What is the point of traps?

[dman11235]

Very well put.  My suggestion above is meant to work on the first problem, that of time constraint, and the surprise issue (traps aren't surprising if they are already known about).

For the third issue, I don't think there's much anyone can do from a rules perspective, other than just giving suggestions and providing modules and such with better placement and use.

The second one is something I think can be worked on.  Half of it would be on the DM for making good traps, but we could provide new rules for advanced traps, including HP-targeting ones, and alarms, summoning traps, etc.

[linklord231]

My DM just assumes we're always "searching for traps" and just calls for search checks whenever there's something interesting to be found.  If there's a trap in the room, he says "ok, search checks all around."  Same for hidden objects, doors, etc.  He also prefers more elaborate traps that require something more than a simple Disable Device check, but gives out hefty bonuses to DD checks for actually coming up with a way to bypass/negate traps in-character, such as holding a tripwire taught as you cut it and then tying it to something to keep the tension, or holding up a block of wood in front of a dart trap.  It seems to work, but in my opinion is unfair to characters with lots of ranks in DD but whose players are clueless.  "My character would know what to do, even if I don't.  That's what having ranks in Disable Device means."

I also totally agree with the idea that traps are generally misused - when I put "traps" in a room or on a chest, it's either to make absolutely sure no one enters or leaves that area ever (such a kobolds trapping the deeper levels of their warrens, where bigger nasties live), or non-lethal traps like alarms or snares. 

[RobbyPants]

Okay, thought I had just now, and I posted it in RobbyPant's skill feat thread on the homebrew forum.

What if we made the searching for traps a passive thing?  Players cannot declare that they search for traps, they just automatically have an eye out for them.  The DM would be in charge of comparing stats, or rolling checks, or whatever needs to happen, but the players won't know whether or not there's a trap until it's sprung or someone sees it.  If done correctly, they should be completely surprised by a missed trap, and wouldn't be able to slow down the game by searching EVERYthing, maybe at most they get a circumstance bonus to the check or whatever once they've been hit by something.

Are you limited to one search check? Lets say you get to a door in a tomb that's so far proven to be seriously trapped and the DM gives you the all clear. Can you opt to re-search it? If so, then you might as well just allow people to take 20 passively. If not, how is it explained? Just that the random result of the roll is how well they did and that's that?

I guess, even if you go with the latter approach, the players are still free to take precautions as if the door were trapped, even if they can't find anything. So, they could have summoned monsters prod at it, or what not.

[dman11235]

I think that would fall under the "circumstancel bonus if they have reason to believe it's trapped" thing I mentioned.  Right now it's just a seed of an idea though, not fleshed out.

[veekie]

The way I do it:
You autodetect at a Take 10, if this beats the search DC, you spot something suspicious(usually the trigger or attack mechanism), which lets you take further action. If it fails you don't set off the trap unless you fulfill the trigger by other actions.

Active search would be rolled, and if it fails the DC by more than 5, it goes off when you accidentally activate the trigger in your search. On the other hand, you can have the party Aid each other to boost the check.

Once you find the trap, then your Disable Device, knowledge or whatever applicable abilities can be brought to bear to bypass or disable it.

[dman11235]

So they constantly have the Search up, but can't active search unless they see something suspicious, or they have it constant, but if they want to they can search actively?  Your commas are confusing.

[veekie]

Passive search means its obvious to you, you spend no effort, it only needs to be in sensing range, and an lower DC than your take 10 result. It works or it doesn't, but has no drawbacks.

Active search you can initiate any time. You roll your search, and if it works, you get the same result as passive search(mainly you do this if you suspect theres a trap that eluded your automatic search). If it fails by 5+, you trigger it, which should have the effect of blocking take 20s.

All either search form does is tell you there is a trap, trap trigger or trap's attack mechanism there. You need other skills to do anything with the information other than 'not go there'.

[Garryl]

Passive search means its obvious to you, you spend no effort, it only needs to be in sensing range, and an lower DC than your take 10 result. It works or it doesn't, but has no drawbacks.

Active search you can initiate any time. You roll your search, and if it works, you get the same result as passive search(mainly you do this if you suspect theres a trap that eluded your automatic search). If it fails by 5+, you trigger it, which should have the effect of blocking take 20s.

All either search form does is tell you there is a trap, trap trigger or trap's attack mechanism there. You need other skills to do anything with the information other than 'not go there'.

So if you're not good enough to spot a trap off the bat, looking more closely has at least a 30% chance of triggering it.

[RobbyPants]

So if you're not good enough to spot a trap off the bat, looking more closely has at least a 30% chance of triggering it.

I was just about to bring up that point before I saw your post.

Like Garryl said, at a minimum, you'll get blasted by 3 in 10 traps if the DC is too high to get by taking 10 (needing a natural 11). If this DC is high enough to require a natural 15, you'll set off 50% of them. The worst case, of course, is a DC 20, which would then have you setting off 75% of them).

It's not quite as bad as 2E's trap-finding mechanic, but if I couldn't hit it with taking 10, I'd likely just set some weird array of stuff like summoned monsters, filled barrels, or ten-foot poles after it.

Edit:
And it's not to say that "solving" traps is bad. I actually like the idea of treating them like puzzles rather than defeating them with a Disable Device roll, so long as there isn't one omni-solution that solves all traps. In this case, I'd want searching to be easier and then I'd just do away with Disable Device, or rather, it might be rolled into some sort of Knowledge (Engineering) check (or whatever) to give you some insight in how to bypass the trap, if it isn't too apparent.

[dman11235]

The problem with that, I think, is that it relies on the players themselves knowing what to do.  And I know that I certainly don't know how to survive in the wilderness, but my character with +23435 survival certainly does.  Although I see what you're going for.  I kind of agree, I just hink "be careful".  There needs to be a solid rule for defeating them that doesn't rely on the player's knowledge, but doesn't punish it.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Indy Jones and the Grail version ... he's doing that Penitent Man chant
and the saw blades "attack". Maybe that's a Dodge bonus vs AC, or a
Tumble check, or a Reflex save ; then he stops the blades from moving
(but not spinning) with an in-combat DD check.

3.0e has the critical success/failure rules, unfleshed out.

4e did two things interesting with Traps.
You can use them with an Encounter, either by itself,
or with Monsters. So they rated them the same way
Monsters are rated, and work with their Game Maths
basically the exact same. They missed a detail ...
you can't beat the monsters with one or two skill checks.

The other way they used them was as Difficult Terrain.
Kobolds (!) could get a power or two, that let them
bypass or reset the trap(s). This is more in line with
historical Armies or Heroes reaching a bottleneck
and the bbegs have boobytrapped the area.

I suppose the whole concept of traps, could be rewritten
to function almost the same as other game elements
like Monsters, or even treasure ... say like Cursed items.
 

[Nunkuruji]

The problem with auto-search, or believing that trap/search/secret is a "waste of time", is that it's supposed to be a waste of world time. That is to say, part of its job is to tick down the timer on buff spells - expend party resources. Just don't let it be a waste of table time.

[Keldar]

The problem with that idea is its a monumental waste of time at the table by RAW.  Running down time on buffs can be done quite well by the presumed time it takes to loot, rather than OCD rolling that most gamers got sick of long before they considered themselves gamers.

[veekie]

Passive search means its obvious to you, you spend no effort, it only needs to be in sensing range, and an lower DC than your take 10 result. It works or it doesn't, but has no drawbacks.

Active search you can initiate any time. You roll your search, and if it works, you get the same result as passive search(mainly you do this if you suspect theres a trap that eluded your automatic search). If it fails by 5+, you trigger it, which should have the effect of blocking take 20s.

All either search form does is tell you there is a trap, trap trigger or trap's attack mechanism there. You need other skills to do anything with the information other than 'not go there'.

So if you're not good enough to spot a trap off the bat, looking more closely has at least a 30% chance of triggering it.

Exactly, however, you can add more bonuses to it, since you can perform Aid Another with the party, but with the brute force trap detection arrays, you then have to deal with traps whose role is not to deal damage. Certain traps only do anything at all if not detected, so they remain undetected.
The idea is to remove the time you need to paranoiac searching, especially because paranoiac searching is contraindicated by that rule.

[dipolartech]

Umm veekie you might want to take a second there and consider what

Certain traps only do anything at all if not detected, so they remain undetected.
The idea is to remove the time you need to paranoiac searching, especially because paranoiac searching is contraindicated by that rule.

means in terms of metagaming. I mean if I send barrel full of summoned gorrillas through an area and no traps go off and then the rogue magically "auto-detects" a trap and then it goes off in our face, I'd be unhappy. What is the in-game engineering/arcaneering reason for traps only working if detected and how does it know?

[RedWarlock]

Umm veekie you might want to take a second there and consider what

Certain traps only do anything at all if not detected, so they remain undetected.
The idea is to remove the time you need to paranoiac searching, especially because paranoiac searching is contraindicated by that rule.

means in terms of metagaming. I mean if I send barrel full of summoned gorrillas through an area and no traps go off and then the rogue magically "auto-detects" a trap and then it goes off in our face, I'd be unhappy. What is the in-game engineering/arcaneering reason for traps only working if detected and how does it know?

Read that again, I double-checked, Veekie says they only do something if NOT detected. Your gorillas would still set them off, but if the rogue saw it, it's easily evaded without even a check.

[RobbyPants]

The problem with that, I think, is that it relies on the players themselves knowing what to do.  And I know that I certainly don't know how to survive in the wilderness, but my character with +23435 survival certainly does.  Although I see what you're going for.  I kind of agree, I just hink "be careful".  There needs to be a solid rule for defeating them that doesn't rely on the player's knowledge, but doesn't punish it.

That's why I threw in that Knowledge check caveat, although this could potentially be any number of skills. I suppose they could always fall back on Disable Device to represent PC knowledge, but clever thinking on the PCs part might result in a 100% success. For example: you could roll a DC X Disable Device check to disable the mechanism of a pit trap, or you could lay a plank across the area that would open if you had a long enough board and simply bypass it.

So, on the off chance that you run into some sort of wall blades with no visible mechanisms to jam, or whatever, you can fall back on a DD check instead.

The problem with auto-search, or believing that trap/search/secret is a "waste of time", is that it's supposed to be a waste of world time. That is to say, part of its job is to tick down the timer on buff spells - expend party resources. Just don't let it be a waste of table time.

Well, that's why I like the idea of a passive take-20 if you move at a slower speed. Taking 20 slows you down, and time might not be a resource that you have. But if you're not on a timer, then there's no reason not to take 20, but there's no reason that increase of time in the dungeon needs to translate into anything more than five extra seconds at the table to declare you're moving at half speed.

[dipolartech]

RedWarlock, I looked again and realized I tried to get the wrong point across, I'm saying I don't understand what  veekie's  method is if its "Certain traps only do anything at all if not detected, so they remain undetected"  because I'm thinking too language/rules lawyer specific about it. If search detects traps and doesn't set them off / trip them/ trigger etc then my barrel full of gorrillas isn't doing what a PC search would do because the gorillas are triggering the traps for me not detecting them. So if the trap remains undetected because the gorillas can't detect them they remain undetected but triggered?

[EDIT]Jeez, at this point I'm confusing myself and anybody who reads this post.

Veekie, what happens in your system if I toss in seven purple gorillas into a room with 1 or more traps designed to achieve its trap function only if no one detects it?

[veekie]

Traps can have different triggers from the blind pressure plate.
Phase 1: Players perceive the room
Automatic search happens, and you compare the highest take 10 against the trap search DCs. Obvious traps(like the bucket of water wedged over the door) are detected. Other traps go undetected.

You are now aware of some traps, no traps are triggered at this point.
Phase 2: Gorillas Enter
Traps that are based on pressure plate triggers all go off, due to them stomping all over. So do visually activated traps like Symbols. Traps embedded in locks and doors do not necessarily trigger. Traps based on Detect Alignment of some criteria need not either.

You are now aware of location activated traps, or at least those with visible effects. Those that can't reset are defused. Alarms have probably gone off, and traps that realign rooms(e.g. moving the corridor behind the next door to lead to an alligator pit instead of the vault or collapsing a bridge behind) do so.

Phase 3: Disarm gorilla activated traps.

So you've eliminated floor triggers, and can attempt to disarm anything that resets.

Phase 4: Players Active Search
So what comes next, you search the door, and the treasure chest for traps. You blow it on the chest, which contains a nasty poison needle trap, stabbing the searcher. You find the alarm trap on the door.

Phase 5: Disarm remaining traps
Since you've found every single trap by now, and gotten beat up by some to boot, you proceed to deal with them. Any remaining traps are in places you hadn't searched, and activated by means you don't know.

[Rejakor]

I use two kinds of traps.

Resource draining traps.  Nearly every trap in the DMG/Dungeonscape comes under this heading.  These use up the party's resources (even if it's just a casting of Summon Monster I from a wand), and add to the feeling of danger and realism.  They are often trivial, and I don't usually think of them as an 'encounter'.

Deadly traps.  These are multi-part (key) intelligently designed traps designed to kill or imprison PC-equivalents.  Wherever possible I avoid spell effects, at least without a save, so often they are gravity traps dropping you into 'kill rooms', massively trapped rooms that 'activate' on a switch pull or through a dozen different ways /only once you are inside the room/, overpressure wind traps that pull you into a fall-away roof concealing massive spinning blades and a dozen other ways to kill you.

Essentially someone realized that the really dangerous denizens of the world are insanely tough monsters and highly skilled adventuring types, and planned accordingly.

The key part of them is that they need multiple saves or attacks vs AC to 'defeat', often include forced movement or delayed trigger to get as much of the party involved in the 'killing zone' as possible (to avoid 'send the fighter in first' tactics, although those are best dealt with by isolating and murdering the fighter a couple of times - something that any competent or intelligent foe would do), and typically require some kind of action on the party's part to actually deactivate.  Just like a real encounter.  A single goblin archer shooting a single arrow at the party and running off and never appearing again isn't an encounter, any more than a single arrow trap is an encounter, at any level.

And of course you can throw both of these into a mixed encounter, just as easily as hostile terrain and all the various kinds of monster/Opposition encounters.