On dealing with "traps" that aren't really traps


Rules Questions


A player of mine has the trap spotter talent on his Archaeologist, and I'm trying to figure out exactly what the threshold is for something being considered a "trap."

This will be difficult to explain, but in my setting right now, there are a series of tunnels dug by kobolds that are especially confusing and hazardous. They've purposefully designed the tunnels to be hazardous, but the hazards are not really traps in any kind of traditional sense.

For example, the kobolds are concerned with pursuit and have instituted a number of counter measures. Specifically, they've placed heavy hide "curtains" in the tunnels in seemingly random corners. If the PCs are nervous and don't want to blow through them for fear of tricks, then the kobolds get away. If they just run straight through, however, they're in for a surprise:

Five flaps in, the tunnel abruptly opens to a sheer cliff over the ocean--you have to make an unusually tight turn past the flap to avoid it and continue on. If you're walking, no problem, but if you're chasing kobolds, well, it's going to be a danger.

Rules-wise, if the PCs are moving at top speed and not otherwise saying they are being careful about the flaps, I'm going to require a Reflex save not to just careen out the open cave and into the sea below. There is a similar trick later in the tunnels when a curtain opens into a waist deep pool of acid with just a narrow walk around the edges and if they're going full speed, they're going to be hurting if they don't make a reflex save.

My problem, though, is, do I give my trap-spotter player a free perception check to notice running full speed here is going to lead to a fall/acid? It's not really a trap--there's no trigger, no mechanism, nothing to disable or anything else--it's just a tricky construction that makes a natural hazard more dangerous.

But then, it is deliberately constructed to be dangerous, and one could argue from the perspective of the flap followed by a drop being an unconventionally concealed pit and claim that removing the flap disables the trap (though for these hazards, just knowing they're there is enough to automatically avoid them). I don't know.

My concerns are:
1) If the trapspotter gets a free roll, he's going to notice it. His perception is fairly high, so, traps are not an issue if he's in the lead. Unfortunately, that will make these trapped construction elements into window dressing rather than a real concern, and I think, severely diminish how interesting and dangerous these kobolds could be.

2) If he doesn't get a free roll, is he going to just get frustrated with me and argue the definition of what makes something a trap, thus derailing the session a bit?

Should I compromise and give him a roll but at a penalty for moving too quickly or whatever?


Use different traps. So you noticed the trap, but the trigger mechanism is on the other end of the hall leading to the bad guys/loot. Someone has to go past the wall of darts...

IMO, completely hidden traps are "bad traps", at least the kind that don't take part in an encounter. (A pit trap is a bad trap by itself. A pit trap in the middle of a savage confrontation is a good trap, even though the trap is exactly the same.) You should use traps that still have an effect even if noticed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I'd consider doing is to point out to the trapspotter that they don't know what's on the other side (just like they wouldn't know what's on the other side of a door) so barging through without taking any precautions is potentially dangerous.

From there, yes, I'd give them a chance of spotting the trap. That is, they feel a breeze (for the flaps that lead to a cliff) or sense an acidic smell in the air (for the flaps that lead to an acid pit). However, since the "trap" is actually on the other side of the flap (which I presume are clearly visible), the perception check to spot them is modified as a consequence. Through a closed door is a +5 DC, so that's your upper limit. I would suggest +2 DC to sense something through the flaps. If they're running, I'd also consider the +5 DC for being distracted. Yes, trapspotter gives them an automatic attempt to spot the trap, but it only activates when they're within 10' of the trap. If they're running, that doesn't give them a lot of time to react to that knowledge - the +5 DC for distracted is a fair analogy of that situation.

The Exchange

I would just make it a perception check to notice that after a double move you might slip and slide. What's on the other side of the flap doesn't matter. Either they worry needlessly or they are reckless, it's a win/win.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd call it a trap. Would you call a pit with spikes with a cover over it a trap? Not something triggered, just a dug hole with maybe a camouflaged cloth cover that would give way when someone walked on it? That's no more or less active than what you described, but most people would call that a pit trap. It's a PC ability. Why NOT let it be used for this?

If you don't let this count as a trap you will, most likely, have a frustrated player. Now, not saying he's gonna melt down and quit, but he'll be bummed out I'm sure, and probably feel messed over. I know I would. I wouldn't throw a fit over it, but it would definitely push me towards thinking the DM's out to get me by fair or foul means, rather than us all having fun together. If he's just about guaranteed to make it due to high perception well... It's his ability. He's sunk levels, ranks, whatever, into being able to do it.

If you designed this, I will admit neat, idea for the kobolds knowing you had a trap spotting guru, well you should just accept the fact you picked a poor choice for a challenge. If you designed it before they picked characters well, they lucked out. They picked something, unknowingly, that will help them greatly for an adventure. The next adventure might have no traps at all, and therefore his ability is completely useless.

This is just my opinion though. It's your game and, as always, you should run it as you see fit. Seeing as how you came here for advice, I thought I'd shoot mine out there with everyone else's. I hope your game goes well whatever you choose!

The Exchange

PC decisions matter, it's not a trap just like reaching into a camp fire isn't a trap. I think the climb skill would be better than reflex - it covers catching your self in a fall. Acrobatics could be used to skirt the edge of acid too. The DCs are easy to work into a good range for the players. (The slope for climb or width and stability of the narrow ledge for acrobatics).

Using skills also helps differentiate it from a trap.

Edit: I think this view is more inline with your idea than my first suggestion. If you go with a trap you should probably add more to it, like gust of wind to it to help out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, just clarify, this isn't like an Advice thread about how I don't know how to run traps. This really was a rules question about what counts as a trap and what doesn't.

The kobolds dug the tunnels in this specific fashion to make it hard for people to chase them to their lair and for no other reason. They had no idea what the PCs were capable of, they just did it (actually, it was dug out before any of the PCs were even born). I run a sand box with as high a level of fidelity as possible, so nothing should be done based on the PCs abilities.

My initial instinct is that this is not a trap--it's a clever maximization of a natural hazard, but I wouldn't consider it a trap. However, I feared the player in question would be annoyed and feel cheated, and well, that seems to be the case, based on the other responses. So, I think I might have to treat it as a trap with some penalties to appease him and keep the game moving--a necessary sacrifice of correctness for playability.

Note that I'm not trying to "get them" by any stretch--I'm happy when the players win. I don't necessarily want them to fall into this hazard, I just want to run it as close to what might really play out as possible (I wish this party was more willing to try better RPGs than Pathfinder).

I'm not upset that he has Trap Spotter--he might be, though, when he finds out that I generally hate the trap system and don't use it much.

Mini rant on the trap system in 3rd edition D&D:
Imagine, if you will, that every PC had an extra skill called "Killing Stuff" on their sheet. Then, instead of fully fleshed out stats, monsters had a single attack ability and a Killing Stuff DC.

When the PCs encountered a monster, they just roll a single Killing Stuff check (you can aid another, at least) against the monster's DC. If they succeed, the monster is dead and the PCs move on. If they fail, it's cool, nothing happens as long as they don't fail by 5 or more. However, if they do fail badly, they get hit by the monster's one attack, and then the monster dies anyway, unless it's really dangerous (i.e. has a much higher CR).

There's no way to make combats more interesting or tricky except increasing the Fighting Stuff DC--you can't require special tactics to overcome it because a single skill check is all that is required. No description, no thought on the part of the PCs, nothing except a single roll.

That's the what the trap system is like to me.


So, the kobolds have made their tunnels the way they made them no matter what the outcome here is. I simply wanted to see what people thought about whether this was going to be an interesting chase through the tunnels, or a handful of d20 rolls in bland succession. It seems the latter. Oh well ;)

Silver Crusade

@mplindustries What you have described would be considered Hazards. They are precarious terrain and environmental risks that were capitalized on by the kobolds, but not truly engineered by them.

Addendum:

mplindustries wrote:
2) If he doesn't get a free roll, is he going to just get frustrated with me and argue the definition of what makes something a trap, thus derailing the session a bit?

Try not to get sucked into this argument. Avoid using the word "traps" as it is a keyword with specific meaning in the system. Reinforce the nature of the danger by saying "hazards" as you mention or describe them. It is hazardous terrain. It is a hazardous slope. It is hazardous to move too swiftly through blind corners. These are hazards.

Liberty's Edge

I agree with ErrantPursui, it is an hazard. The PC should be entitled to a Perception check (with some malus if they are running and because the can't see the hazard). The trap sense bonus shouldn't come in play.
The function of the flap is to give a negative modifier to the perception check, it is not a trap per se.
On the other hand all players could notice the sound or smell of the ocean, so have some doubt to where the cavern lead.

If you want to maximize the kobold attempt to flee, make some section of the tunnels sized for small creatures. A 4' ceiling would slow a 6' human. If the ceiling height drop to 4 feet just after one of the flaps, a running human would have rough encounter :-)


Honestly? This sounds like an obstacle in a chase to me, not a trap. There is a whole different set of rules for that.

That said, I agree with your dislike of the trap system in 3.x and consequently pathfinder. It seems kind of like something forced in to throw the rogue a bone now and then. If I were you I would look at the dungeonscape rules for traps as encounters. Its way more interesting then what we get in the pf core rules, and it gets everyone involved instead of just one person.

That said, you really should talk to your player about your feelings on traps. If you dont like how they work, he should know, because he's invested resources into dealing with them as they appear in the rules. Theres nothing wrong with you wanting them to work differently, or to use 'hazards' instead of traps, but you should tell your players about those intentions so they can make reasonable informed descisions for their characters.

Silver Crusade

Kolokotroni wrote:
Theres nothing wrong with you wanting them to work differently, or to use 'hazards' instead of traps, but you should tell your players about those intentions so they can make reasonable informed descisions for their characters.

If you are going to change a mechanic, then yes please talk to your group about it. If you are going to implement alternate challenges, I see no reason at all to talk this over with your group. Using a hazard instead of a trap is like using undead instead of goblinoids: both already exist and are well set out in the rules. They are just separate categories. If a ranger takes Favored Enemy(Orcs), and the story arc involves a necromancer, I feel no compunction to have a long friendly chat informing him of this. Orcs will come up again, it's going to be okay.

Kolokotroni wrote:
Honestly? This sounds like an obstacle in a chase to me, not a trap. There is a whole different set of rules for that.

If you are talking about the Chase Rules, which I hope you are not, then yes, that is another way to do it. It's a really terrible way. Not only does it turn your story into a board game, it removes cooperation among the party for the duration and turns each phase into a solo encounter. Even if Player A has forced open the door, Players B, C, & D still have to make the same roll for the same obstacle. I wish the chase rules were better, but they aren't. Friends don't let friends GM with Chase Rules.

The Exchange

I have my own chase system - loosely cribbed from a 3.5 3pp book, CityWorks - so I've never actually tried out the GMG ones. They really that bad? Or are there just a few holes that need patching?


Wait, if you dig a hole, and cover it, that's a trap; but if you cover an identical natural hole then it's a hazard? How does that work?

In any case, Hazards don't have the caveat that traps do requiring you to be specifically searching for them to spot them. You get a free perception check just like for everything else in the game.

mplindustries wrote:


I'm not upset that he has Trap Spotter--he might be, though, when he finds out that I generally hate the trap system and don't use it much.

That's akin to saying "I hate magic, so I don't use it" but not telling the Wizard player. Not quite as crippling, but it's in the same vein. You should talk with your player about your feelings about traps and allow him to rebuild his character.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Wait, if you dig a hole, and cover it, that's a trap; but if you cover an identical natural hole then it's a hazard? How does that work?

Because the natural hole isn't covered, it's just hard to see. I feel that makes a difference. I guess you do not.

Quantum Steve wrote:
In any case, Hazards don't have the caveat that traps do requiring you to be specifically searching for them to spot them. You get a free perception check just like for everything else in the game.

I don't give free perception checks for everything in the game--but then, I hate the perception system in most RPGs.

Quantum Steve wrote:
That's akin to saying "I hate magic, so I don't use it" but not telling the Wizard player.

I understand, and it sounds ridiculous out of context. But I asked the PCs to talk to me about leveling up and what they were taking. Four out of five players talked to me about their choices and had a give and take with me. One took traps spotter and had a breakdown when he found out a frontier town devastated by a natural disaster and cut off completely from all outside instituted 60% taxes as a temporary measure to rebuild the city.

Quantum Steve wrote:
You should talk with your player about your feelings about traps and allow him to rebuild his character.

I've always allowed my PCs to rebuild their characters as much as they want, as long as it isn't an attempt to game the system ("Oh, we're going into undead catacombs? I want to rebuild into a Paladin. Oh, we're done? Yeah, I changed my mind, I want to rebuilt back to a Fighter" or "I want to change my favored enemy to whatever we're fighting next.") If he doesn't like Traps spotter, I have no problem letting him switch it.

Lantern Lodge

Quote:

Uncovered pits and natural chasms serve mainly to discourage intruders from going a certain way, although they cause much grief to characters who stumble into them in the dark, and they can greatly complicate nearby melee.

Covered pits are much more dangerous. They can be detected with a DC 20 Perception check, but only if the character is taking the time to carefully examine the area before walking across it. A character who fails to detect a covered pit is still entitled to a DC 20 Reflex save to avoid falling into it. If she was running or moving recklessly at the time, however, she gets no saving throw and falls automatically.

Your 'maybe drop off a cliff if you run through the warrens' scenario should be modeled as a covered pit. If you are running, then you get no Perception check or save. If you are double moving, then you get a Perception check and a Reflex save (set an appropriate DC). If you are careful, i.e. only moving your speed, DC 0? to perceive the cliff, and no falling unless you somehow fail. Of course there is no disabling a sheer drop off a cliff.

What would you like to happen to your PCs? Do you want them to chase the kobolds? Do you want the kobolds to get away? Do you want your PCs to realize they are in grave danger? Do you want them to slow down when they notice they are liable to die if they aren't careful? The answers to these questions will suggest appropriate solutions. You can say you want it to have a high level of fidelity, but the thing it's trying to be faithful to is your vision as a GM.


I would call it a potential trap, just like all of the other curtains. Each curtain spotted should include the warning, "the curtain seems to be placed to keep you from easily determining what is beyond it." If they are running rather than stopping to check it out then they will have to make the save as usual. If they do stop, they may be lulled into security by the first few non-eventful curtains.


The chase rules need a little application of common sense and should allow more cooperation between players. Other than that, they're a pretty cool mechanic.

One part of the rules should be that if the players come up with a clever way to bypass the described obstacle, they should be able to substitute an alternate ability or action to make progress. E.g. if a guard is blocking a doorway and you can use bluff to get by him, Intimidate, Diplomacy, or a spell like Charm person or command ought to do as well. Once you've opened a door or found a secret route, you should be able to leave it open for others or point it out to them. Etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmoon wrote:
What would you like to happen to your PCs? Do you want them to chase the kobolds? Do you want the kobolds to get away? Do you want your PCs to realize they are in grave danger? Do you want them to slow down when they notice they are liable to die if they aren't careful? The answers to these questions will suggest appropriate solutions. You can say you want it to have a high level of fidelity, but the thing it's trying to be faithful to is your vision as a GM.

I'm being totally serious here when I say that I don't actually want anything. Any outcome, as long as the PCs enjoy it, is good.

The kobolds obviously want to get away and, ideally, have the PCs fall off the cliff or die in the acid/all the deadfalls they planted around. The PCs want to avoid all traps expertly and prevent the Kobolds from alerting anyone in their warrens and set up defenses.

If there's a scene of the PCs chasing the kobolds through the tunnels, then my "ideal" outcome, I guess, would be that the first PC in line fails to notice the sea cave, but succeeds on the Reflex roll to avoid falling, so they get a moment of heart-pounding excitement without bogging the session down and forcing them to find some way to retrieve their fallen companion.

But ultimately, I'd enjoy it most if they never have to chase the kobolds in the first place--if they are careful and sneaky and avoid the various alarms (thunderstones poised to fall long distances or be flung hard against walls by tiny catapults, etc.) and sentries and get in undetected, so they can marvel at all the horrible ways the kobolds would have made them pay if they were noticed. Maybe they'll just try talking to the kobolds--that would be cool, too. I like tense negotiations like that.

Some more information if you care:
The actual premise of the game is that the PCs are in a frontier city, on a newly discovered continent that was recently cut off completely from the mainland by a disaster that they currently believe was natural. There was an attempt to settle a new colony further north, and I believe the PCs will eventually be drawn there. Anyway, the colonists were all abruptly driven out in the middle of the night by creatures they never quite saw throwing thunder and fire like normal men would throw spears that seemed to swarm from below. Now, it's considered cursed or haunted and nobody that goes there comes back alive.

Turns out the kobolds were already there, under the colony, excavating a crashed space ship. They dug up to the fort and drove everyone out to protect the alien technology, using plasma guns and stuff. They are technically "good guys" in that they are keeping something very dangerous out of the hands of a potential world-enslaver, but they are doing it for purely selfish reasons and eventually, if/when they understand the tech, they intend to conquer the world themselves.

The PCs, meanwhile, have no clue this is "that kind of game," just thinking it's normal fantasy, colonizing a new continent of dangerous old ruins and whatever, so it will be exciting to see them deal with kobolds holding blasters.

Shadow Lodge

Sounds like you already have enough weigh-in, but throwing my 2cp at it, I wouldn't call it a trap. Calling it equivalent to a covered pit is misleading, because what it's much more equivalent to is a completely uncovered pit behind a closed door, or a cliff edge in dense jungle. That's not a trap. That's just a pit behind a door, or a cliff in the woods. If you're running through and not being cautious, you fall, and possibly die.

Personally, I'd roll Perception checks for them (or have them roll a handful of dice at the beginning of the session for stuff like this, then apply the rolls as needed to the challenge) to notice light (if it's daytime) coming from under the next curtain, or to hear the sound of surf, or to smell salt air/acid. Normal modifiers for obstructions between them and the source, and normal modifiers for distraction.

Also, how long are these curtains? Do they drag on the floor? Is their a gap beneath them? Are they currently flapping from the passage of the Kobolds up ahead? All things that could modify the Perception check. As for the Reflex save, if they charge through the curtains, they don't get one. The second person in line might get one at a high-ish DC to catch himself as he sees the first person go over the cliff. The third person should almost certainly get one.

And if you need a qualifier for my 2cp, I'm a huge Kobold fan, and I think they're underrated by most players and GMs. I love your idea for this hazard. The idea of the 4-ft. ceiling right behind or shortly behind a curtain sounds brilliant to me. I'll probably steal a number of things that were mentioned in this thread.


mplindustries wrote:
A player of mine has the trap spotter talent.....

Just saying, I like your setup/kobold defense. Both the cultural-martial guerrilla tactics of the kobolds and RPing aspect of making PCs realize they need to be deliberate and pay attention (e.g., "hurry up, it's just another shower curtain!").

Nothing to add on what others have said about rules. But for unsolicited advice: whatever types of rolls you decide on, try to desensitize the Ps to them so that their metagame instincts aren't aroused.


I guess what I think is: give a roll but with heavy penalties. (-4 for the curtain, -10 for running, or something like that.)

edit: ok, i guess i agree with the guy who said -5 for distracted. rereading ... if you get a check at -10 when you're asleep, then, it can't be that bad. And he did spend the feat (or whatever) on it.
So maybe: -2 or -4 curtain, -5 running. (Noticing an ocean is probably a low DC to begin with (sound, smell, light), whereas noticing the pit is harder.)

I guess I think that they are traps. i.e. it needs a reflex save or whatever, so, it's a trap. I don't think trap spotter means you have some specific sixth sense aimed at tripwires or something ... i think it just means you have a very fast and uncanny perception. So, an uncanny ability to notice little things, like the air currents, a noise or scent out of place, echo patterns, etc. So that applies to the acid pits and the ocean pit as well as tripwires and pressure plates.
But, I would certainly give a penalty for running, and increase the DC for it being behind the curtain.

edit edit: i would make him do the face that jesse ventura makes in predator when he spots that tripwire, every time he spots a trap using trap spotter. maybe after enough of that he will give up the feat.
And maybe make him grow a mustache.


If you think your players might possibly feel cheated if treat something potentially injurious as a non-trap err on the side of treating it as a trap.


ErrantPursuit wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Theres nothing wrong with you wanting them to work differently, or to use 'hazards' instead of traps, but you should tell your players about those intentions so they can make reasonable informed descisions for their characters.

If you are going to change a mechanic, then yes please talk to your group about it. If you are going to implement alternate challenges, I see no reason at all to talk this over with your group. Using a hazard instead of a trap is like using undead instead of goblinoids: both already exist and are well set out in the rules. They are just separate categories. If a ranger takes Favored Enemy(Orcs), and the story arc involves a necromancer, I feel no compunction to have a long friendly chat informing him of this. Orcs will come up again, it's going to be okay.

I was talking about the OP commenting that he does not like traditional traps at all. And would rather use things like hazards. [See the Op's second post and the mini rant about 3E traps]. If that is the case it is in fact something you should talk to your players about, particularly if you have a trap specialist rogue in the party. The OP said essentially 'I do not like traps the way they are presented in the core rules'. That is completely fine, but it isnt like your example.

It would be like a ranger taking favored enemy orc, and the dm having a personal distasted for using orcs at all because they are 'overdone' and instead intends to only use bugbears if such a challenge is required. It wont ever come up later. Or at most they will come up extremely rarely. That is reason to talk to the player.

Quote:

Kolokotroni wrote:
Honestly? This sounds like an obstacle in a chase to me, not a trap. There is a whole different set of rules for that.

If you are talking about the Chase Rules, which I hope you are not, then yes, that is another way to do it. It's a really terrible way. Not only does it turn your story into a board game, it removes cooperation among the party for the duration and turns each phase into a solo encounter. Even if Player A has forced open the door, Players B, C, & D still have to make the same roll for the same obstacle. I wish the chase rules were better, but they aren't. Friends don't let friends GM with Chase Rules.

How does it remove cooperation? I've played in several such chases, and pcs have worked together. There is nothing stoping the players from working together, they can buff eachother, use aid actions, take actions that set the enemy up for others (like using spells to slow down or stop the enemy while the fighter catches up). Sure most obstacles are independantely tackled, but that doesnt preclude teamwork unless you let it. And the dm can always adjust the system to allow for it (like making aid another a move action in a chase).

I also havent seen a closed door as an obstacle in a chase, usually they are things like crowded streets, narrow walkways, etc. Things that must be tackled by the individual. It sounds to me like whoever was running it for you didnt do a very good job of making the chase rules exciting.

As it stands that core rules handle chases attrociously. If everyone moves at the same speed nothing ever actually happens. You basically CANT have an exciting chase. You have to house rule it. ANd the abstraction of the chase rules I think work quite well.


Rocky Williams has the right of this. A deliberately disguised and hidden cliff is every bit as much a trap as a disguised and hidden pit. The "trigger" is walking through the curtain just as the trigger for a hidden pit would be walking over the pit. The PC would be justifiably frustrated if they are not given an opportunity to detect this. Natural hazards, such as a cliff or sinkhole hidden by vegetation or terrain, of course do exist. But these should have their own means of being detected - such as by Perception, Survival, Knowledge(Nature), or Knowledge(Dungeoneering). You don't want to cheat PCs who have invested character resources into skills and abilities supposedly aimed at providing relevant expertise.

I find that it cheapens the play experience, however, by spoonfeeding the PCs too much information. Such as by outright stating "You find a trap ahead" when one makes a successful perception check. It's better to provide clues and let the PCs work through to their own conclusions - one could inform the successful spotter that "a peculiar breeze billows the curtain and the sounds of sea birds seem unusually loud from beyond it".

That way the PC with Trap Spotter gets to feel useful, the players get a chance to react, they get an "Aha" moment if they fail to interpret the information correctly, you provide a temptation to experiment with the phenomenon and delay while the fleeing kobolds escape...

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / On dealing with "traps" that aren't really traps All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.