What is the point of traps?

[Endarire]

It's fully logical that someone wanting to guard his base (or other important location) would install traps.

From an implementation perspective in 3.5, things get wonky.

Either traps are trivial, meaning you find and disarm them on a 10 or less (or otherwise without much danger), or you roll and risk massive pain.

How much of a hassle should traps in 3.5 be?  What are better rules systems for this than the very binary?

[dman11235]

I think that right now traps are pretty much useless except as a way to make the rogue seem more useful.  I think that they SHOULD be useful defense features, but right now they don't do enough and are very easily bypassed at later levels.  Early on they can be quite deadly though.

Traps are a bit odd, however, as they only should be useful for guarding an area, which is something that PCs tend to not do.  So instead of be evaluated as far as usefulness goes, they get evaluated as far as DM tool goes.  And as we have seen from monsster CRs, that leads to huge miscalculations for usefulness.

I'm not sure when a trap should not be a valid obstacle anymore, though i'm also not sure if it should ever fall away with relevancy.  Too tired now to say anything more coherent, though.

[ariasderros]

I think that right now traps are pretty much useless except as a way to make the rogue seem more useful.  I think that they SHOULD be useful defense features, but right now they don't do enough and are very easily bypassed at later levels.  Early on they can be quite deadly though.

Meh, Dungeonscape give some good improvements to the trap production process. Enough to prolong the "usefulness" of traps for several levels.

The main problem with traps, from a player perspective, is that against anything that would be an even remote threat to the player, the trap will be bypassed through some means anyway.

[SneeR]

In my opinion, traps need to be difficult to spot, but not be killers. Each trap should drain a bit more of the party's resources, eventually killing them if they utterly fail. It makes sense that a trap would go off with the intention of harming people enough to make them leave, not necessarily kill them in one hit. Several of those going off should finally do the intruder in, though.

[SolEiji]

Another nice trap is the in0combat trap.  In terms of ambushes, nothing throws the odds in your favor like the enemy being unsure where to step.  It's hard to fight when you're forced to play minesweeper at the same time.

[Drammor]

In my opinion, a trap is a challenge for characters, just like a monster (or group of monsters). A trap is an encounter, and it should present the same amount of danger to a party as any other encounter of its CR.

It might have been fine to come up against nothing but angry monsters for an entire campaign, in every dungeon ever, but for someone, it wasn't. That someone decided to mix it up a bit. That meant locked doors, puzzles, spellcasters and traps. Probably some other things, too.

So what's the point of a trap? To be a variety of challenge for the Party.

Whatever rules system is installed... it would have to emulate - at least partially - the complexity and depth that monsters and puzzles can provide.

[Tiltowait]

An attempt to justify the Rogue, much like earlier editions. Much like earlier editions, they forgot to make the trap class good at dealing with traps, which make them a trap in another sense of the word.

Ignoring that there are a select few trap types that are useful but most are just simple HP for XP trades, and that's a winning investment for the party.

[RobbyPants]

I think traps as-is are a holdover from earlier editions.

Given how the rules work, DMG traps are basically annoying. Unless you have a strict time limit, the system encourages you to spend two minutes taking 20 on all of your Search checks. Then, it's basically a Disable Device roll you have to hope you can make, unless the trap is described in some way that you could otherwise bypass. This gets even worse the more creative the DM gets with trap placement. After the PCs get nailed by a trap in the middle of a 1000-foot hall or in a candle-stick or something, they'll just start searching everything. And that's not interesting. It doesn't take any sort of skill to declare that you're literally taking 20 to search every 10x10' section of the dungeon.

That being said traps have a place in fantasy, and I'd like to see a better system for implementing them so we can have fun with them at the table. As already mentioned, the encounter traps in Dungeonscape are a good idea. It's a way to get everyone involved. I also like puzzle traps, where it's obvious you're up against a trap, but you have to get creative to bypass it. A simple Disable Device check can be somewhat boring, IMO. I'd like them to be as interesting as encounters (or at least a lot better than they are, now).

[SneeR]

You actually can't a Take 20 on a Search check for a trap because you get a critical failure before you get a critical success, meaning you set off the trap. At least its faster to take 10.

[RobbyPants]

You actually can't a Take 20 on a Search check for a trap because you get a critical failure before you get a critical success, meaning you set off the trap. At least its faster to take 10.

I don't see any critical failure or failure-by-more-than-five rule for Search. There is a five-or-more rule for Disable Device, though.

So far as I know, if the DC is less than or equal to your mods + 20, you can just auto-find it, if you have the time. And that's fine. Taking 20 is meant to be a time-saver, not an overpowered option.

Edit:
I'm not claiming you said it's overpowered. I just know that's a common objection.

[Halinn]

I thought traps were just good for drastically altering the setting, by creating auto-reset spell traps for the benefit of the general population.

[SneeR]

You actually can't a Take 20 on a Search check for a trap because you get a critical failure before you get a critical success, meaning you set off the trap. At least its faster to take 10.

I don't see any critical failure or failure-by-more-than-five rule for Search. There is a five-or-more rule for Disable Device, though.

So far as I know, if the DC is less than or equal to your mods + 20, you can just auto-find it, if you have the time. And that's fine. Taking 20 is meant to be a time-saver, not an overpowered option.

Edit:
I'm not claiming you said it's overpowered. I just know that's a common objection.

I apologize... I just looked up the rules for skill checks and learned that nat 1 and nat 20 are not criticals...
Apparently my group has been playing with a houserule for six years and I took it as official, just glossing over that line in the book...
I am now one step closer to system mastery...

[RobbyPants]

I apologize... I just looked up the rules for skill checks and learned that nat 1 and nat 20 are not criticals...
Apparently my group has been playing with a houserule for six years and I took it as official, just glossing over that line in the book...
I am now one step closer to system mastery...

It's cool. That only applies to attacks and saves. Individual skills, like Disable Device or UMD might have individual rules written in for retries, but you can take 20 on any skill that is Retry: Yes.

[Halinn]

I apologize... I just looked up the rules for skill checks and learned that nat 1 and nat 20 are not criticals...
Apparently my group has been playing with a houserule for six years and I took it as official, just glossing over that line in the book...
I am now one step closer to system mastery...

It's cool. That only applies to attacks and saves. Individual skills, like Disable Device or UMD might have individual rules written in for retries, but you can take 20 on any skill that is Retry: Yes.

I believe CL checks as well (spell resistance).

[RobbyPants]

I believe CL checks as well (spell resistance).

I don't see anything about it in the rules. Is it listed somewhere else?

Caster Level Checks

 To make a caster level check, roll 1d20 and add your caster level (in the relevant class). If the result equals or exceeds the DC (or the spell resistance, in the case of caster level checks made for spell resistance), the check succeeds.

[Karlton]

I actually like traps in their current form (3.x).

When I DM, I never rarely them as stand alone encounters, but rather as an extra precaution taken by a smart foe.

A pit trap is not in itself meant to be deadly, and given time anyone can escape from them, but monsters in the area might check the trap for fresh meat on a regular basis, making the encounter with the trap intense due to the sense of impending danger. Perhaps the floor of the pit trap is littered with gnawed humanoid bones, perhaps the character that fell into the trap is now impaled and unable to move, and perhaps the device that triggered the pit doors also triggered an alarm trap. At any rate, while the trap itself did very little damage to the party, the real challenge here is to think of a way to rescue Bertram the unlucky scout from the trap before the ogre rangers show up to eat him.

In locations such as abandoned temples, the same pit trap could be where a group of undead shadows dwelled, or a dart trap might carry a magical poison or disease that a require more than just a remove disease/poison spell to fix.

My players would never dare to enter a kobold infested mine or an ancient tomb without a trapfinder, and thats how I like it. I cant see how traps are supposed to be any different than they are now, after all the entire concept of a static trap is rather limited in itself, and stretching it further would be stretching it too far.

[Kasz]

Anyone who thinks traps are useless really needs to google Tucker's Kobolds. Intelligent monsters fighting intelligently on their home turf would use traps.

I tend to take for granted the rogue can see traps around him in a 10metre radius if he's moving slowly/carefully and the DC to spot is within his search
+ 20 when I DM, therefore if the party lead walks off without the rogue probably hit a trap because there won't be anyone to warn him.
If the rogue is running through the dungeon I'd add a reasonable amount to the DC which would make itt difficult for even the rogue's Search + 20 to spot.

Traps don't just have to be... you touched the door it explodes, make a relfex. A trap can be a puzzle, a puzzle can be trapped, traps can be in rooms with monsters for you to blunder into or wisely lead a monster into setting off.

Look at Skyrim.
Occasionally doors and chests are trapped, they end up setting you on fire or shooting you with darts or impaling you with spikes.
Occasionally floor is covered in oil, just waiting for a firespell or an arrow to the candle hanging above.
Occasionally around the corner there will be soulgem turned into a turret or a pressure pad that will activate a wall of spikes, or swinging pendulum axes.

So what are your options?
Well, in all cases, take a bit of dmg...or die, I've been oneshot by traps before on my assassin character.

Trapped chests or doors, Either disarm them, dodge them once triggered (sidestep that swinging mace and feel awesome).
Oil on the floor, a wise adventurer will lure enemies into the oil and set them on fire. A foolhardy adventurer will accidently set the oil on fire whilst standing in the oil.
Soulgem turret? an archer will shoot the gem out of it's socket, a warrior might raise shield and charge through the pain, a rogue might time dodging rolls through cover to get close and remove the gem manually.
Pressure pad... blunder onto it or lead your enemies to their dooms, or avoid it altogether.

in Skyrim if you get a puzzle wrong, you tend to be rewarded with a hail of poison darts... this is a good and solid indicator that you fluffed it up... better than "Nothing happens"

"But this is a DnD forum, not a Skyrim forum! STFU!"

You can easily transport all of the above into DnD, they all add an extra dimension to challenges, with the ability to increase or decrease the difficulty based on the skill of the adventurer. That's the point of traps.

Don't get me started on the Trapsmith PrC which I love for it's ability to Haste around the battlefield and turn the nearby boulder into a mechanical stone trap with a wise fabricate or stoneshape... let alone the applications if you are fighting a defensive battle with a few days to prepare.

Trapsmiths are Colonel John "Hannibal" Smith.
"Give me a minute, I'm good. Give me an hour, I'm great. Give me six months, I'm unbeatable."

[Halinn]

I believe CL checks as well (spell resistance).

I don't see anything about it in the rules. Is it listed somewhere else?

Caster Level Checks

 To make a caster level check, roll 1d20 and add your caster level (in the relevant class). If the result equals or exceeds the DC (or the spell resistance, in the case of caster level checks made for spell resistance), the check succeeds.

I was probably wrong, then.

[deuxhero]

To screw with people who jerk off to video game characters I think was the reason given for Bridget...


Aren't traps in D&D because dungeons (in the sense of things like ancient tombs), even before D&D in pop-culture were considered full of traps (like Indiana Jones)?

[dman11235]

I actually like traps in their current form (3.x).

When I DM, I never rarely them as stand alone encounters, but rather as an extra precaution taken by a smart foe.

A pit trap is not in itself meant to be deadly, and given time anyone can escape from them, but monsters in the area might check the trap for fresh meat on a regular basis, making the encounter with the trap intense due to the sense of impending danger. Perhaps the floor of the pit trap is littered with gnawed humanoid bones, perhaps the character that fell into the trap is now impaled and unable to move, and perhaps the device that triggered the pit doors also triggered an alarm trap. At any rate, while the trap itself did very little damage to the party, the real challenge here is to think of a way to rescue Bertram the unlucky scout from the trap before the ogre rangers show up to eat him.

In locations such as abandoned temples, the same pit trap could be where a group of undead shadows dwelled, or a dart trap might carry a magical poison or disease that a require more than just a remove disease/poison spell to fix.

My players would never dare to enter a kobold infested mine or an ancient tomb without a trapfinder, and thats how I like it. I cant see how traps are supposed to be any different than they are now, after all the entire concept of a static trap is rather limited in itself, and stretching it further would be stretching it too far.

Here's the thing though: by level 5, wizards have a method of making pit traps almost useless: flight.  By level 10, just about every character should have some method of flight.  Not to mention that traps can be made useless at level 1 by a rogue who knows how to work it.  Level 1 traps have very low DCs to find.  They become an annoyance rather than a problem.

The way traps are now doesn't really do much to the party that knows about them.  And the party that's hit by one knows about them, and then they start checking everything.  That's the problem.