Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Traps and randomness
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="Staffan" data-source="post: 2446126" data-attributes="member: 907"><p>One thing occured to me while I was reading the latest of the old-school threads, and the first post mentioned traps. Finding traps in D&D is rather non-random - either you have a good enough Search skill to find it, or you don't. The easy fix for this is to disallow taking 20 on traps - however, the problem with this is that the traps in the system are <strong>designed</strong> to allow taking 20 (which is why the DCs for finding them is infernally high - 20 or higher).</p><p></p><p>The easy fix for THAT is to drop the DC of traps. However, that leads to another issue - it SHOULD be easier to find traps if you take your time doing it.</p><p></p><p>So, I got an idea. What if you reduced the DC of various traps by 5-15, and allowed multiple Search attempts at a cumulative -1 penalty (-1 on the second attempt, -2 on the third, and so on). I tossed some values into a spreadsheet to determine the cumulative probability of detecting traps whose DC are X points away from your skill (rounded to two decimals - for X of 5 or less, it's rounded to 100%):</p><p>[code]</p><p>X Probability</p><p> 6 99.98%</p><p> 7 99.94%</p><p> 8 99.79%</p><p> 9 99,41%</p><p>10 98,53%</p><p>11 96,73%</p><p>12 93,45%</p><p>13 88,10%</p><p>14 80,16%</p><p>15 69,48%</p><p>16 56,40%</p><p>17 41,86%</p><p>18 27,33%</p><p>19 14,50%</p><p>20 5,00%[/code]</p><p></p><p>So, let's say that with the old rules you were up against a trap that was on the edge of your ability to detect: you needed a 20 to find it. You would automatically find it after 2 minutes of searching. If the trap had been 1 point harder to detect, you would automatically fail.</p><p></p><p>If you instead reduce the DCs by 5 (for example), a long inspection of the trapped object would give a total of ~70% chance of finding it - a pretty good chance, but no longer certain. Meanwhile, the trap that has a DC 1 step higher is now no longer impossible to find, but instead you have a ~40% chance of finding it (note the way the probabilities drop rather sharply).</p><p></p><p>So, what do people think? The main disadvantage I see with this is that it will make searching for traps take longer in real time, since you can't just say "I'll take 20 and search it everywhere" - you actually have to roll the dice. On the other hand, dicerolling is fun, so I don't see that as a problem <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Staffan, post: 2446126, member: 907"] One thing occured to me while I was reading the latest of the old-school threads, and the first post mentioned traps. Finding traps in D&D is rather non-random - either you have a good enough Search skill to find it, or you don't. The easy fix for this is to disallow taking 20 on traps - however, the problem with this is that the traps in the system are [b]designed[/b] to allow taking 20 (which is why the DCs for finding them is infernally high - 20 or higher). The easy fix for THAT is to drop the DC of traps. However, that leads to another issue - it SHOULD be easier to find traps if you take your time doing it. So, I got an idea. What if you reduced the DC of various traps by 5-15, and allowed multiple Search attempts at a cumulative -1 penalty (-1 on the second attempt, -2 on the third, and so on). I tossed some values into a spreadsheet to determine the cumulative probability of detecting traps whose DC are X points away from your skill (rounded to two decimals - for X of 5 or less, it's rounded to 100%): [code] X Probability 6 99.98% 7 99.94% 8 99.79% 9 99,41% 10 98,53% 11 96,73% 12 93,45% 13 88,10% 14 80,16% 15 69,48% 16 56,40% 17 41,86% 18 27,33% 19 14,50% 20 5,00%[/code] So, let's say that with the old rules you were up against a trap that was on the edge of your ability to detect: you needed a 20 to find it. You would automatically find it after 2 minutes of searching. If the trap had been 1 point harder to detect, you would automatically fail. If you instead reduce the DCs by 5 (for example), a long inspection of the trapped object would give a total of ~70% chance of finding it - a pretty good chance, but no longer certain. Meanwhile, the trap that has a DC 1 step higher is now no longer impossible to find, but instead you have a ~40% chance of finding it (note the way the probabilities drop rather sharply). So, what do people think? The main disadvantage I see with this is that it will make searching for traps take longer in real time, since you can't just say "I'll take 20 and search it everywhere" - you actually have to roll the dice. On the other hand, dicerolling is fun, so I don't see that as a problem :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Traps and randomness
Top