Traps and the finding of traps are kind of strange and kludgy to me. Would anyone like to take some time to explain to me exactly how you handle traps at the table? Who rolls, what is secret, how do you handle trapfinding abilities, the consequences of success, failure, etc. I'm looking for a plain-english, no-nonsense treatment of the encounter type. Thanks for any discussion!
1.You must interact with the trap to get XP for it.
2.By the rules you can only search a 5ft square. I just do entire sections of the map or an entire room if it is small enough. Doors and chest are searched separately.
3.The player rolls perception. That means it is up to him to let me know he is searching for a trap. Once it is found he can try disarm it or get around it if possible.
4. Going back to bullet number 1. James Jacobs says that overcoming the trap gets XP. This means whether you survive the trap after it goes off, you disarm it, or just find a way around it XP is given out.
I think the most down-to-earth use of traps as encounter modifiers. A trap should alert the monsters that the PCs are scuttling about their cave, and possibly make fighting the PCs easier. If damaging traps soften the PCs HP totals, then the monsters should try to attack them as soon as possible to make that damage into an advantage for them. Traps can also be used to grant the monsters tactical advantages such as higher ground, or good cover, or perhaps an area from which to cast nasty spells.
In general, few traps should kill on their own, as that turns the game into a boolean skill check for survival. But they should make the PCs lives harder, and make the rogue feel good for having saved the party from disaster (assuming they made their checks).
We let the player roll, but we have a caveat. You must annouce how many attempts you are making to search a square before you roll, then regardless of the results, you are done searching. So, you have Roguey McFindytrap looking for traps. He announces he is searching each square three times. As per RAW, I let my players take a 10 or 20 to find traps if they are not being attacked.
Square 1, 14, 16, 12, finds nothing, he moves foward
Square 2, 12, 19, 16, finds nothing, he moves forward
Square 3, 4, 7, 2, finds nothing, player winces, prays and moves his character forward as if he thinks their is no trap, nothing happens.
Square 4, 7, 12, 17, finds a traps, groups analyzes the trap and figures out how to disarm it.
I also have a rule for take 15, same conditions as taking a 20, but only takes 3 times as long as the base action. I added the rule for take 15 precisely for this situation. Having a player or DM roll 3 or 4 times for each square can be very time consuming, and the rest of the players are sitting there twiddling their thumbs. Allowing you to take a 15 speeds things up a bit. FYI, if you roll 3d20 and take the highest, the average result is 15.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Traps and the finding of traps are kind of strange and kludgy to me. Would anyone like to take some time to explain to me exactly how you handle traps at the table? Who rolls, what is secret, how do you handle trapfinding abilities, the consequences of success, failure, etc. I'm looking for a plain-english, no-nonsense treatment of the encounter type. Thanks for any discussion!
OK, here's the scenario, the characters entire a 10' x 10' room. There is a pie on a table in the middle of the room. Let's assume the pie is the trigger for a simple arrow trap.
Arrow Trap CR 1
Type mechanical; Perception DC 20; Disable Device DC 20
Effects
Trigger touch; Reset none
Effect Atk +15 ranged (1d8+1/×3)
The rogue's player says he is looking for traps on the floor. (this roll can also be made by the GM in secret if you think the player's may metagame a low roll) The player may also elect to take 10 or take 20 on this roll.
You know there is no trap on the floor so you merely tell the player that the floor does not appear to be trapped.
The rogue advances to the table and pie. He again calls for a trap check on the pie. You compare the the result with the DC listed in the traps description, it this case 20.
If the roll beats the DC you reveal that a trap is present. If the succeed by 5 or more, you reveal that nature of the trap, an arrow trap in this case.
If they fail you say there is no trap. Regardless of success or failure, just looking for a trap will trigger it.
Assuming that a trap is revealed, the player will attempt to disable it.
If the player beats the DC, again 20 in this case. The trap is disable and you award the entire party XP for a CR1 encounter.
If the player fails to beat the DC by less than 5 (rolls 16-19), nothing happens. The character knows that the effort was not successful and can simply try again.
If the player fails by 5 or more (rolls 15 or less) the trap triggers and the poor rogue ends up triggering the trap instead. For this trap, you make an attack roll at +15 vs. the rogue (don't forget to apply trapsense to the rogue's AC, if the rogue is high enough level). Even though the trap was triggered award the entire party XP for a CR1 encounter (they still overcame the challenge).
The rogue and his party may now enjoy the pie. Mmmm, Pie.
That's about all there is to it.
Tim,
I'm still relatively new to the use of traps myself so I'm prepared to be wrong, but I thought you had to meet OR beat the DC of a trap to overcome it, as with other DCs. Also, just looking for the trap triggers it? I guess it's assumed that the rogue in the pie example above is lifting the pie off the table in order to search it for traps? (Sounds kind of like a rogue who deserves an arrow in the back, but maybe that's just me.)
Regardless of success or failure, just looking for a trap will trigger it.
The rest made sense. This sentence confuses me.
Generally, I don't.
Traps are boring time wasters for me.
That's a shame. I think they're one of the encounter types that you really need to live through "done right" as a player at least once in order to enjoy. That could stazrt a huge threadjack on how handling traps has changed over the years...
But in this thread I'm really just looking to figure out the "flow" of the trap encounter, especially from those people who enjoy traps (or their players do).
Regardless of success or failure, just looking for a trap will trigger it.The rest made sense. This sentence confuses me.
Me too, if looking for a trap can trigger it, then you cannot take a 20. Yet, you mention being able to take a 20....
2.By the rules you can only search a 5ft square. I just do entire sections of the map or an entire room if it is small enough. Doors and chest are searched separately.
-Can you point to this rule? It doesn't seem to have survived into pathfinder when they merged spot and search.
-With detect magic being usable at will, i just assume the characters are casting it every so often, it becomes just another sense along with sight smell and touch to describe an area.
If the characters are not in a hurry, when we get near enough for the trap to matter everyone makes perception rolls. If someone wants to take 20 they have to declare it.
Here is how I run traps.
I write my adventures up ahead of time module style. So for me traps are preplanned just like any other encounter.
Let's say i've decided on something simple. Kobold lair.. cave mouth entrance has a concealed 10'x10' pit trap.
Party approaches the entrance and I read the description of the area.
Previously I had them role a generic initiative just so I know who to ask what they are going to do first.
Now I wait for the party to describe their actions.
Perhaps the party will search for traps.. perception check against the pit's DC.
Perhaps the party has a class or race that gives them an edge. Such as a dwarf familiar with stone work. I would call for a knowledge check and simply say something in the stone work seems amiss. Most likely triggering a search as above.
If the party doesn't search the first person to enter the squares I have marked off on the map as the trap triggers it. iieeeeee!!!
I don't make them choose squares to search generally. I will usually let them search by terrain feature. "i'm going to check the cave mouth for traps" is sufficient.
Now for more elaborate setups I'll have it broken down into sections. Here's one I recently did. (this isn't a trap, just a semi-puzzle for the party to solve) For this one the party would need to tell me where they are searching.
At the top of the stairs you enter a small room. A large stone door stands before you. Upon its surface is carved a robbed man with a full beard and arching eyebrows. His eyes look down upon you with an empty gaze. In front of his chest it is holding a large smooth disk carved in stone. The disk is carved with an inscription and the image of a keyhole.
The inscription is written in Azlantian “With vision restored and the lock in my sight. Only then may this door be opened right.” But warned doth thou be, for within prove thy right, before ye may lay claim to Azlantian might.
To either side of the door is carved another image of a similarly robed figure. Small blue gemstones are set into the eyes of each. In the left hand they both hold a staff. Their other arm is raised as if in warning, with fingers pressed together and the palm facing towards you.
Examining and searching the statues: The raised hands can each be opened by hinging forward at the wrist revealing a small compartment. (perception DC-12 if the statue is examined) Amongst the dust is a small blue gemstone. These will snap into the eye sockets of the carving on the door. The keyhole must then be reflected back at the face of the carving. The shield downstairs can serve as a mirror. Doing so will cause the inscribed plaque to rotate revealing a real keyhole behind the carved one. (if examined: perception DC-18 to realize it can turn, though it cannot be done forcibly) The key is long gone but the lock can be picked DC-25.
Regardless of success or failure, just looking for a trap will trigger it.The rest made sense. This sentence confuses me.
D'oh. Mea culpa.
That should read: "just looking for a trap will trigger it.
Thanks for proofreading that.
Generally, I don't.
Traps are boring time wasters for me.
Just out of curiousity, TOZ, do you find the opening sequence of Raiders of the Lost Ark boring? In general that's what I'm trying to recreate with trap encounters. It has to have a sense of real danger (which most stock PF traps don't unless the GM makes an effort to beef them up or make them more interesting, but some custom traps in th APs are good). Bottom line - they can be made interesting, but a lot of the burden for that falls on the GM.
I would also suggest taking a dip back into AD&D and playing Tomb of Horrors, the original killer dungeon, loved and/or hated by everyone who has ever played it, to appreciate the potential traps have for being central to the game. General designer consensus nowadays seems to be that people don't like really deadly traps (or really deadly anything, frankly), but this module, filled with a huge collection of the most outrageous instant death traps ever seen and ending with a combat against the most frustrating and deadly enemy of all time in a published adventure, still makes about as many "top ten of all time" lists as any other. I'm an admitted combat-loving game geek, but that combat-light, trap saturated adventure had me on the edge of my seat through the entire thing, back in the days when polyester leisure suits and platform shoes were the thing to wear to the disco. I can still remember it much more vividly than anything else I've ever played. Perhaps current popular consensus is misguided?
2.By the rules you can only search a 5ft square. I just do entire sections of the map or an entire room if it is small enough. Doors and chest are searched separately.
-Can you point to this rule? It doesn't seem to have survived into pathfinder when they merged spot and search.
Plus actively search is now just a move action for everything you can perceive.
This all seems quite generous. I never really liked that how long (in-game) searching for traps could take under 3.5 but this seems to have gone the other way.
I usually have the player call out what they are searching. Such, as in my example, as checking the floor, or searching the pie for traps. In either of these cases if the trap was a falling block trap triggered by sound then they were looking in the wrong spot. Might seem a bit harsh, but taking six seconds to clear a 30' x 30' room of traps is a bit much for me to handle.
Just out of curiousity, TOZ, do you find the opening sequence of Raiders of the Lost Ark boring?I can't remember it.
Heathen!
That kind of "do or die" trap is easy to script, but its very hard to translate into a game with something as fickle as a die roll. If you're so good that you can make the roll on a 1, the trap isn't dangerous. If you can fail on a 1, then eventually you will roll a 1, die, and loose a beloved character to the harsh mistress of statistics.
I'm still relatively new to the use of traps myself so I'm prepared to be wrong, but I thought you had to meet OR beat the DC of a trap to overcome it, as with other DCs.
I should have been a little more careful about how I phrased things, but you are correct, to pass any check you need to meet or exceed the DC.
Also, just looking for the trap triggers it?
As noted above, that should have read: "will NOT trigger the trap."
But hey free advice is worth every penny you pay for it. :-D
Just out of curiousity, TOZ, do you find the opening sequence of Raiders of the Lost Ark boring?I can't remember it.Heathen!
That kind of "do or die" trap is easy to script, but its very hard to translate into a game with something as fickle as a die roll. If you're so good that you can make the roll on a 1, the trap isn't dangerous. If you can fail on a 1, then eventually you will roll a 1, die, and loose a beloved character to the harsh mistress of statistics.
The whole game is based on die rolls that can determine whether you live or die. Is it your contention that dying because of a failed disable device roll is less acceptable than because of a failed save or an enemy's critical hit? Luck is an integral part of the game. If you seek to eliminate it the logical end result is chess, a great game, but not exactly going to satisfy my RPG jones.
@TOZ Double Heathen!!
The whole game is based on die rolls that can determine whether you live or die. Is it your contention that dying because of a failed disable device roll is less acceptable than because of a failed save or an enemy's critical hit?
The high level "win initiative save or die" thing is one of the main problems with high level games.
As for an enemies critical hit, you have hit points. The enemy can hit you , crit, accomplish something, make you fear for your life now that you have low HPs.. but not kill you. Its the right middle ground for a game.
Luck is an integral part of the game. If you seek to eliminate it the logical end result is chess, a great game, but not exactly going to satisfy my RPG jones.
And if there's no element of skill or strategy then you're playing craps. The trick is to mix the two. A giant boulder doing a bazillion hitpoints of damage doesn't leave ANY room for error.
I suppose a good mix would be some sort of "luck point" system letting you reroll or get bonuses, and when those ran out you were at the mercy of cruel chance. (mooks, natives, people without dialog will have no luck points. The heroes will have extra, and so will damsels in distress and team pets)
A player must announce they are checking for traps--although I also require that they describe what they're doing--in what vicinity, what are they looking at, what kind of things they are looking for (because RARELY, but some traps have touch triggers that could go off if they aren't checking carefully). A detailed description of how one goes about checking for traps lowers the Perception DC by at least 2, if not more depending on how good the description is---or an excellent description might even bypass the roll (for example, "I pour water into the tile to see where it goes." And if the water pours into cracks around a hidden trap door, then they've obviously found SOMETHING).
Then I ask them to roll the dice (I use VERY few secret rolls--I'd rather PC abilities be rolled by the players, always. I've got enough work to do!).
If someone has Trap Spotter or a similar ability where they autocheck, I might roll for them, or more likely have the player roll several checks in advance, which I can cross off as they come to the areas that have traps or other unusual things to spot (I also do this for general awareness checks for the whole party).
That should read: "just looking for a trap will trigger it.Depends on the trap design, in my less-than-humble opinion. Although I'd rather not resurrect that thread here.
Agreed, but the vast majority of traps are not triggered by a failed perception roll.
The only things I remember from the Indy movies are the face-melting, the volcano sacrifice, the invisible bridge, and 'he chose...poorly'. Everything else is a blur.
The travesty I saw in theaters is blurring things pretty badly as well.
Respect your opinion, TOZ, but you are threadjacking a little, no?
I get that you dislike traps, but to contribute nothing to the thread about how to fix that... you're just trollin'.
Agreed, but the vast majority of traps are not triggered by a failed perception roll.That should read: "just looking for a trap will trigger it.Depends on the trap design, in my less-than-humble opinion. Although I'd rather not resurrect that thread here.
I really don't want to go down this argument either but I have to put in my two coppers. It's more a matter of semantics, but a failed perception roll should not trigger a trap. You may very well do something while searching that will trigger the trap (e.g. touch something, move somewhere, make noise) but just by virtue of rolling poorly I can't think of any trap trigger that would know you failed your perception check.
|
Agreed, but the vast majority of traps are not triggered by a failed perception roll.That should read: "just looking for a trap will trigger it.Depends on the trap design, in my less-than-humble opinion. Although I'd rather not resurrect that thread here.
Oh, agreed. And I don't think you should over-use them...but it is fun to throw one out there every once in a while to keep the rogue from getting too cocky.
Oh, and there's a lot of spells devoted to a trap that specifically doesn't work UNLESS you manage to perceive it...the Symbol spells. :P
A player must announce they are checking for traps--although I also require that they describe what they're doing--in what vicinity, what are they looking at, what kind of things they are looking for (because RARELY, but some traps have touch triggers that could go off if they aren't checking carefully). A detailed description of how one goes about checking for traps lowers the Perception DC by at least 2, if not more depending on how good the description is---or an excellent description might even bypass the roll (for example, "I pour water into the tile to see where it goes." And if the water pours into cracks around a hidden trap door, then they've obviously found SOMETHING).
Then I ask them to roll the dice (I use VERY few secret rolls--I'd rather PC abilities be rolled by the players, always. I've got enough work to do!).
If someone has Trap Spotter or a similar ability where they autocheck, I might roll for them, or more likely have the player roll several checks in advance, which I can cross off as they come to the areas that have traps or other unusual things to spot (I also do this for general awareness checks for the whole party).
I like all of this. Historically, I had houseruled that searching an area for traps can only effectively be done once, in order to crack down on metagaming poor rolls. Under this system, the first character to search could ask for a second opinion, but the best they would get would be a +2 from aid another, even if the second roll is astronomically higher. Since this sounds (and is!) pretty harsh, I was pretty lenient on atypical situations - for example, the barbarian running up to a door and finishing his search first just by virtue of being fastest and positioned at the front of the marching order wouldn't preclude the party rogue (presumably with a much better chance to find things) from giving it a go; likewise, if a party had two competent trapfinders, I allowed both rolls to count if they announced before either rolled that both would case the door.
However, I might be changing my tune and espousing DeathQuaker's system. It's much more elegant, requires less improv to deal with corner cases, and encourages roleplaying over rollplaying. So, again, well said!
Agreed, but the vast majority of traps are not triggered by a failed perception roll.
As an aside, I find it amusing that anyone named "Charender" would make a PC-lenient statement in any fashion. ;)
Just out of curiousity, TOZ, do you find the opening sequence of Raiders of the Lost Ark boring?Generally, I don't.
Traps are boring time wasters for me.
I have to admit it's really hard to create that level of excitement with the standard traps. It comes down to make a couple of rolls defeat the trap. The worst part is it usually is just rogue and GM involved in these while the other players are merely spectators. (Depending on how much screen time the rogue gets this may not be a bad thing.)
Anyway in another thread recently there was discussion of a collapsing temple a la Indiana Jones. What made the whole sequence cinematic wasn't there was traps, but rather figuring out how to defeat them and then once the collapse sequence was triggered there was a race to escape.
I suggested changing the collapsing temple from a more less simple trap into a chase sequence. Each round the characters would have to overcome different obstacles to keep from getting crushed. That plays out much more exciting that a simple: "Roll your perception check. Roll your disable device check. Oops you fail take 8d6 damage and you're trapped."
It isn't that traps are necessarily boring it how most modules and GMs implement them that makes them seem like a waste.
|
I think traps lost a lot of their fun when they got reduced to a series of die rolls. In previous editions a trap could consume a party for a whole sessions as they tried to engineer a solution around it - now it's just "I Disable Device it."
I like pulling out my old, battered copies of the Grimtooth's Traps books. You can't disable those monstrosities.
That should read: "just looking for a trap will trigger it.Depends on the trap design, in my less-than-humble opinion. Although I'd rather not resurrect that thread here.
Nope, Searching never triggers traps. Only disarming has a failure chance to activate a trap.
like all of this. Historically, I had houseruled that searching an area for traps can only effectively be done once, in order to crack down on metagaming poor rolls. Under this system, the first character to search could ask for a second opinion, but the best they would get would be a +2 from aid another, even if the second roll is astronomically higher. Since this sounds (and is!) pretty harsh, I was pretty lenient on atypical situations - for example, the barbarian running up to a door and finishing his search first just by virtue of being fastest and positioned at the front of the marching order wouldn't preclude the party rogue (presumably with a much better chance to find things) from giving it a go; likewise, if a party had two competent trapfinders, I allowed both rolls to count if they announced before either rolled that both would case the door.
This is why I make the player declare how many attempts they are making up front.
I have had many times where we had a character with a less than stellar perception skill looking for traps. The thing is, it isn't metagaming for a character to know they suck at finding traps, and thus take a little extra time to be sure. So the guy with a +5 perception says they are taking a 20, great. Take the time and go.
It is only metagaming when a guy says I look for traps, they roll a 1, and then they say I want to look again. So, I make the player declare how many attempts they are making up front before any rolls are made. Once the rolls are made, they are done looking.
|
|
I think traps lost a lot of their fun when they got reduced to a series of die rolls. In previous editions a trap could consume a party for a whole sessions as they tried to engineer a solution around it - now it's just "I Disable Device it."
This...so much this!
Another thing is that the fact that everything is always supposed to be "level appropriate" means that traps become nothing more than just a delaying tactic, or something that you have to chase the characters into. And the dumbing down of poisons hurt traps as well. In the old days, if a poison dart hit you and you failed your save, you didn't bother to roll for damage, you rolled 3d6 six times. Now if a poison dart hits you and you fail the save, you take a minor penalty on some rolls until you can roll a sucessful save or two in a row.
|
|
Nope, Searching never triggers traps. Only disarming has a failure chance to activate a trap.That should read: "just looking for a trap will trigger it.Depends on the trap design, in my less-than-humble opinion. Although I'd rather not resurrect that thread here.
Like I said before, I'm going to try not to resurrect that disagreement here. I'll just say that some traps require more active searching than others, and leave it at that. Seriously, I will NOT be discussing this matter further.
A player must announce they are checking for traps--although I also require that they describe what they're doing--in what vicinity, what are they looking at, what kind of things they are looking for (because RARELY, but some traps have touch triggers that could go off if they aren't checking carefully). A detailed description of how one goes about checking for traps lowers the Perception DC by at least 2, if not more depending on how good the description is---or an excellent description might even bypass the roll (for example, "I pour water into the tile to see where it goes." And if the water pours into cracks around a hidden trap door, then they've obviously found SOMETHING).
Then I ask them to roll the dice (I use VERY few secret rolls--I'd rather PC abilities be rolled by the players, always. I've got enough work to do!).
If someone has Trap Spotter or a similar ability where they autocheck, I might roll for them, or more likely have the player roll several checks in advance, which I can cross off as they come to the areas that have traps or other unusual things to spot (I also do this for general awareness checks for the whole party).
The only problem I have with that approach is that it falls too close to the "Must say the right thing to make the DM happy line for me". If a character has a +50 perception, then I assume they know how to look for a trap even if the guy playing the character has no clue. I don't mind giving the players a circumstance bonus if they want to describe what they are doing, and I think it would help, but I don't require them to describe their actions.
I personally believe if traps are going to be present, most of the time they should be part of encounters, and not just minor obstacles on a door or hall.
I have really enjoyed in the last few sessions I ran putting tracks smack in the middle of encounter with enemies built to take advantage of them. For instance a room slowly filling with icy water spraying from overhead nozzles, and ice golems attacking the party in the midst of it.
I think traps lost a lot of their fun when they got reduced to a series of die rolls. In previous editions a trap could consume a party for a whole sessions as they tried to engineer a solution around it - now it's just "I Disable Device it."This...so much this!
Another thing is that the fact that everything is always supposed to be "level appropriate" means that traps become nothing more than just a delaying tactic, or something that you have to chase the characters into. And the dumbing down of poisons hurt traps as well. In the old days, if a poison dart hit you and you failed your save, you didn't bother to roll for damage, you rolled 3d6 six times. Now if a poison dart hits you and you fail the save, you take a minor penalty on some rolls until you can roll a sucessful save or two in a row.
All depends on how the DM uses traps. With no outside pressure, a lot of traps becomes easy. When combined in the right way, traps can be downright nasty.
Poison dart trap - easy
3 poison dart traps in a corridor with 2 Kobolds taking potshots at the players from behind cover. Suddenly, the fighter rushes forward to engage the kobolds, trips all 3 traps take an extra 2 doses of poison. Oh, there is another group of kobolds around the corner, now the players are trying to end the fight before the poison kills the fighter.
Simple pit trap 10 foot wide, 50 feet deep. Players find it easily. No way to disable it, but it can be jumped over pretty easily. Right after the pit is a second trap that bull rushes the person who triggers it into the pit. You have to get over the pit before you can search the far side for traps, the only way across is to jump. Fun times.
Like I said before, I'm going to try not to resurrect that disagreement here. I'll just say that some traps require more active searching than others, and leave it at that. Seriously, I will NOT be discussing this matter further.Nope, Searching never triggers traps. Only disarming has a failure chance to activate a trap.That should read: "just looking for a trap will trigger it.Depends on the trap design, in my less-than-humble opinion. Although I'd rather not resurrect that thread here.
That is because you are assuming 2nd edition trap disarming (which anyone can do in 2nd edition).
Rogues in 3rd edition have a Extraordinary (breaking laws of physics abiliy) to disarm traps even if he doesn't know how the trap works or is not anywhere close to switch.
It is a paradigm you are gripping with.
The only things I remember from the Indy movies are the face-melting, the volcano sacrifice, the invisible bridge, and 'he chose...poorly'. Everything else is a blur.
The travesty I saw in theaters is blurring things pretty badly as well.
Respect your opinion, TOZ, but you are threadjacking a little, no?
I get that you dislike traps, but to contribute nothing to the thread about how to fix that... you're just trollin'.
I'll take my share of the blame on the threadjack, Mr. President.
To make amends, here are some contributions:
1) I generally make Perception checks to find traps for players, particularly if they are using the feat that allows them to search for them on the move, to remove metagaming temptations. I'm also not above rolling the dice randomly at other points even when there is no trap present, just to induce some player paranoia.
2) I do have them describe, in general terms, how they are conducting specific searches, for much the same reasons DQ mentioned.
3) I judge, on a case by case basis, based on their roll, the trap description and their description of how they are doing the checking/disabling, if there is any chance of springing the trap while searching or attempting to disable the trap.
4) They make the disable device roll. I do not allow take 10 for these rolls, but I will allow take 20 if they have an dare willing to use unlimited time.
4) If a trap is sprung, I make sure to account for all logical effects, including if that trap springing has the potential to alert nearby critters.
5) I mercilessly mock players who try cheesy tactics like summoning monsters and driving them into a dungeon to set off all traps. Doing something like that once can be clever play. Using it as a regular tactic is pure cheese, IMHO.
5) I mercilessly mock players who try cheesy tactics like summoning monsters and driving them into a dungeon to set off all traps. Doing something like that once can be clever play. Using it as a regular tactic is pure cheese, IMHO.
It's only cheese if every trap they come across doesn't reset automatically. Likewise, it's utter DM cheese to make every trap automatically reset or introduce GM fiat where a tactic that should work instead doesn't. I'm not assuming you'd do so, just anticipating the possibility that someone will counter with that suggestion.
Essentially, I'm curious why using finite resources (in this case, summon spells) to increase the likelihood of not getting hit by traps is a pressing concern. After all, traps going off have consequences that have been mentioned here (like alerting nearby badguys) beyond just doing bad things to poor schmucks that get caught in the death zone.
5) I mercilessly mock players who try cheesy tactics like summoning monsters and driving them into a dungeon to set off all traps. Doing something like that once can be clever play. Using it as a regular tactic is pure cheese, IMHO.It's only cheese if every trap they come across doesn't reset automatically. Likewise, it's utter DM cheese to make every trap automatically reset or introduce GM fiat where a tactic that should work instead doesn't. I'm not assuming you'd do so, just anticipating the possibility that someone will counter with that suggestion.
Essentially, I'm curious why using finite resources (in this case, summon spells) to increase the likelihood of not getting hit by traps is a pressing concern. After all, traps going off have consequences that have been mentioned here (like alerting nearby badguys) beyond just doing bad things to poor schmucks that get caught in the death zone.
The other way around it is to design traps so that this tactic is a bad idea. IE make the trap with a large AoE kill zone, that the players are better off not setting it off in the first place.
The trap triggers a lightning bolt that hits everything in the hallway, including the players who are hanging back 60 feet behind the summoned critters.
The trap locks a door behind the players, and fills a large area with poison gas.
Another option would be to throw a series of weak traps that do are a minimal damage to the players, but are just strong enough to kill low level summons just to see how many summon spells you can make the players burn though.
I mercilessly mock players who try cheesy tactics like summoning monsters and driving them into a dungeon to set off all traps. Doing something like that once can be clever play. Using it as a regular tactic is pure cheese, IMHO.
Is it really any cheesier than: "the barbarian goes first he has LOTS of hit points and trap sense to boot."
The other way around it is to design traps so that this tactic is a bad idea. IE make the trap with a large AoE kill zone, that the players are better off not setting it off in the first place.
The trap triggers a lightning bolt that hits everything in the hallway, including the players who are hanging back 60 feet behind the summoned critters.
The trap locks a door behind the players, and fills a large area with poison gas.
Another option would be to throw a series of weak traps that do are a minimal damage to the players, but are just strong enough to kill low level summons just to see how many summon spells you can make the players burn though.
For sure. Most folks use SM I for trap disarmament, which is only going to spring a single trap before getting liquefied. Dead monkeys need not apply for clearing out the Hallway of Doom.
Not sure that just increasing the deathzone is a perfect fix, though. I'm in the camp that believes traps aren't good challenges by themselves under current rules - need to be part of a larger whole, whether it be monsters with tactics built around the trap or part of a series of obstacles to overcome. Sure, it counters the tactic of using summons to overcome traps... but most traps just aren't nasty enough for that to become a huge issue. I could see it being thrown in the mix occasionally for flavor, but I wouldn't do it on a regular basis.
Never quite though of using chase rules for the collapsing temple trope, though - nice advice Tim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since 3.5 and PF drastically changed traps and trap interaction, there's a *lot* of changes. I'll try to give an indication of how I do it now.
Trap Detection
It's a perception check made by the player, but it must be an active (searching) check. The only passive option is the rogue's Trap Spotter talent (check made by the GM).
Acceptable "active" checks can involve taking 10, taking 20, or using a move action. If you aren't rushed or distracted, you can simply take 10 the entire time and spot any trap within the range you can see. The perception DC increases by +1 per 10 feet away. Most traps are in unfavorable conditions (dark places with torch light illumination), so typically a +2 to the DC also applies until you're in the area with normal light. Taking 20 means you spend 2 minute standing still (doing nothing else) and looking while not distracted/threatened. (And no, taking 20 still takes 2 minutes even though a move action is "quicker" than a standard action, see Using Skills.)
If you are distracted (typically combat is a distraction), the DC increases by +5 and you can't take 10 or 20. Time constrained (rushed) means you can't take 10 or 20, but you don't get the +5 DC distracted penalty. It's a move action to try and find a trap every time. The DC increase and the move action per check makes finding in-combat traps pretty rough without trap spotter.
Trap Removal
There are a number of ways to remove traps. One method is to use disable device. This method is very quiet and very effective if the DC is met. It has the potential (with a rogue talent) to be very fast.
Here's a chunk of cut text from 3.5 which may or may not apply:
Other Ways To Beat A Trap
It’s possible to ruin many traps without making a Disable Device check.
Ranged Attack Traps
Once a trap’s location is known, the obvious way to ruin it is to smash the mechanism—assuming the mechanism can be accessed. Failing that, it’s possible to plug up the holes from which the projectiles emerge. Doing this prevents the trap from firing unless its ammunition does enough damage to break through the plugs.
Melee Attack Traps
These devices can be thwarted by smashing the mechanism or blocking the weapons, as noted above. Alternatively, if a character studies the trap as it triggers, he might be able to time his dodges just right to avoid damage. A character who is doing nothing but studying a trap when it first goes off gains a +4 dodge bonus against its attacks if it is triggered again within the next minute.
Pits
Disabling a pit trap generally ruins only the trapdoor, making it an uncovered pit. Filling in the pit or building a makeshift bridge across it is an application of manual labor, not the Disable Device skill. Characters could neutralize any spikes at the bottom of a pit by attacking them—they break just as daggers do.
Magic Traps
Dispel magic helps here. Someone who succeeds on a caster level check against the level of the trap’s creator suppresses the trap for 1d4 rounds. This works only with a targeted dispel magic, not the area version.
I think all the above is perfectly fine to be applied to PF. I assume this was cut because it was wordy and kind of common sense (dispel magic on a magic item = magic trap, fill in a pit, etc).
The other way around it is to design traps so that this tactic is a bad idea. IE make the trap with a large AoE kill zone, that the players are better off not setting it off in the first place.
The trap triggers a lightning bolt that hits everything in the hallway, including the players who are hanging back 60 feet behind the summoned critters.
The trap locks a door behind the players, and fills a large area with poison gas.
Another option would be to throw a series of weak traps that do are a minimal damage to the players, but are just strong enough to kill low level summons just to see how many summon spells you can make the players burn though.
For sure. Most folks use SM I for trap disarmament, which is only going to spring a single trap before getting liquefied. Dead monkeys need not apply for clearing out the Hallway of Doom.
Not sure that just increasing the deathzone is a perfect fix, though. I'm in the camp that believes traps aren't good challenges by themselves under current rules - need to be part of a larger whole, whether it be monsters with tactics built around the trap or part of a series of obstacles to overcome. Sure, it counters the tactic of using summons to overcome traps... but most traps just aren't nasty enough for that to become a huge issue. I could see it being thrown in the mix occasionally for flavor, but I wouldn't do it on a regular basis.
Never quite though of using chase rules for the collapsing temple trope, though - nice advice Tim.
I just giggle at the thought of level 10 players using a basic SM I for trap springing a hallway full of CR 1 traps just deadly enough to kill a SM I. Trying to calculate exactly how many it will take before the players just say screw it.
Oh, one side effect of letting players take 10. Put a bunch of easy to find low CR traps. The players figure out they can find them by taking 10, they get comfortable, and start just taking 10. A little while later, they run into a trap that they cannot find by taking 10.
Taking 20 means you spend 2 minutes standing still (doing nothing else) and looking while not distracted/threatened.
One minor nit to pick. Active perception, searching, is a move action. Since you can substitute a move action for a standard action, essentially making two search checks a round, it only takes one minute to take 20.
Oh, one side effect of letting players take 10. Put a bunch of easy to find low CR traps. The players figure out they can find them by taking 10, they get comfortable, and start just taking 10. A little while later, they run into a trap that they cannot find by taking 10.
Yeah, the taking 10 thing is really a good thing for the GM (-; It gives false confidence to the PCs and lets you pretty much spring any nasty trap on players.