• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E Traps etc... in 5th Edition

For those that don't use grids & minis, the old system of the players drawing out a map as they go will become important again. Not an absolute must but too useful to avoid. In these cases when they come across that pit trap example with kobold's in cover I'd do a quick room description so the group could map out the room and once that pit trap is discovered, they can add it to their map.

I suspect the reason why the published adventures so far (HotDQ, MiBG, LMoP) are light on traps - beyond very basic pits, sliding stairs, etc - is because their design isn't 100% set yet. The DMG is the last core book to come out, it stands to reason it isn't 100% finalized.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This topic got me thinking about the release of the DMG basic and that delay. Why the hell did they delay it again? The reason was that they had to finish up the DMG, but there is VERY VERY little of anything dmg related. 99% of it was monster manual stuff. I think the only DMG stuff was building an encounter and a smattering of magic items. So what was the reason again? Why couldn't they have just released it and finished working on the DMG? I know it's a bit late, and honestly a moot point, but its frustrating because we didn't really get any actual dungeon mastering content. Nothing about world building, NPC/monster building, dungeon designing etc
 

I suspect the reason why the published adventures so far (HotDQ, MiBG, LMoP) are light on traps - beyond very basic pits, sliding stairs, etc - is because their design isn't 100% set yet. The DMG is the last core book to come out, it stands to reason it isn't 100% finalized.

It's too bad because the published adventures so far are *very* combat heavy. While combat is often fun and a key component to the game, published adventures have kind of fallen down on the Exploration pillar (which I consider traps, tricks and other trouble to be important parts of).
 


I don't mind traps being a focus for rogue players, so long as everyone else gets something that's also focussed on them. I also tend to think about traps in at least two different categories: combat and exploration. I do have a couple of traps in the interaction category, too, but those are still relevant and there's a small chance one of my players would find them if they're mentioned here :-)

For traps in combat, I go with simple effects that are easy to understand (at least, simple the second time): pressure plates that cause darts to shoot, pits, etc. In one fun combat, I had a room with chessboard tiles where every time you stepped on the white tiles, a valve opened above and dumped just enough water in the room to fill it an inch deep in water. This caused the party a little confusion, since they didn't see the threat.
Then the doors locked and the air elementals attacked and started pushing them around. That was fun.

For exploration traps, I favour traps where having a rogue is helpful but not essential and, once the trap is found, anyone can do something to attempt to deal with it. The key design feature to me is that every trap have a purpose. This is important for combat traps, too, but especially so for exploration ones because they will often be found on their own. Some purposes I've used before include (translated to 5e terms):
  • Kill anything of the expected challenge rating that attempts to access the forbidden area
    The expected challenge rating is important. Kobolds might expect to face anything up to an equivalent of a CR4 party - they don't have the resources to make a trap that's very likely to kill someone stronger, but their primary goal is to kill anyone who stumbles upon them.
  • Do as much damage as possible and summon the nearby guards
    Of course, the nearby guards may not have been present for centuries, but the trap's original purpose doesn't change.
    There's a strong distinction between traps that are designed to kill and ones designed to injure. Certainly the builders of the latter kind would generally be happy if the threat is killed by the trap, but it's clear that relying only on traps is a risky business, while having traps and guards is much more likely to keep something safe if you expect to have the resources for it.
  • Sound an alarm without being noticed
  • Scare people away
    The most complex kind, usually.
    For traps like this, I usually use something from the "kill anything" school, but go for mechanisms that are obvious, defended against tampering and tend towards overkill. For instance, an obvious area in a narrow ravine where a square on the ground has been cleared. Light objects hit a weak magical shield that forces them to pile up around the edges of the square. Heavier objects cause the square to depress about an inch into the ground and barbed spikes to rush out of obvious holes that run in three columns all the way up to the top of the ravine. The spikes are offset a little to each side, and at full extent they reach about 60% across the gap (so anyone caught in the trap is going to be probably take enough damage to be dead in one hit). After a few seconds, the square plate moves forcibly upwards and the spikes retract. If anything manages to block the plate from moving upwards, a wand of disintegrate is triggered. If the mechanism detects that it has been unable to work for a full minute, three wands of Mending are triggered at strategic points.
    This trap is extremely obvious, and of course there's a relatively easy DEX save to jump back when the square plate sinks. The point is to find ways around it.
    I've tried it on three parties - no deaths, but a lot of fun roleplaying as the whole party tried things out. One of them even managed to break into it and recover the wands.
 


How many traps do you like to see per a session? As a player or as a GM?

I use the sparingly when I play.
About five per session. I want the person who took "trap-disabling" as a significant character aspect to feel that it was worthwhile, and I want the success of that character to accurately reflect that investment. With just one or two traps, you run the risk that a character who should have a decent chance of success will end up failing everything and looking incompetent. I want the party to feel good about bringing along this person who can deal with traps.
 

I like traps plenty as something different and (hopefully) that makes sense. But I very much HATE the automatic trap spot DC 15 vs Passive Perception xx - either auto detect, or auto avoid, that they involve.

I think the solution for me will be to treat trap DC as it's passive score, and instead roll a stealth/hidden check for the trap and then compare that to the PCs passive DCs. So for example, if the adventure says trap DC 15, I'll instead roll d20 +5 to figure out it's trap DC, then compare that to the players passive perception. (assuming I use passive perception at all, although its been growing on me of late, apart from this trap auto resolution problem).
 

I like that lockpicking and disabling traps are no longer 100% relegated to the party Rogue anymore, or require multiclassing into rogue. One of my pregens is a lvl 1 Feylock/Criminal that has thieve's tools proficiency from the background and is proficient in investigation, deception, slight of hand and stealth (among others). He wouldn't be as good as a Rogue at the traps & locks but certainly efficient enough to not necessarily need one. There's also the Skilled feat which gives one tool proficiency for those that don't want to go Criminal.
 

The fun part of traps is coping with them. This means a trap should either
A) be easy to detect
B) have an effect that isn't immediately lethal, but will be if the PCs don't deal with it
or both.

For good examples, go watch the last act of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. He knew there were traps and even had the answers written down! But it was still a fun and exciting sequence.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top