Traps preview

[Ruined]

Maybe I'm blind this morning, but does someone have a link to this article? I couldn't find a link on Wizards page, and trying to follow the link/date format didn't work for me. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080509a)

Thanks!

 

[Nikosandros]

An idea that I just had, although most likely it's wrong...

Could it be that as a single action (probably a standard) you keep rolling thievery check until you get either the necessary number of successes or enough failures?

 

[Jer]

The problem with that is that the perception roll is only required once in the tire career of the PC. After the first Soul Gem the PCs know about it and, because of the obvious placement of the gem, will never fall for it anymore even without perception checks.

You're assuming that all soul gems look alike and are implemented the same way. That doesn't have to be the case. A few cosmetic changes in the fluff and you have a trap that functions the same but looks different enough that even the players won't know that you're using the same trap, nevermind the characters.

Also - it's a Level 26 solo trap. I actually don't think that I WOULD throw more than one of these at a party over the course of their careers. It's not like the flame jets or whirling blades that are likely to show up a lot during the course of the characters' mid-tier adventures - something like the soul gem trap should probably actually BE something they only encounter once or twice.

And because it is a high level solo trap it also means that most of the time there won't be any additional hazards around it, making the gem into a tactical challenge.

Okay? I don't see how that's a problem at all. The thing is clearly designed to be a tactical challenge once the players figure out that it's a trap. If I have clever players who decide to turn the gem to powder from a distance because they have a bad feeling about it, more power to them. Now, my current players wouldn't do that. Mainly because I do, quite often in fact, embed gems into statues, frescoes, and other ornamentation in our adventures. So until the thing starts shooting at them they won't necessarily be sure if the gem is the trap OR if the gem is the treasure and if there's something else in the room that was the actual threat. Or something else.

 

[jaelis]

Maybe I'm blind this morning, but does someone have a link to this article?

I added the link and text to the OP.

(They changed the format of the link.)

 

[ltbaxter]

I noticed that it was pretty to easy to compute success probabilities for the different complexities. It seems that the different complexities make little mechanical difference (the lower complexities are a bit more forgiving at lower individual success probabilities than the higher ones) in the success rates, so the only reason you would use one complexity over another is gameplay/flavor.

Thanks for posting this! The results make complete sense now that I think about it.

With 2 successes consistently needed for each 1 failure allowed, an individual probability of success of 0.67 means that the number of 'batches' of 2-for-1 is irrelevant, and that's the p value for which you see the final success probability independent of the complexity. Also, at this point, you need two successes in a row to succeed - 2/3 squared is 4/9 is 0.44.

When your probability on a given try is LESS than 2/3, a lower complexity actually helps you because you need to be lucky to succeed.

When your probability on a given try is MORE than 2/3, a _higher_ complexity helps you, as the law of averages is on your side.

Why is it always 2:1? Other ratios would seriously skew the final chance of success. The way it is with 2:1, a 2/3 chance is neutral. That's 7 on a DC 15 check. Well, that's the standard +5 bonus for trained skill and a typical 2 points for stat bonuses. This makes it balanced right from level one, and will scale perfectly. For that same +7 vs DC 15, requiring 3 successes per one failure would mean your chance of final success would be just 30%. 4:1 would be 20% - and those are with Complexity level 1. Odds would plummet for anything more complex. Conversely, a simple 1:1 ratio would give 67% chance of success, and higher complexity would make it extremely unlikely you would fail. It would probably work fine to tweak a 6:3 challenge to 7:3, or if failure wasn't catastrophic, 6:2.

 

[Ingolf]

I agree. I tend to just ban traps.

What about traps that release hordes of halfling rangers? I guess those are Right Out, eh?

 

[Nikosandros]

I agree. I tend to just ban traps.

I've come to the conclusion that the best thing is to ban PCs.

 

[Wormwood]

I've come to the conclusion that the best thing is to ban PCs.

This game would be awesome if it weren't for the gamers.

 

[hong]

I've come to the conclusion that the best thing is to ban PCs.

I can't ban PCs; I need them to throw my banning everything else into sharp relief!

 

[neceros]

I entirely enjoy the fact that the systems are becoming easier to design for and better quality. I'm glad that everything is being universalized and better presented. However, I just think that traps are less fun sounding that fight-based encounters. I can't seem to get behind traps, and now that I think about it traps have always just felt boring and distant. Set a trap and let it deal with someone while you're across the country.

Anyone else have the same thoughts?