Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="slaughterj" data-source="post: 6750014" data-attributes="member: 5341">TL;DR Summary:  If trap DCs are static and passive Perception is static, then you either auto-find (boring) or auto-fail (annoying) traps, so I reduce DCs of traps by 10 and replace with a 1d20 roll to allow for variability, which allows even low Perception PCs to possibility spot hard traps, and avoids the foregoing issues with opposed static numbers.So I saw a recent thread about traps sucking (<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471800-Why-traps-in-D-amp-D-usually-suck" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?471800-Why-traps-in-D-amp-D-usually-suck</a>), and thought it would be about my issue with traps in 5e, but unfortunately not, so here's my issue with traps in 5e.Traps in 5e have a DC to detect them.Traps are detected by Perception.  Conceivably they could be detected by passive Perception (which takes no time) or making an active Perception check (which takes time, both game playing time rolling and in-game it takes an action).If one detects Traps based on their DC, a flat score, by passive Perception, a flat score, then traps suck because either (a) your passive Perception is high enough and will auto-detect the trap, largely making the trap moot (yes, it takes time to disarm or avoid, monsters may wander by while you take the time, etc., but you get my point), or (b) your passive Perception is not high enough, you auto-fail to detect, and you will fall prey to the trap.  The result is basically the DM, who knows the party's passive Perception scores, either sets trap DCs low so you will auto-find them and are basically a boring non-event, or or sets trap DCs high so you won't find them and fall into them, an annoying result.So it seems to avoid the foregoing issue, that a roll should be involved.  It could be a requirement for an active Perception check to try to find a trap, but that is a problem because (a) there will be an excess of time spent on constantly rolling and checking for traps, and (b) it seems like someone should be able to passively notice a trap, no different than passively noticing an imminent ambush and no being surprised, etc.So instead of an active Perception check, I decided to instead rely on passive Perception, as it should be able to detect traps, and avoids wasting the time in-game and playing the game with constant rolling in places where there are no traps.  But a roll still seems desirable, and I instead incorporate it on the trap DC itself.  Basically take the static listed trap DC, reduce it by 10 and replace that with a d20 roll (i.e., a listed DC 15 trap would instead be a base 5+1d20 to be detected by a PC).  That way there is some variability, and anyone can still detect (or not) an easily found trap or well-concealed trap (i.e., high Perception scores are still useful and are more likely to find traps, but don't auto-find easy ones or auto-fail hard ones).PCs can still take an active Perception check when they would like, e.g., in an area that they might have reason to believe there is a trap, but this method (1) avoids the issue of auto-find / auto-fail with static passive Perception scores vs static trap DCS, and (2) avoids the issue of wasted game time with constant rolling for active Perception checks.Any thoughts?</blockquote>

Verification