Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7709562" data-attributes="member: 48965">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.</blockquote>

Verification