D&D 4E Traps in 4e - Mearls blog

[Cadfan]

What he's probably referring to is this- old traps tended to be random events that took away a few hit points, caused the cleric to use a cure light wounds, and then you went on your business. They were like wandering monsters, except even more boring. And since you could avoid the traps with lengthy precautions, your group eventually become paranoid about opening doors, or your DM got sick of traps and quit using them.

New philosophy is to make traps big, gaudy, and obvious. That way they function as a puzzle for the players to solve. Out witting the traps becomes an accomplishment with which the players actually feel satisfied, instead of something to be endured, the damage repaired, and then forgotten.

 

[Snapdragyn]

I think another thing to keep in mind is the way encounter XP will work. This may mean that traps are statted out with flat XP/trap difficulty, & then can easily be added to encounters: "Let's see, I need an 8k XP encounter... hrm, 3 Dire x's = 6750, toss in Y trap at 1250 & we're golden!"

 

[Jhaelen]

Just don't malign the lonely old covered pit. It has served us well for many years, and as long as kobolds and goblins can pilfer shovels and tarps, will continue to do so!

There's just one problem:

Camouflaged Pit Trap: CR 1; mechanical; location trigger; manual reset; DC 20 Reflex save avoids; 10 ft. deep (1d6, fall); Search DC 24; Disable Device DC 20. Market Price: 1,800 gp.

Emphasis mine.

Dungeonscape takes this to even more ridiculous levels:
There's a CR 25 trap that has a market price of 1,102,808 gp! And all you really get for this is a poisoned glaive (with automatic reset)!

I can imagine about 1,102,808 other uses for 1,102,808 gp which will result in something a lot more effective.

Standard traps in 3.X are worse than useless and don't serve any meaningful purpose (except granting a party including a rogue who invested skill points in disable device some easily earned bonus xp).

 

[SkidAce]

What he's probably referring to is this- old traps tended to be random events that took away a few hit points, caused the cleric to use a cure light wounds, and then you went on your business. They were like wandering monsters, except even more boring. And since you could avoid the traps with lengthy precautions, your group eventually become paranoid about opening doors, or your DM got sick of traps and quit using them.

New philosophy is to make traps big, gaudy, and obvious. That way they function as a puzzle for the players to solve. Out witting the traps becomes an accomplishment with which the players actually feel satisfied, instead of something to be endured, the damage repaired, and then forgotten.

What seems odd to me...is that this is considered "new". We have had that kind of thing since 1st ed. Oh, and Challange of the Champions in Dungeon.

I enjoy keeping up with editions, but I find it humorous (no disrespect to anyone) what is considered "new" design. Maybe it is new from a "has not been universally applied" point of view?

 

[paradox42]

I have to agree with that. The "encounter traps" method was actively used back in the old, much-loved (by DMs anyway) Grimtooth's Traps series. I got some of my favorite dungeon fillers from those, and even killed a PC with one in my third session running 3rd Edition D&D when I adapted an old dungeon from my 2E game for use in my new one. Most of the Grimtooth "Room" traps, for example, were encounter-style traps. Some of them wouldn't properly be considered traps at all by many DMs; the "lobster trap" for example is really just a way to attack PCs with giant lobsters.

I'd cite specific examples, but then I'd have to spoiler-tag most of the post and that would sort of defeat the purpose of making the argument in the first place.

 

[Rechan]

I think it was stated in the podcast that traps in 4e will be filling roles just like monsters will. For instance, a swinging pendulum trap functions as a 'defender' while just behind it there's a pit trap that works like a controller. And then they can put monsters in the encounter, like two archers behind the pit trap and some cover functioning as strikers, etc.

 

[kinem]

If 4e clerics can heal all day long, the lone pit trap will become obsolete.

Every encounter would have to push the party to its limits though, if attrition is no longer relevant.

 

[Korgoth]

I'm interested to see what is meant by all this. Haven't elaborate encounter traps been part of D&D since the beginning? The answer is "yes". So I'm not sure if there's something really new here, or if people are patting themselves on the back for having invented the wheel in the grand futuristic year of 2007.

 

[Rechan]

I am all for "encounter" style traps, but I hope that there are ways to integrate them into all sorts of dungeons and still make sense.

I mean, the "Room fills up with water" trap or the "entire hallway is constructed with pistons" is great for castles or the headquarters of evil villains, but it's not for caves, sewers, or other dungeons where the inhabitants do not have the resources and skill to craft such traps. Encounter traps that would work for "crude" environments or ones that were not originally constructed with that in mind would be great.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

There's just one problem:

Wow -- what a strange design choice for WotC.

I only use the core 3 books, and I've never bothered pricing out a pit trap.

Maybe the price is high because kobolds belong to a Pit Diggers Union?