Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Trap Stat Blocks, Examples, CR and XP
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LordEntrails" data-source="post: 7191872" data-attributes="member: 6804070"><p>I agree with allowing the PC's actions to modify the success chances, including automatic success. But I think that is a DM skill or approach and not something that can be written into the trap description itself in a concise way. Such a detailed description would at least require 4 or 5 sentences and possible several paragraphs. I think that's beyond what a "publish" level adventure should detail (besides, you will always miss some clever idea of the PCs).</p><p></p><p>That being said, I do try to provide some detail on what the perception check reveals. Note that I don't say the trap is detected, I say that you notice holes in the ceiling. This is part of my approach, and I think is close to a consensus as to the best way to approach trap detection and passive perception. This is why an investigation check is needed. You notice something amiss, now you need to figure out what that means. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Up to the DM to adjudicate. But my normal approach would be that you need to do a perception check before you investigate. i.e. why are you trying to figure out what is wrong if you have yet to notice that something is wrong?</p><p></p><p>Now, as Shiroiken implies, if the party searches (perception check) the door and not the area around it, then you could reveal the switch and not the holes. Though I'm loathe to try and detail every possible action, and reasonable rulings for them, this is one I might adapt. See comments on rulings.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's why the damage is not 24d4. I intend that the trap is designed to spread the darts out evenly among the 4 squares (ten foot square) in front of the door.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think a trap write can, or should, try to cover every approach that the players can come up with. I think giving the idea of what the trap is, then leave it up to the DM to make rulings. For instance, if the players said they held a large shield (or table, or dead body) over their heads when they open the door, I would make a ruling that they are not affected by the darts. It would also be up to the DM to rule what happens if they block the holes, or if they shoot corrosive acid up the holes, or if they transmute mud to rock and then back to rock after deforming the holes.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a good point. Not sure what is better. I was basing it on a spear trap which is a single attack roll.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Good feedback but I will disagree that the Type should contain mechanics other than a classification. All creatures have a type, and that only tells us if they are humanoids (and race) or beasts, or etc. Type as used by NPCs is just a classification, no other NPC (and I see traps and hazards as being closely related to NPCs) has any type of trait, action or ability included in its "type".</p><p></p><p>As for the order, I agree that perception should go first because there is always passive perception. Then instead of assuming the trap does what it is designed to do, I assume the players succeed at what they do. Therefore they detect something is wrong and investigate. Both work, and I did lay it out originally the other way, but I think in most cases assuming the players succeed in their perception check is the right way to go. But, both work.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't like the PP shorthand, and thing the name should only contain the name.</p><p></p><p>Though the heading of "Lethality" works. Again I chose to stay in line with the NPC headings and call it an action. I think their is value in trying to keep things common when possible. I guess this means one could argue that Trigger should then go under Reactions, and that might be ok too.</p><p></p><p><strong>On CR and XP:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I really haven't laid this out yet. That's why I didn't include anything on this. Need to compare whatever we come up with the categories listed in the DMG, but they again don't give XP, only setback/deadly/etc.</p><p></p><p>I don't think HD work for calculating this since that not how anything else works in 5E.</p><p></p><p>I think damage for offensive CR and detection and disarming for defensive make sense. But, what are those values?</p><p></p><p>I haven't though this through yet, but a brainstorm on defensive CR:</p><p>For the base detection method, give 1 point for each value over DC over 10 (i.e. DC minus 10 equals points). Then for the the base investigation method do the same thing. Repeat for disarming.</p><p></p><p>This would typically give a range of 1-30. Divide this total by 4 to get the CR...</p><p></p><p>That would typically give CR's from 0 to 15. (Assuming of course max DC of 20, which might not be the case for a legendary trap, but that would still scale and work). Of course it gives a linear relation between DCs and CR... Is that good or bad I don't know.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LordEntrails, post: 7191872, member: 6804070"] I agree with allowing the PC's actions to modify the success chances, including automatic success. But I think that is a DM skill or approach and not something that can be written into the trap description itself in a concise way. Such a detailed description would at least require 4 or 5 sentences and possible several paragraphs. I think that's beyond what a "publish" level adventure should detail (besides, you will always miss some clever idea of the PCs). That being said, I do try to provide some detail on what the perception check reveals. Note that I don't say the trap is detected, I say that you notice holes in the ceiling. This is part of my approach, and I think is close to a consensus as to the best way to approach trap detection and passive perception. This is why an investigation check is needed. You notice something amiss, now you need to figure out what that means. Up to the DM to adjudicate. But my normal approach would be that you need to do a perception check before you investigate. i.e. why are you trying to figure out what is wrong if you have yet to notice that something is wrong? Now, as Shiroiken implies, if the party searches (perception check) the door and not the area around it, then you could reveal the switch and not the holes. Though I'm loathe to try and detail every possible action, and reasonable rulings for them, this is one I might adapt. See comments on rulings. That's why the damage is not 24d4. I intend that the trap is designed to spread the darts out evenly among the 4 squares (ten foot square) in front of the door. I don't think a trap write can, or should, try to cover every approach that the players can come up with. I think giving the idea of what the trap is, then leave it up to the DM to make rulings. For instance, if the players said they held a large shield (or table, or dead body) over their heads when they open the door, I would make a ruling that they are not affected by the darts. It would also be up to the DM to rule what happens if they block the holes, or if they shoot corrosive acid up the holes, or if they transmute mud to rock and then back to rock after deforming the holes. This is a good point. Not sure what is better. I was basing it on a spear trap which is a single attack roll. Good feedback but I will disagree that the Type should contain mechanics other than a classification. All creatures have a type, and that only tells us if they are humanoids (and race) or beasts, or etc. Type as used by NPCs is just a classification, no other NPC (and I see traps and hazards as being closely related to NPCs) has any type of trait, action or ability included in its "type". As for the order, I agree that perception should go first because there is always passive perception. Then instead of assuming the trap does what it is designed to do, I assume the players succeed at what they do. Therefore they detect something is wrong and investigate. Both work, and I did lay it out originally the other way, but I think in most cases assuming the players succeed in their perception check is the right way to go. But, both work. I don't like the PP shorthand, and thing the name should only contain the name. Though the heading of "Lethality" works. Again I chose to stay in line with the NPC headings and call it an action. I think their is value in trying to keep things common when possible. I guess this means one could argue that Trigger should then go under Reactions, and that might be ok too. [B]On CR and XP:[/B] I really haven't laid this out yet. That's why I didn't include anything on this. Need to compare whatever we come up with the categories listed in the DMG, but they again don't give XP, only setback/deadly/etc. I don't think HD work for calculating this since that not how anything else works in 5E. I think damage for offensive CR and detection and disarming for defensive make sense. But, what are those values? I haven't though this through yet, but a brainstorm on defensive CR: For the base detection method, give 1 point for each value over DC over 10 (i.e. DC minus 10 equals points). Then for the the base investigation method do the same thing. Repeat for disarming. This would typically give a range of 1-30. Divide this total by 4 to get the CR... That would typically give CR's from 0 to 15. (Assuming of course max DC of 20, which might not be the case for a legendary trap, but that would still scale and work). Of course it gives a linear relation between DCs and CR... Is that good or bad I don't know. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Trap Stat Blocks, Examples, CR and XP
Top