Stupid traps

[Saeviomagy]

Does anyone else have a problem with traps which have a to-hit roll?

Surely, if a trap is going off without some form of aiming intelligence behind it, the trap should be a reflex save? Especially if we're talking about something like a massive stone block - how does platemail protect you from a 10-ton stone block when leaping out of the way can't?

Why the hell is a spear trap (S&S, +10 to hit) massively more accurate than a peasant throwing a spear at me (+0 to hit)? Why don't I just give my peasants spear traps on wheels with triggers(possible under S&S trap rules)?

Why does a rogue get a bonus to saves against traps, and no bonus to AC against traps?

Does anyone else think that the original intent of the rogue was that he should be able to spot a trap, disable said trap, or get out of the way if the trap went off? And, because of that, shouldn't every trap allow a reflex save?

I don't run a rogue, but for the first time in a campaign, we're encountering some quite dangerous traps, and the rogue seems to be the worst equipped to deal with them (he's nearly been killed twice) due to his relatively low AC and hitpoints - almost all of them have been the attack roll variety, and thusly almost all of them hit him, and cause lots of damage, while the warriors tend to get missed, or are able to cope with the damage. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think the main reason that spear traps etc. get an attack roll is to give them the chance of a critical hit, making their damage much nastier. In addition, if you are wearing full plate armour you might expect to be less damaged by a hail of arrows than if you were wearing leather.

Having said that, I think the rest of your reasoning is pretty good, and I might be inclined to make all traps Ref saving throws - possibly with a critical hit scored by spear traps if you roll a 1 for your save, 'cos I'm nasty.

Cheers

 

[hong]

Why the hell is a spear trap (S&S, +10 to hit) massively more accurate than a peasant throwing a spear at me (+0 to hit)? Why don't I just give my peasants spear traps on wheels with triggers(possible under S&S trap rules)?

Presumably because the trap is constructed so that when you trigger it, you're walking in just the right spot for the spear to skewer you. The peasant, on the other hand, has to actively aim his attack.

Why does a rogue get a bonus to saves against traps, and no bonus to AC against traps?

A rogue _does_ get a (dodge) bonus to AC vs traps.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Dang... how'd I miss that? Still, a grand total of +4 AC is pretty pitiful when you're looking at arrow traps with a +20 to hit (just looked in the PHB, and they're there too).

Ok, the point still stands to some extent - why should the guy wearing chainmail be able to withstand the giant crushing cube of stone? How is getting out of the way of it any different from avoiding falling into a pit trap?

As for the +10 on a spear trap. How can the trap be that perfectly aimed? Are you telling me that it's simply not possible for the target to be somewhere other than where the trap hits? Bearing in mind that the trap still gets it's massive bonus to hit if the rogue fumbles his disarm trap roll. If the accuracy of the trap is wholly and utterly dependant upon the actions of the person it targets, why shouldn't it be a reflex save (apart from the fact that armour should apply)?

It just seems to me that most traps had their values and the method of avoiding them randomly and arbitrarily decided.

The only real problem with assigning a reflex save to avoid every trap (DC = original to-hit+10) is that certain traps (arrow, dart and spear traps specifically) should take armour into account. Perhaps if they were resolved as a reflex save with a bonus equal to the sum of your armour bonuses?

 

[Magius del Cotto]

I think that the bonus to attack is to account for the trap designer's/builder's ability to take into account what the people who would set off the trap would do, as well as how the trap would hold up over time (older traps should have a lower bonus, since time has worked it's ravages on them).
Now, Rogues should probably get a scaling bonus to AC to account for the increased to-hit that traps get, but that's a different point. Obviously, it's possible for the person to be somewhere other than where they're supposed to be, which you could rule-0 (if you know the traps well enough) to not hit you because of where you are. However, more likely, the trap maker would know what would happen, and set up the trap to take care of anyone that would try (and fail) and disarm it, and, since the trap's affected by armor, why not just have it be a AC check?
Just my 2.3454321 cents worth.

 

[dcollins]

Why don't I just give my peasants spear traps on wheels with triggers(possible under S&S trap rules)?

I suppose there's also the "thousands of times more expensive" angle. According to the core rules:

Shortspear -- 2 gp. (PH p. 98)
Spear Trap -- 2,000 gp. (DMG p. 115, CR 2 x 1,000 gp).

For about the same price as a one-shot spear trap, you could outfit 2 soldiers with heavy warhorses, half-plate, shields, and lances. Or a column of a thousand-or-so peasants with spears.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Or pay someone 500gp to smear poison on a doorknob.

Look up the price of the "poison on a doorknob" trap (S&S). Now look up the price of the poison. Guess the price of a doorknob.

Ok, so you're not going to outfit an army with automated spear chuckers. Still, do you agree that such a massive bonus to hit doesn't really make much sense? In that either you ARE where the trap will hit, or you are not. In other situations, the difference would be a reflex save, but in the case of some traps, it's an attack roll? And the giant crushing cube of stone still doesn't make sense.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Or pay someone 500gp to smear poison on a doorknob.

Look up the price of the "poison on a doorknob" trap (S&S). Now look up the price of the poison. Guess the price of a doorknob.

Ok, so you're not going to outfit an army with automated spear chuckers. Still, do you agree that such a massive bonus to hit doesn't really make much sense? In that either you ARE where the trap will hit, or you are not. In other situations, the difference would be a reflex save, but in the case of some traps, it's an attack roll? And the giant crushing cube of stone still doesn't make sense.

 

[hong]

Dang... how'd I miss that? Still, a grand total of +4 AC is pretty pitiful when you're looking at arrow traps with a +20 to hit (just looked in the PHB, and they're there too).

Every little bit adds up.

Ok, the point still stands to some extent - why should the guy wearing chainmail be able to withstand the giant crushing cube of stone?

For the same reason that the chainmail protects you from a giant hurling boulders. It's an artifact of the AC system. If giants hurling boulders don't cause you any problems, traps shouldn't either.

How is getting out of the way of it any different from avoiding falling into a pit trap?

Because there's an element of chance in whether the trap works perfectly or is aimed correctly, whereas with the pit trap, the element of chance is on the other side.

As for the +10 on a spear trap. How can the trap be that perfectly aimed?

It isn't; that's why it still needs to make the attack roll. If it was perfectly aimed, it would be either an auto-crit or a coup de grace attempt.

Are you telling me that it's simply not possible for the target to be somewhere other than where the trap hits?

Yes, that's what happens when the attack roll misses.

Bearing in mind that the trap still gets it's massive bonus to hit if the rogue fumbles his disarm trap roll. If the accuracy of the trap is wholly and utterly dependant upon the actions of the person it targets, why shouldn't it be a reflex save (apart from the fact that armour should apply)?

You are thinking too hard about the game. Stop thinking.

It just seems to me that most traps had their values and the method of avoiding them randomly and arbitrarily decided.

Yes. Do you have a less arbitrary way of setting these values?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I actually like the switch from saving throws to attack bonus in the case of blade, spear, arrow traps, etc.

The reason is this: It really should make a difference whether the person attacked by the trap is wearing a robe with stars and a pointy hat or fullplate and a large wooden shield. For physical traps like spears, arrows, etc, there should be a chance that armor would stop the blow or minimize the damage. That would not be represented by a reflex save.

The high attack bonusses for traps, I think, are representative of two things. First, it would appear that mechanical traps often have a lot more power behind them than a peasant's spear thrust. Second, as someone else mentioned, the trap is set to trigger when someone is in just the right place to be hit by the trap.

Furthermore, you don't change the logical problem (if it is a problem) of a spear trap being more likely to hurt an adventurer than a peasant with a spear by switching to a reflex save. At first level, a typical fighter has an AC of 18 (dex, chain mail, shield). A peasant (commoner 1) with a spear (Atk +0) has a 15% chance of actually hurting the fighter. Since the first level fighter in question also has a reflex save of +1, your revised trap will also be far more likely to hurt the fighter unless you set the DC at 4. (And I assume that you're not planning for the typical DC for these reflex saves to be single digit. . . .)

So, in the end, by house-ruling such traps to operate by reflex save (with a reflex save bonus granted by armor), you won't have changed the problem that you set out to change. (The fact that a spear trap is approximately a billion times more likely to hurt an adventurer than a peasant with a spear is). All you will have accomplished is:

• 
  *Eliminating the (admittedly dubious) benefits of the top four levels of Uncanny Dodge.
  *You now need to convert 1/2-2/3 of traps that you could otherwise take directly from the adventure or the books.
  *You have now introduced an odd mechanic to relfex saves so that you can't just say "give me a reflex save" but you have to say "give me a reflex save with/without your armor bonus."
  *You've opened a can of worms that begins with questions like "Can I apply my haste bonus to this reflex save as well--after all, it would have effected my armor class?" and "Do I need to roll another save in order to confirm the trap's crit?" and "I have improved evasion--I should take half damage from the arrow trap even though it hit right?"
  *You've screwed barbarians who used to be at least decent trap dodgers since they had an AC bonus against traps but now their reflex saves are no good and their armor isn't much to speak of either so they really aren't good against traps.
  *You've also reduced your options for making traps dangerous. Previously, if the party's saves were too good for them to take reasonable DC traps seriously, you could use attack roll traps instead. Now that all traps use the saving throw mechanic, you're stuck.

So in short, I don't think that you'll really get the more logically consistent game that you desire from this. (You don't want the traps to all be DC 4 do you?). And you will introduce a bit of unnecessary work for you (converting traps before using them) and a few rules headaches into the system. And I'm sure there will be unforseen consequences as well.