Traps: What Should Become of the Spike-Filled Pit?

[I'm A Banana]

For me, I don't think the Perception skill should be silo'd with the rest of the skills, is what it boils down to.

It should perhaps be something like Initiative: not something you can be "trained" in, but something you can get a little better at by spending a feat, and something that is treated as a little more valuable than a normal skill.

 

[Felon]

Fictional heroes tend to be super-competent at spotting danger; it's on the short-list of things almost all fictional heroes are good at. (They're also good at hitting things and not getting hit.) I don't think it's a problem that RPG heroes generally spot things.

It's not a general problem. In fact, like I touched on, it's generally good that heroes spot things instead of missing them. But things traps and lurker-type monsters are blunted by having even a single character that's awesome at soptting danger consistently in every situation.

For me, I don't think the Perception skill should be silo'd with the rest of the skills, is what it boils down to.

It should perhaps be something like Initiative: not something you can be "trained" in, but something you can get a little better at by spending a feat, and something that is treated as a little more valuable than a normal skill.

That's one thing I was thinking of as well. Feats and class features can sharpen it, not skills or skill points.

Of course, we'd need a new approach to stealth. Then again, I think a new approach is needed.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Of course, we'd need a new approach to stealth. Then again, I think a new approach is needed.

Indeed. The 4e Stealth rules -- some of the best we've probably ever had for D&D -- are still quite a mess, and Stealth is another one of those "super-valuable" skills (not quite as bad as Perception, though).

There is a case to be made, if multiclassing is easy and costed appropriately, for Stealth to be more of a class power for stealthy classes (like thieves and assassins) than a detailed accounting of cover and concealment. It's important that other characters can access the stealth rules, too, but I'm not sure that it's important that EVERY character can do some sneaking -- usually, the heavily armored or low Dex characters are left out, anyway.

 

[Number48]

Maybe the way forward is try something more story-oriented and do away with the dice rolling. Bargain with the players. "There are 7 secret things in this dungeon. You can get lucky and find one or all of them, but for each one there will be a stroke of misfortune to match it." In fact, all the misfortunes are going to do is drive the story a little more or provide a temporary hindrance. I don't know, just spitballing here.

Also, for skills like Open Lock, it needs to be set up so there is always a way forward. You can open the locked door silently, or quickly but not both unless you are good at Open Locks. Thus bashing the door isn't a chance, but a guarantee to continue forward but at the cost of stealth.

 

[Felon]

Indeed. The 4e Stealth rules -- some of the best we've probably ever had for D&D -- are still quite a mess, and Stealth is another one of those "super-valuable" skills (not quite as bad as Perception, though).

There is a case to be made, if multiclassing is easy and costed appropriately, for Stealth to be more of a class power for stealthy classes (like thieves and assassins) than a detailed accounting of cover and concealment. It's important that other characters can access the stealth rules, too, but I'm not sure that it's important that EVERY character can do some sneaking -- usually, the heavily armored or low Dex characters are left out, anyway.

Well, the PHB 2 revised large sections of the stealth section--sufficient that it should have reprinted the section in its entirety. Instead, it required consulting both.

Y'know, stealth has been all but abandoned in the group I play in. The main reason is that it seems to work out in all-or-nothing capacity. There needs to be that in-between state where people become "suspicious" or "on guard", for a round or two.

 

[Glade Riven]

I need to use more traps.

Now I'm going to commit what many would believe is one of the gravest sins in modern game design: Look at how videogames handle traps. Well, and movies.

There's always the classics - "bottomless" pit, mechanized traps that move/activate at regular intervals, corridor of swinging pendelums, and switchplate. Indiana Jones movies created some great traps (darts! boulders! pits! snakes!). Bear traps are aways fun. Wrong Answer traps are good for an "Oh SH*$" moments, if spread out so that PCs don't expect it.

Most D&D traps appear to be designed along the lines of the switch plate. Useful, but dull. Still, something like the Landmine Dillema would work well - step on the pressure plate, but the trap doesn't activate unless pressure is released. A Lost Woods (Legends of Zelda) style Maze trap is one I've always wanted to try. Spell based traps (besides I have prepared Explosive Runes *BOOM*) are handy. Golums, mummies, etc. are always fun. Layering traps and puzzles can make for a fun dungeon crawl, especially if there are some pressure plates the players have to stand on and others to avoid. Letting some traps be disarmable after using skills to get past them can be handy.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I think all pits should be filled - with pcs.