the tome. If you have a PC in the party who reads / writes (let's say for example: ) Draconic, and who has some ranks in (again, example: ) Knowledge: Arcana, and you find a dusty old tome that's written in Draconic and has to do with Knowledge: Arcana, you let him check it out, right? Even if that means he gets to roll the dice while some other character doesn't. I think that kind of thing is great, because it gives the player the chance to feel like he's getting some value out of those skill points. Even better if the information he gets out of the book is of use in that adventure. Now, if you don't have a character who speaks Draconic and/or has ranks in K: A, then I as DM wouldn't have placed that book there. So you don't need a character with those skills, but if you've got one, I think he should get the chance to use them. That's what I was trying to get at.</blockquote>

Verification