Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Traps Revisited

Actually an interesting article. I'm still scanning through it, though. I like the way they discuss the traps, their creation, and countermeasures (something that was missing, I think, from the DMG).

Poisoned Tempest is an absolutely inspired and devious trap! I love it!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dualazi

First Post
Well…Quickleaf and Saeviomagy pretty much articulated many of my thoughts far better than I could myself, but for what it’s worth:

Investigation skill inclusion is good but should go further, at the end of the day perception is still the more valuable skill by far, and is more useful in general. I’d have liked more emphasis on investigation since perception has combat applications and investigation doesn’t really.

No alternate methods of foiling/addressing high passive perceptions. Even moderately perceptive characters can easily detect the weak traps, and normal/hard traps are essentially undetectable passively for large swathes of the game. That’s not a terribly healthy dynamic to have, and I personally will probably stick to rolling PC’s perception in secret. Rules expansion in this regard would have been helpful, even if it was something as simple as gating varying levels of information behind different DCs.

Making the player describe how they disable the trap can potentially be finicky and lead to arguments and gotchas. I’m not eager to go back to the days of everyone carrying 10 ft. poles to solve their problems. Plus, it’s rarely required for other checks/actions, so this feels a little punitive already.

The math is off on some of them, such as the bear trap. This is a minor issue I assume they’ll resolve with feedback, but still.

I agree with other assessments that complex traps seem to be pretty reminiscent of skill challenges form 4e, which I’m hopeful they can improve upon. However, a lot of the example traps seem to fit into the “hallway of death” philosophy, which is only valuable insofar as the players are forced to remain inside it. In their spinning blades/pillars/rune example, I can easily see my players simply stepping back out of harm’s way and coming up with low-risk solutions. This isn’t always bad, but part of the thrill of these types of traps is the idea of working under constant pressure and danger. More advice on sensible or inventive trap placement wouldn’t have gone amiss.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jhaelen

First Post
Too bad I cannot give XP to Quickleaf!

I've never been a fan of traps in D&D. This article does nothing to change that.
At least they didn't repeat one of their past mistakes to assign construction costs to traps...

Anyway, the way traps are apparently intended to be used in D&D makes no sense at all and doesn't contribute at all to improve gameplay. To the contrary they seem to be designed to annoy players and slow down gameplay for no good reason.

I get the impression the design team has run out of interesting topics, considering this and the last article on 'Mass Combat' - which was another thing that is completely useless for a good RPG session:
Mass combat should happen in the background while the pcs engage in key encounters that have the potential to shift the entire battle. What's the point of turning an RPG session into an exercise in flawed math?
 

Quickleaf

Legend
1) Good article. I love traps, and find this is a good supplement to the DMG overall.

I'm also a lover of traps :) and frequently looking for ways to make them run better for my group. I think this article is a good start and shows they're thinking about traps a bit, but they have a long way to go.

3) I am not sure if "I use my thieves tools to disable the trap" should always be considered too vague. When the warrior says, "I hit it with my sword" we don't always say, "Precisely how?" thought we might on occasion. Shouldn't the rogue sometimes be able to just say, "I disarm it with my thieves tools?"

You're making me think about trap typologies. For example, monsters have different types (e.g. construct, fey, fiend, etc), and those types have common traits which influence how a warrior might go about dealing with them. For example: silver for lycanthropes and fiends, adamantine for constructs, douse trolls with fire, etc.

Maybe there's a translation of "monster types" that can apply to "trap types" that can help clarify when "I disarm it with my thieves' tools" is a possible course of action.

But that's also the endpoint of the trap – it's the killing blow against a monster.

The interesting stuff is mostly leading up to that point of attempted disarm – for example, realizing there's a trap thanks to pattern recognition / intuition / experience, avoiding triggering it, and figuring out how the trap works.

4) While passive perception should be the default to spot a trap, Investigation might well be used when a player says, "I am curious about this desk. I will carefully examine it for traps." Indeed, the difference in Countermeasure descriptions for the Falling Gate trap and the Fiery Blast trap give me the impression the author isn't sure how to differentiate between Investigation and Perception sometimes - both traps use a pressure plate, so why include Perception to spot one and Investigation to spot the other when that portion is essentially identical? I think more traps should include entries for both in the Countermeasures section.

I've thought about this, and I have what may be an unpopular (or at least un-modern) perspective: For most traps, Perception (whether passive or active) should NEVER obviously identity the presence of the trap. In fact, no check should be involved.

"It's a trap" should rarely be a simple matter of sensory perception, but of internal realization. There are details a perceptive character can gather about the environment/situation, of course, but at no point in responding to a Perception check (or passive Perception) should the DM say "you notice a pressure plate." Maybe the exception to this principle is the tripwire triggered trap – maybe that sort of trap is the kind where Perception really matters, because once you see a tripwire that's a dead giveaway of the presence of a trap. And maybe those Perception-critical type tripwire traps are associated with kobolds and goblins.

Let's take the pit trap in the UA article as an example.

That pit trap is covered with a camouflaged canvas. It's screaming "I'm a trap!" There's no cleverness involved, either on the part of the trap maker or the players. The design of the trap necessitates a rather dull dice roll (or comparing two static numbers). It's dull because there's no real decision point in encountering the pit trap as written. There's a canvas? Nope, you didn't notice the canvas, sorry, you fall and take damage. :/ There's a canvas? Yep! OK, I look under it. It's a pit trap. Well, I'll walk around it. Congratulations for figuring out that very challenging trap; you skirt around the edge without issue. OK, what was the point of that? :/

But in my mind, the fun of most traps is in how they make you puzzle them over, figuring out how to solve that unique trap, devising creative ways to interact with it. And that means a trap should present players with interesting choices/dilemmas.

In my re-write of the pit trap, I got rid of the obvious canvas and instead use brittle stone masked to appear just like the surrounding stone (if False Appearance can flawlessly pass off a galeb duhr as a boulder, then I don't think it's too much to expect traps to operate the same way). Perception in this case isn't about noticing a camouflaged canvas whose presence would scream "look out, I'm likely a trap." Instead, I had scuffing around the edges of the brittle stone, which is the ledge monsters walk around the trap and where the monsters replace the brittle stone after the pit trap is triggered. PCs noticing that then have a couple decision points:
  • First, do we think this could be a trap? A camouflaged canvas is kind of a dead giveaway. This, not so much.
  • Second, which section do we think is dangerous, the scuffed edges or the un-scuffed middle? The canvas removes any ambiguity about what's being hidden (obviously, it's whatever is under the canvas!), but this reintroduces ambiguity.
 

Zansy

Explorer
I usually don't use traps in my game, even if others do. I see little use for this UA than others at my table.
Not for lack of trying, but I couldn't even read through the whole thing.
 

Psikerlord#

Explorer
Teh difference between a simple trap and a complex one is the simple trap is often improvised, but a complex trap has to be prepped, make sense, with escalating features and a means of disarming by PCs - they are a "set piece" encounter all of their own.

I did like the article's dynamic (escalating) threats. The poison room was a good complex trap. Sadly however 5e is still labouring under the passive perception vs static trap spot DC problem (ie auto spot/avoid or auto set off trap - either way unsatisfactory - preferable to either secretly roll for the PC, or get the player to pre-roll 10 perception checks at the start of the session, and randomly select one when required).
 

CydKnight

Explorer
"With the skills and knowledge my character has, but I do not" would be my response. Same way I don't have to describe how I cast a spell, repair armor or tie a knot with the climbing kit. Unless it's granting an auto success, I don't see the point of delaying the thieves tools roll by also requiring them to guess the magic phrase the DM thinks makes sense. Most of us arent engineers and dont know, or care to know, how traps work mechanically. And lots of the examples dont even make sense!

If a bear trap is spotted, you really should be able to disable it automatically, unless they want to imply that these things are so unreliable that they go off a significant amount of time when a reasonably nimble user goes to reset them (14 dex vs DC 10 disable). What kind of hunter uses a tool that malfunctions or hits them that often? The tripwire also seems like just noticing the tripwire beats it. If you know where the bolts shoot, I dont get why a roll is required to cut the wire or untie them.

Avoiding the roll should really generally be the reward for pixel bitching, not the ability to roll.
You can play the way you want. That's the beauty of 5E.

But in my game if you tell me you are going to disable a trap and can't even understand the mechanism to do so is in a different place from where it apparently is set to be sprung, then the attempt will simply fail. Perceiving the way the trap works is a separate dice roll that would precede the roll to disable it. Maybe it is even part of what is discerned from the same dice roll that detected the trap. If you are the DM, you decide.

I do agree there is vagueness in the UA examples.

Your bear trap example is a little different but I do not disagree with you. However, I do agree with the UA that a strength check should be made simply because I already know a real bear trap actually does require strength to enable and disable. If you are implying that a hunter proficient in hunting traps would be proficient in disabling a bear trap then I would agree.

Yes, I agree tripwires can be avoided or even cut without a roll. But noticing one is not automatic and should require a roll in my opinion.
 

Imaro

Legend
I like this article and how it expands on traps, a couple of thoughts after my first read through...




1. I like that passive perception doesn't reveal the actual trap it detects it's trigger (and a Perception check is required if detecting said trigger would reveal the nature of the trap) or other elements that can tip off their presence... This means a passive perception doesn't auto-find the trap and you still need an actual perception check or investigation to determine what the trap actually does and how it works.

2. I agree that simple traps shouldn't award XP... it's not a significant challenge IMO, of course the article is silent on whether complex traps should award XP and I think it would be pretty easy to engineer an XP system using monsters as a starting point and based off the traps level and threat... I wonder if the final version will have this...

3. I am all for requiring a description of how a trap is disabled (and leaving the level of granularity up to individual DM's)... it again brings importance to the Investigation skill (which I feel is sorely needed) and creates a more dynamic interaction where anyone could potentially try something to disable the trap as opposed to just Rogues.

4. I think the advice about different ways a trap could be disabled (With thieve's tools serving as a general foil for mechanical traps) is good it allows the Rogue, or anyone trained in thieve's tools to be relevant most of the time in disarming a trap while still giving examples of ways other memebers of the party could help to disable the trap depending on it's details.

5. I also think the advice around nailing down positions when interacting with a complex trap is good advice.

6. I like and agree with complex traps having triggers that can be undetectable and perception or investigation rolls only providing cues that something is amiss in the area.

7. I think the 3 actions or checks to shut down one part of the trap is a good guideline and provides the basis for multi-part/multi-trigger traps that push for multiple participants to disable them and can span large areas or even multiple rooms...

8. Focusing on how the trap works as opposed to what checks are necessary to disable it is the right way to go about it, IMO... it opens up room for improvisational tactics from the players as opposed to narrowing the interaction to pre-set solutions.

9. Not sure about the math for the sample traps... I'm not really a math guy so I'll leave that to others.


EDIT (Just to round my thoughts out to 10 things...): 10. I feel like I'm reading a different article than others in this thread as this article seems to directly address many (if not all) of the concerns being brought up in this thread...

Overall I think this article is one of the most useful and interesting DM facing articles to come out of UA. Will probably try out some of the rules in my first game of a new campaign I am starting this weekend... we'll see how it goes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

akr71

Hero
I like the clearer formatting, with subheadings. While much less plain text, it is much easier to find what you're looking for. (I almost want to redo my document with these guidelines and formatting in mind.)

I would encourage you to put together a volume 2 instead. I wouldn't buy it again if it was just reformatted, but I would pay you money again for more content. ;)
 

Imaro

Legend
Sadly however 5e is still labouring under the passive perception vs static trap spot DC problem (ie auto spot/avoid or auto set off trap - either way unsatisfactory - preferable to either secretly roll for the PC, or get the player to pre-roll 10 perception checks at the start of the session, and randomly select one when required).

Uhm... this isn't really how the article deals with traps...
 

raleel

Explorer
"It's a trap" should rarely be a simple matter of sensory perception, but of internal realization. There are details a perceptive character can gather about the environment/situation, of course, but at no point in responding to a Perception check (or passive Perception) should the DM say "you notice a pressure plate." Maybe the exception to this principle is the tripwire triggered trap – maybe that sort of trap is the kind where Perception really matters, because once you see a tripwire that's a dead giveaway of the presence of a trap. And maybe those Perception-critical type tripwire traps are associated with kobolds and goblins.

This is incredibly insightful, and would be useful in any DMG. The fact that perception should not tell you it's a trap. Perception tells you "it's a hole in the ground" or "it's a hole with a canvas covering it" or "there is a thing metal wire running across the hall" or "there are holes in the walls, about finger size". Investigation tells you that it's a trap, in some cases. The pit is obviously something to be avoided, but the holes in the walls? Who knows what hose are for, and they are not stopping progress. Paranoid and smart adventurers will investigate those. That's when they discover the subtle glint of metal inside as they shine their torch in, or the slight discoloration of the stone from the remnants of poison gas.

I also very much like the presssure plate idea in the previous comment. That is some good drama there. Put a perception check on noticing the click (very low, of course, like D.C. 10) then the actual encounter begins - how to get him off.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Hiya.

I'm...disappointed? I'm a bit of a killer DM, I'll admit, but hearing my players be actually excited-and-terrified-at-the-same-time about the potential of death when dealing with a trap... and then the pure joy and sense of accomplishment when they come up with some ingenious way to defeat some death-trap by using Cone of Cold, a full waterskin, a 6.5' piece of rope, two pickled hearings and a half-used candle? Priceless! But when they 'know' that a trap, and failing saves/rolls will result in nothing but HP loss? Well, the looks on their faces are more along the line of annoyance (as in "Oh, great...ANOTHER trap to drain our resources...*sigh*..." ). In other words, traps become speed-bumps on the road to success...not dead ends. :)

That said, I can see new players and DM's that like to have "D&D Lite" style campaigns, two thumbs up. :) The part about specifically dividing a trap into categories, with ranges for each, and then listing potential countermeasures... I can see that really helping new DM's as well as those wanting a more 'faux-death' type of campaign. But for old Grognard Curmudgeon Killer-DM's like me ...I'll have to give these a pass.

PS: Not trying to offend anyone here...just saying me and my group like our games the way like we like our contests against Sicilians. ;)

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I completely see your point [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION], and I agree with you on the simple traps being speed bumps.

But what about the complex traps, if anything, doesn't work for your style? I think those are more than a resource drain, much like placing a mummy in a temple is more than a resource drain.

Genuinely curious, since to my eye those complex traps are made for more killer/narrative DMs



But in my game if you tell me you are going to disable a trap and can't even understand the mechanism to do so is in a different place from where it apparently is set to be sprung, then the attempt will simply fail. Perceiving the way the trap works is a separate dice roll that would precede the roll to disable it. Maybe it is even part of what is discerned from the same dice roll that detected the trap. If you are the DM, you decide.

I think this in part comes down to table expectations and DM information-giving, like you said.

At quite few of the tables I've been at, it is "There is a Trap there" followed by "I disarm it". The DM doesn't give any details about the nature of the trap and the player isn't expected to ask.

Even if more information is given, some players will only hear "This statue spits fire out over this area when you walk in front of it" and then the player will say "I disarm that trap" not expecting to be asked how they are going to do so. The DM didn't tell them if it was a pressure plate, a laser tripwire, or simply magic so they don't know how to proceed. And the trap is simply slowing down the game, even if the rogue wants to spend 5 minutes talking out the intricacies of the trap, the other players may start to get bored and want you to hurry it along, this trap (in general) is not important to the story, and they want to get to content that is.

Not saying you don't give enough info or that your players would get bored with the rogue showing off, but just illustrating that certain expectations come with certain tables.



This is incredibly insightful, and would be useful in any DMG. The fact that perception should not tell you it's a trap. Perception tells you "it's a hole in the ground" or "it's a hole with a canvas covering it" or "there is a thing metal wire running across the hall" or "there are holes in the walls, about finger size". Investigation tells you that it's a trap, in some cases. The pit is obviously something to be avoided, but the holes in the walls? Who knows what hose are for, and they are not stopping progress. Paranoid and smart adventurers will investigate those. That's when they discover the subtle glint of metal inside as they shine their torch in, or the slight discoloration of the stone from the remnants of poison gas.

I also very much like the presssure plate idea in the previous comment. That is some good drama there. Put a perception check on noticing the click (very low, of course, like D.C. 10) then the actual encounter begins - how to get him off.


I think most groups, upon hearing there is a series of finger sized holes in the hallway, would immediately know it is a trap, and most likely a trap that shoots arrows/bolts/darts ect.

In fact, to me, if I was told the stone inside the holes was discolored... I wouldn't know what to make of that. Could be poison, could be a low-grade acid (depends on the type of stone), could be fire, could be necrotic energy, or actually any sort of magic, could be burrows for creatures.

How do you stop it? Well.... that depends. Trap it probably has a pressure plate. I'm either going to spot it or not, once I do I should be able to just not step on it. Or perhaps we spend 10 minutes stuffing rags into the holes. Which as soon as we step on the pressure plate and unleash the highly destructive hellfire is going to do squat.

The line is a very fine one I think, and definitely changes from group to group, about how useful any given information is. Once my players think there is a trap in the area, everyone except one of the rogues backs off 15 ft, then the rogue starts trying to disarm or figure out how to avoid the trap. And they will do nothing else until they have an answer that satisfies them because they know this is a trap, and they know there is an answer that will make it safe.


I will however third that the pressure plate mine scenario is a brilliant one that could potentially be very exciting.
 


raleel

Explorer
I think most groups, upon hearing there is a series of finger sized holes in the hallway, would immediately know it is a trap, and most likely a trap that shoots arrows/bolts/darts ect.

I don't disagree, so maybe the example was bad, but...

In fact, to me, if I was told the stone inside the holes was discolored... I wouldn't know what to make of that. Could be poison, could be a low-grade acid (depends on the type of stone), could be fire, could be necrotic energy, or actually any sort of magic, could be burrows for creatures.

I think the point is that it would prompt more investigation, and perhaps exploit some other knowledge skills. It doesn't even have to be super hard, but enough to get the idea that it's not going to be darts, and it's not some burrowing creature's hole.

How do you stop it? Well.... that depends. Trap it probably has a pressure plate. I'm either going to spot it or not, once I do I should be able to just not step on it. Or perhaps we spend 10 minutes stuffing rags into the holes. Which as soon as we step on the pressure plate and unleash the highly destructive hellfire is going to do squat.

yep, that's where the other skills start coming in. I think the stuffing of rags is the "well, we don't have any skills or countermeasures that can specifically address it, give me your spare undies and we'll hope this holds" solution. Against gas or low grade acid? maybe! Against necrotic energies, probably no. that tension is going to help out, however.

The line is a very fine one I think, and definitely changes from group to group, about how useful any given information is. Once my players think there is a trap in the area, everyone except one of the rogues backs off 15 ft, then the rogue starts trying to disarm or figure out how to avoid the trap. And they will do nothing else until they have an answer that satisfies them because they know this is a trap, and they know there is an answer that will make it safe.

I think in this model, the rogue and the wizard are working together, probably. Or the bard. Or maybe the rogue has expertise. Or the fighter took Skilled. It's a place where the skill monkeys can show off.

I'm reminded of the Gumshoe system which suggests that you have obstacles for every skill present in the group, just to make sure everyone has a chance to shine. Putting in mechanisms to bypass that cover all the skills, and have perception have a relatively low threshold for spotting these.

Frankly, I think a few dozen of these traps, with countermeasures detailed out to include a range of things, including Tools, would go a long ways towards helping GMs make interesting encounters. I can easily see Herbalism, Poisoner, and Artisan Kits being useful in these situations. Even a Gaming set (specifically proficiency in it) would be handy in some situations
 

akr71

Hero
I like the article. However, I am not likely to copy and paste any of these traps into my adventures. It gives ideas on how to better plan traps and how to get the party to interact with them.

I also don't think that the canvas covered pit trap is as useless as it seems at first glance. I can think of a few scenarios where it makes sense - the trap makers have limited resources or are maybe not the most skilled at trap making. Outdoors I would use it as a hunting trap - the canvas drapes across some weak branches and sticks that give way and drop the prey into the trap. Indoors, maybe it is not intended for the adventurers... maybe the pit's intention is to keep predators such as a bear or wolves from wandering farther into a cavern. Also keep in mind that in dim light (60 feet out for most creatures with darkvision), perception checks are made at disadvantage. I would use it to slow the party down and perhaps warn whoever is deeper in the dungeon/cavern that someone is approaching.

Goblins firing arrows from the other side of the pit would probably get several players I know to charge headlong down the corridor without another thought.

When the party perceives the trap - yes, I get that they will at DC10 - I wouldn't say "you see a tattered piece of canvas covering a pit." More likely I would mention the canvas and then let them investigate from there. I don't think it is meant to be clever - more along the lines of something a xvart would come up with.
 

ehren37

Legend
You can play the way you want. That's the beauty of 5E.

But in my game if you tell me you are going to disable a trap and can't even understand the mechanism to do so is in a different place from where it apparently is set to be sprung, then the attempt will simply fail. Perceiving the way the trap works is a separate dice roll that would precede the roll to disable it. Maybe it is even part of what is discerned from the same dice roll that detected the trap. If you are the DM, you decide.
.

This I don't have a problem with, but it seems more the exception than the rule. So many published adventures are so incredibly vague in how you disable it and the information isn't presented in a clear fashion. Players then can't really make an informed decision of how to describe something they (probably) don't know how to do in real life. So there's multiple layers of separation of knowledge from player to character. To me, traps are pretty dull anyways unless they're sprung and require interaction with to defeat (Star Wars trash compactor, Indiana Jones boulder race, Goonies falling floor piano etc). I just don't have the mental energy to come up on the fly how a poisoned needle lock works, explain that to a party so it makes sense, and evaluate their attempts, all to get to the point of letting them roll to avoid a probably piddly amount of poison damage.
 

Imaro

Legend
This I don't have a problem with, but it seems more the exception than the rule. So many published adventures are so incredibly vague in how you disable it and the information isn't presented in a clear fashion. Players then can't really make an informed decision of how to describe something they (probably) don't know how to do in real life. So there's multiple layers of separation of knowledge from player to character. To me, traps are pretty dull anyways unless they're sprung and require interaction with to defeat (Star Wars trash compactor, Indiana Jones boulder race, Goonies falling floor piano etc). I just don't have the mental energy to come up on the fly how a poisoned needle lock works, explain that to a party so it makes sense, and evaluate their attempts, all to get to the point of letting them roll to avoid a probably piddly amount of poison damage.

I think a player simply stating they jam the spring mechanism (or even set it off while keeping their hands well away from the needle) would work. Really, for simple traps, I don't think it has to be detailed out to the point where someone would need an engineering degree to explain and/or interact with the trap...

I do think this is great methodology for designing complex traps (which seem to fit the examples you gave above better than simple traps) and stops it from being reduced to a series of dice rolls as opposed to interacting with the actual fiction.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
From this conversation it seems obvious that there needs to be better guidelines on what exactly perception tells you about the trap. If the dc10 of the pit trap says "you see some random rocks, twigs, and dirt covering this section of the hall." or "a small square of fabric is sticking out of the dirt here" and the players have the choice of being suspicious and checking it closer or blundering ahead, is a LOT different than "you find a canvass-covered pit trap."

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app
 

I would encourage you to put together a volume 2 instead. I wouldn't buy it again if it was just reformatted, but I would pay you money again for more content. ;)
I think I'd rather be a publisher that updates the content they already released and rewards people who bought their products rather than one who just tries to get future sales.
But I'm doing this as a hobby and for fun, and view any money I make as a bonus, so I have that luxury.

The covers of my first couple books are rather sad...
 

Imaro

Legend
From this conversation it seems obvious that there needs to be better guidelines on what exactly perception tells you about the trap. If the dc10 of the pit trap says "you see some random rocks, twigs, and dirt covering this section of the hall." or "a small square of fabric is sticking out of the dirt here" and the players have the choice of being suspicious and checking it closer or blundering ahead, is a LOT different than "you find a canvass-covered pit trap."

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

Well the example from the article seems pretty clear...

A DC 10 Wisdom
(Perception) check reveals the canvass...

So you notice the canvass (or whatever is covering it) but do not know it is covering an actual pit trap.

I am now picturing kobolds who lay down random canvasses in their layers... who hide in the shadows and try to push those who investigate the canvass into the pit... who stand at the edge of the canvass and use missile weapons...or who lay down canvasses that have dart traps attached when you pull them up...
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
Well the example from the article seems pretty clear...

A DC 10 Wisdom
(Perception) check reveals the canvass...

So you notice the canvass (or whatever is covering it) but do not know it is covering an actual pit trap.

I am now picturing kobolds who lay down random canvasses in their layers... who hide in the shadows and try to push those who investigate the canvass into the pit... who stand at the edge of the canvass and use missile weapons...or who lay down canvasses that have dart traps attached when you pull them up...
Yeah that sounds great!

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top