Traps preview

[Fallen Seraph]

The thought of a room with five of these things makes me shudder. Merely out of the hassle it would be for the players. 5 skill challenges, or a long time hacking those things apart.

I can't imagine players being well, to be blunt stupid enough to try to disable/destroy them when that many blades are careening towards them at every angle.

I think it be completely based off acrobatics, reflex and athletics and the players ability to predict where the blades will go as they try and bolt it through the room as fast as they can without being hit.

Thus why narratively there be alot of ducking, sliding, running, jumping, etc.

 

[Rechan]

I can't imagine players being well, to be blunt stupid enough to try to disable/destroy them when that many blades are careening towards them at every angle.

I think it be completely based off acrobatics, reflex and athletics and the players ability to predict where the blades will go as they try and bolt it through the room as fast as they can without being hit.

Thus why narratively there be alot of ducking, sliding, running, jumping, etc.

I'm not sure how that would look from a mechanics edge.

Are you saying it would be a skill challenge? Cuz otherwise there'd be a lot of attack-rolling, running on your initiative (and delaying to go after the various blade initiatives) I imagine.

One thought hat comes to mind: all those spellcasters with ranged attacks just unloading on the traps themselves. A warlock and a wizard at a nice distance peppering it until it dies.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I would personally make it a skill challenge/with a mix of combat.

To cross the room successfully takes 6 successes. As they progress through these successes using what skills they wish (acrobatics, athletics, etc.) I narrate what happens, so them ducking, dodging, etc.

If they fail their skill challenge however, the blades in that area react during their initiative, and so the players either succeed in dodging those blades that do come towards them or don't and get damaged.

This continues till either the blades are disabled, their dead or they make it through the room.

 

[Rechan]

I would personally make it a skill challenge/with a mix of combat.

To cross the room successfully takes 6 successes. As they progress through these successes using what skills they wish (acrobatics, athletics, etc.) I narrate what happens, so them ducking, dodging, etc.

If they fail their skill challenge however, the blades in that area react during their initiative, and so the players either succeed in dodging those blades that do come towards them or don't and get damaged.

This continues till either the blades are disabled, their dead or they make it through the room.

In that case I can see it working like so:

Skill challenge, 6 successes (3 failures). Each success gets the PCs past the area. A failure means they do not move forward, and take damage. Three failures = failure of the skill challenge, which means... Well, I'm not sure actually. Not 'they start all over again', but likely someone ends up getting poisoned maybe.

 

[chitzk0i]

Well, there could also be clues that give you a bonus to your check. You know, "the penitent man kneels!" and all that.

 

[hennebeck]

Did we decide, is this going to take a minimum of 6 rounds to disarm?
And why don't the traps have other skills listed to use?

I'm really hoping this preview is a preview and there is way more to traps.

This is one of the few things I've been disappointed about so far because it doesn't seem like it lives up to the hype from WoTC.

Now that Orc Preview, that Rocks!

 

[Fallen Seraph]

In that case I can see it working like so:

Skill challenge, 6 successes (3 failures). Each success gets the PCs past the area. A failure means they do not move forward, and take damage. Three failures = failure of the skill challenge, which means... Well, I'm not sure actually. Not 'they start all over again', but likely someone ends up getting poisoned maybe.

With this particular skill challenge, I don't plan on having a limit to the number of times it can happen.

To use an example:

Indiana Jones, succeeded in all 6 skill challenges, so he was never hit as he dodged bolts and various traps as he ran away from the boulder. Now if he failed, he would still move forward but in the period where he is running through that particular section of the traps, the traps manage to hit him.

Now, if I wished I could include a minimum of successes, this could show say being hindered by the traps (and possibly hazards as well). This can account for example the Boulder, if he is hindered from being injured and doesn't succeed in say 2 of the 6 times he tries then he has slowed down enough that the boulder has caught up to him (which would be its own trap).

So essentially your guaranteed to manage to get through the trap, but if you fail you are affected by it.

 

[functionciccio]

I like these traps but i'm not blown away either.
For example, I like the "rolling boulder" trap more than the "soul gem" one.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

In that case I can see it working like so:

Skill challenge, 6 successes (3 failures). Each success gets the PCs past the area. A failure means they do not move forward, and take damage. Three failures = failure of the skill challenge, which means... Well, I'm not sure actually. Not 'they start all over again', but likely someone ends up getting poisoned maybe.

Didn't the traps specifically state they remain active and can no longer be disarmed via the control panel if the skill challenge fails? That still leaves other methods of bypassing the trap available to the party.

 

[Harr]

As always, there's a lot of inability to separate the mechanics from the examples in this thread.

I don't like the examples (I find them a little bland), yet I love the construction and the mechanics. You can do a hell of a lot with these. And combining several of them with monsters, with NPCs, with locations, or with each other? It's crazy.

And I love that skill challenges can be scaled up to a general all-party, all-skill, situation or down to a 'quick thievery' check. That widens up the possibilities even more. (Though I do hope that the thievery check for the trap can be resolved in one round or two. There's no way to tell.)

And yeah, the important thing is indeed that the math has been fixed. What you do with that math is up to you (or the writer of the adventure you're running).

Someone said earlier that adventures can gain respect from use of inventive or original traps. Yes that's right; adventures. Adventures. Not rulebooks. When the adventures come out, you can critique the adventure as an adventure. Don't critique the rulebook as if it was an adventure. If your encounters all feel like fighting a bunch of kobolds, then that's your game you're running (in your imagination) there dude.

People are taking these previews as sort of a fantasy-DM who is running a game, with them as fantasy-players in this imaginary game, and then trying to critique everything that comes out as if they had been playing it. I think it's understandable, given the nature of our hobby (ie, the roleplayer 'roleplays' that he's actually playing D&D in his mind while he reads the descriptions), but it's the wrong way to look at it. These are tools we're being given. We should ask 'what can we make with these tools?' not whether all these particular examples strung together make for a good game or not, of course they don't.