| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can pretty much guarantee you that once my players blindly walk into a concealed pit trap on the open road with no permitted checks to avoid it, they will turn around and say something to the effect of, "From now on, we are always searching for traps, wherever we go."
As much as I like the new ruling, it does create a couple problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can pretty much guarantee you that once my players blindly walk into a concealed pit trap on the open road with no permitted checks to avoid it, they will turn around and say something to the effect of, "From now on, we are always searching for traps, wherever we go."
As much as I like the new ruling, it does create a couple problems.
Then as a DM, you say. "Ok, you can't move more than x number of feet per round".. Congratulations. Your trip from city A to City B which was 2 days long now takes 3 years due to your OCD Paranoia.
There needs to be a 'hints to divulge' or at least 'hints to notice reactively' section of the statblock for the DM to read off, or use, to give players some form of understanding of their situation.
No, there doesn't. That defeats the entire point of using traps in a tactical situation. Which I'm guessing is your entire intent. If you don't actively look for traps, the consequences are obvious.
Traps are what are called a force multiplier. Think to the original Rambo movie -- that is an effective use of traps in combat.
It slows down those who think they have a tactical advantage after their first few mooks get destroyed (or their "champion" who was stupid).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then as a DM, you say. "Ok, you can't move more than x number of feet per round".. Congratulations. Your trip from city A to City B which was 2 days long now takes 3 years due to your OCD Paranoia.I can pretty much guarantee you that once my players blindly walk into a concealed pit trap on the open road with no permitted checks to avoid it, they will turn around and say something to the effect of, "From now on, we are always searching for traps, wherever we go."
As much as I like the new ruling, it does create a couple problems.
How could it possibly be considered OCD paranoia? How many times do you need to automatically fall into a pit before you start looking for pits? That's not paranoia, that's common survival sense.
So don't do that then. Don't put a concealed pit trap on the open road.
So now, I as a GM can no longer have bandit ambushes out on the open road? (A common fantasy trope to be sure.)
Don't be silly!
Why would there be one there anyway? Why hasn't someone else travelling through fallen into it already?
Why do the maguffins always fall to the PCs and not some nameless NPC? Because they are the heroes of the story! If something doesn't happen to them directly, it happens to someone else for the purposes of promoting the game story or getting the PCs involved.
|
So don't do that then. Don't put a concealed pit trap on the open road.So now, I as a GM can no longer have bandit ambushes out on the open road? (A common fantasy trope to be sure.)
Don't be silly!
You didn't say it was an ambush! PCs get an automatic Perception check against the enemy's Stealth check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then they will get a perception check against the bandits and if they try to charge in without any sense of caution, they will trigger the trap. And the bandits will likely be hit at the same time.
Sounds like a good use of traps to me.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What if the bandits are hiding IN the trap!! ;)You didn't say it was an ambush! PCs get an automatic Perception check against the enemy's Stealth check.So don't do that then. Don't put a concealed pit trap on the open road.So now, I as a GM can no longer have bandit ambushes out on the open road? (A common fantasy trope to be sure.)
Don't be silly!
New tactic. Dig a 10ft square hole. Give it the Exposed Pit Trap stat block (DC 0). Jump in pit. Perfect invisibility.
|
New tactic. Dig a 10ft square hole. Give it the Exposed Pit Trap stat block (DC 0). Jump in pit. Perfect invisibility.What if the bandits are hiding IN the trap!! ;)You didn't say it was an ambush! PCs get an automatic Perception check against the enemy's Stealth check.So don't do that then. Don't put a concealed pit trap on the open road.So now, I as a GM can no longer have bandit ambushes out on the open road? (A common fantasy trope to be sure.)
Don't be silly!
Does restrict movement a bit... and kind of depends on how tall the monster is. Doesn't work as well for Frost Giants as it does for goblins...
Edit: but I could see a goblin pointing out that if some of the other goblins hide in the pit, the rest of them could conceal the pit by putting all this loose dirt back in! that way, when the Longshanks come down the road they wont see the gobos in the pit, who can then leap out and surprise them!
How could it possibly be considered OCD paranoia? How many times do you need to automatically fall into a pit before you start looking for pits? That's not paranoia, that's common survival sense.
You take 500 trips between City A and City B and encounter a concealed pit trap on 1 of those trips to the point where you extend the duration of your trip by a factor of 6?
There are other ways of triggering traps safely that damage no one -- the common zombie trap detector (or for the LG types -- a construct) is a classic.
As the KingOfAnything says, ambushes aren't traps.
Traps used as a part of an ambush is a trap.
So a pit without bandits only delays the heroes. Without that extra threat, they just climb out, heal up and move on. This is the a textbook example of a badly designed trap encounter.
A pit with bandits will likely alert he PCs that something is up, which takes away from the trap's efficiency. Why bother having a pit then? Why not just make it a bog standard ambush?
So what is a GM's recourse for a good encounter? Have the bandits SO far away that Perception checks to spot them aren't automatic, but have a bell or similar alarm system to let them know that some poor sod has fallen into their trap?
I guess the bandits can stand in the open road brazenly. No perception checks since they aren't hiding, if it comes to combat, they could maneuver the heroes into the hidden pit, if they don't charge into it first. But then what's to stop the heroes from simply spotting the hazard ahead, then turning back or going around the bandits (once again totally invalidating the trap, even if the bandits chase them down).
Man, when did simple ambushes become so complicated?
|
|
How an ambush is set up will depend on the goals of the ambushers. Generally, archers will position themselves on the far side of a pit trap, rogues will hide on the side of the road. If it is a robbery, the leader will stand on the far side of the trap as well, and demand PCs drop their valuables. (This might give PCs a chance to search the area/ realize why the leader is so brazen).
If it is a mugging, no courtesy is required. PCs get a chance to detect the bandits, or else a few fall into the pit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How could it possibly be considered OCD paranoia? How many times do you need to automatically fall into a pit before you start looking for pits? That's not paranoia, that's common survival sense.
You take 500 trips between City A and City B and encounter a concealed pit trap on 1 of those trips to the point where you extend the duration of your trip by a factor of 6?
There are other ways of triggering traps safely that damage no one -- the common zombie trap detector (or for the LG types -- a construct) is a classic.
The Mount spell.
The Mount spell.
There are other ways of triggering traps safely that damage no one -- the common zombie trap detector (or for the LG types -- a construct) is a classic.
Oh hell, just use a walking stick for Christ's sake! It's what we grognards used to use.
Silly kids! Always thinking you need magic for everything.
;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, there doesn't. That defeats the entire point of using traps in a tactical situation. Which I'm guessing is your entire intent. If you don't actively look for traps, the consequences are obvious.
Traps are what are called a force multiplier. Think to the original Rambo movie -- that is an effective use of traps in combat.
It slows down those who think they have a tactical advantage after their first few mooks get destroyed (or their "champion" who was stupid).
No, that's not really my intent.
What I'd like is for traps to function in a way that blends seamlessly with the rest of the game rather than presenting obstacles, not only for the party to surmount, but also bog down the session, or make the game feel unfair.
I'm all for traps having the ability to be used tactically (both by players and their foes), but I'm against having them negatively impact gameplay in areas where they aren't present, simply by having them exist at all.
By completely eschewing the ability to see them without searching in any situation, you are presented with a metagaming decision:
- slow down from default in-game speed, and also potentially slow down sessions (depending on the table) in general as you repeatedl declare search.
- Establish that "we're always searching" which fixes the problem, but runs into the same issue inside combat.
- Houserule to make everything reactive, and throw out the idea of actively searching.
That's why I consider the trap rules to be too loose, and needing something to help it run fast, without running in a manner that's skewed towards either extreme.
I suggest the "more info" field, as currently if you dont run traps for a while, and then during one encounter you suddenly run a trap inside combat, that's a GOTCHA moment that serves to antagonize your players.
You should not have to precede a trap with more traps in order to emphasise the danger of traps at any particular time: A system that allows traps to ever go off with no possible recourse from players is one that furthers the divide between 'trap campaigns' and 'non trap campaigns'.
And really: the only people that can afford to run the 'trap campaigns' and not have it bog the session down are those with trap spotter/find traps: we're back to square one.
I like traps, and want to use them more: but the rules as written/FAQed are kind of... hostile... at least still during combat, to maintaining a friendly game between GM and players.
The Mount spell.
There are other ways of triggering traps safely that damage no one -- the common zombie trap detector (or for the LG types -- a construct) is a classic.
Oh hell, just use a walking stick for Christ's sake! It's what we grognards used to use.
Silly kids! Always thinking you need magic for everything.
;P
That was an 11' pole.
Because there are things you just don't want to touch with a 10' pole.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds more like a problematic GM than it does a problematic rule, thejeff.
I'd probably rage quit on the GM that sprung a trap on me after searching the desk for traps, just because I didn't say I was searching the drawer.
"I search everything in this 10' x 10' square for traps".
If the GM kills you because you weren't "specific enough". Walk away.
Like I said, old school. "How are you searching? What do you do?"
Prompted by the "use a walking stick/11' pole" suggestion.
If someone were to try this, I'd ask them how they are swinging their sword and holding their sheild with each attack.
or what their finger movements are when casting the spell. Make sure they inventory 100% their material components.
Or ask them the lyrics of that little diddy when doing bard performances.
And make sure the GM describes in detail everything that is done for all his NPCs that are interacted with.
There is a certain level of abstraction in this game. What you are describing isn't "old school" it's annoying.
It feels normal that you first must know what to look for before you can look for it.
I stub my toe on high doorstep because doorsteps are not that high usually. I fall into a pit because usually ground does not have pits in it. Perception really only helps us on finding what we know is there, but how do we first get the information there might be something there?
Players and GMs kinda ... let that question go. Hardly any GM is willing to question is it proper for PCs to check every door for traps. They probably are not going to trap their door to the loo, but ... you never know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It feels normal that you first must know what to look for before you can look for it.
Which would be relevant if the "you" that is looking for traps were the same as the "you" that is rolling the dice.
The wizard knows how to cast spells; no one questions that, or kills the character because the player doesn't know enough faux Latin. ("It's LeviOsa, not LevioSA!")
The cleric knows how to propitiate the gods; no one questions that, or kills the character because the player doesn't know enough real Latin.
The fighter knows how to fight with a sword; no one questions that, or kills the character because the player doesn't know the difference between a parry in sixte or in octave.
But let the rogue misdescribe what is being looked for, and far too many very bad GMs are just waiting to lower the boom.
but how do we first get the information there might be something there?
By having a high Perception skill.
I believe attempting to make the abstraction to work in every situation, especially those of high power high alien scenarios is intentionally trying to muddle the situation.
Because obviously the FAQ call was not made to fit all possible situations. Invisible man standing in the middle of a room can be instantly "observed" by someone with really high perception roll passively, but traps cannot. In vacuum, it makes no sense if you think of perception as the ability to perceive existence in totality instead of focusing on a point or object.
I put the "can't see the sun" thing into the same basket. The abstraction is not water tight, but probably does not need to be? It is there to make sure people trigger dungeon traps and are not given easy passive reaction to avoid them.
The game is not a real-world simulation.
You have to specifically check for traps because that is what the rules say.
Trying to bring real world mechanics into a fantasy game is only going to lead to madness.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game is not a real-world simulation.
You have to specifically check for traps because that is what the rules say.
Trying to bring real world mechanics into a fantasy game is only going to lead to madness.
I utterly disagree. The problem is too many people try to focus just on mechanics rather than using the mechanics and the ideas they incorporate to operationalize what the players say they want their PCs to do in a reasonably fair manner that isn't too cumbersome. If it makes sense that the PC should have a chance to see the trap reactively, roll the perception check. If it doesn't, then don't and wait for them to actively seek the trap.
I utterly disagree. The problem is too many people try to focus just on mechanics rather than using the mechanics and the ideas they incorporate to operationalize what the players say they want their PCs to do in a reasonably fair manner that isn't too cumbersome. If it makes sense that the PC should have a chance to see the trap reactively, roll the perception check. If it doesn't, then don't and wait for them to actively seek the trap.The game is not a real-world simulation.
You have to specifically check for traps because that is what the rules say.
Trying to bring real world mechanics into a fantasy game is only going to lead to madness.
Exactly some traps make perfect sense to require an up close search for it(poison needle hidden under the hinge of a chest., while others might be obvious to someone with super senses(pit hidden under some leaves).
LOL
Really? Someone with a +50 perception can hear a whispered conversation through closed doors, hundreds of feet away, and they can't, say, smell the odor from poison coming from a lock 10 feet away? Why not?
Because they don't have the scent special ability?
Because it's made from iocaine powder?Because it's perfectly reasonable to require an in-depth search for certain kinds of traps?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anything, a character with superhuman Perception would be even more distracted than the average character and more likely to overlook an unexpected trap.*facepalm*
"if anything, someone with high knowledge skills would have so much information stuffed in his brain that he couldn't possibly recognize that creature"
Unrelatedly to Perception and not that real world analogies are always useful anyway, I have weirdly seen the direct Knowledge skill analogue happen quite a bit. I was active in trivia teams in high school and college, and I've seen situations where one team buzzed in on a clue and answered correctly, getting the question right because the right answer was the only one they knew about where the other team knew there were multiple possibilities and wanted more of the question. For example, one question started "Although he died in battle..." and one team buzzed in and said "James Wolfe" (he died while winning the Battle of the Plains of Abraham) and they were right. And after the game, the other team asked "How did you know it wasn't Horatio Nelson (who died while winning at Trafalgar) or [insert names of several other possibilities]." And the response "Oh right, I should have remembered Nelson, but I actually couldn't think of anything except Wolfe."
Similarly, you might have a situation where someone says "The only thing I know about the monster is that it's a giant who lives in the swamp" and the low Knowledge guy says "Troll!" while the high Knowledge guy says "Could be troll or marsh giant or..."
If anything, a character with superhuman Perception would be even more distracted than the average character and more likely to overlook an unexpected trap.*facepalm*
"if anything, someone with high knowledge skills would have so much information stuffed in his brain that he couldn't possibly recognize that creature"
Unrelatedly to Perception and not that real world analogies are always useful anyway, I have weirdly seen the direct Knowledge skill analogue happen quite a bit. I was active in trivia teams in high school and college, and I've seen situations where one team buzzed in on a clue and answered correctly, getting the question right because the right answer was the only one they knew about where the other team knew there were multiple possibilities and wanted more of the question. For example, one question started "Although he died in battle..." and one team buzzed in and said "James Wolfe" (he died while winning the Battle of the Plains of Abraham) and they were right. And after the game, the other team asked "How did you know it wasn't Horatio Nelson (who died while winning at Trafalgar) or [insert names of several other possibilities]." And the response "Oh right, I should have remembered Nelson, but I actually couldn't think of anything except Wolfe."
Similarly, you might have a situation where someone says "The only thing I know about the monster is that it's a giant who lives in the swamp" and the low Knowledge guy says "Troll!" while the high Knowledge guy says "Could be troll or marsh giant or..."
But when they get to the swamp and see it the low Int guy still says troll but the high knowledge knows what it is, unless he rolls low.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But when they get to the swamp and see it the low Int guy still says troll but the high knowledge knows what it is, unless he rolls low.If anything, a character with superhuman Perception would be even more distracted than the average character and more likely to overlook an unexpected trap.*facepalm*
"if anything, someone with high knowledge skills would have so much information stuffed in his brain that he couldn't possibly recognize that creature"
Unrelatedly to Perception and not that real world analogies are always useful anyway, I have weirdly seen the direct Knowledge skill analogue happen quite a bit. I was active in trivia teams in high school and college, and I've seen situations where one team buzzed in on a clue and answered correctly, getting the question right because the right answer was the only one they knew about where the other team knew there were multiple possibilities and wanted more of the question. For example, one question started "Although he died in battle..." and one team buzzed in and said "James Wolfe" (he died while winning the Battle of the Plains of Abraham) and they were right. And after the game, the other team asked "How did you know it wasn't Horatio Nelson (who died while winning at Trafalgar) or [insert names of several other possibilities]." And the response "Oh right, I should have remembered Nelson, but I actually couldn't think of anything except Wolfe."
Similarly, you might have a situation where someone says "The only thing I know about the monster is that it's a giant who lives in the swamp" and the low Knowledge guy says "Troll!" while the high Knowledge guy says "Could be troll or marsh giant or..."
Yep, once you're at the point where you have all the information in a trivia contest, you can count on the more knowledgeable team to have the advantage, and it's not ever better to know less. Of course, there can be weird situations where seeing the creature isn't enough to have all the information (think old school D&D, where you see a beholder-looking thing and the newbie yells "Beholder--charge!" but the veteran says "Wait, it might be a gas spore!")
As hilarious as I'd find a system where too much intelligence makes you start to develop social/mental "disorders" as you begin to deviate too far from the "human" standards... hmmm...
Would probably be difficult to do while maintaining sensitivity to real-word sufferers of such things though :P
-
@Mark, I can agree with everything you are saying: but I'm wondering if you'd use the point you are making in any vein other than to play devil's advocate against Ozy's comparison.
Would you agree that the comparison of "high perception makes you see too much" to "high knowledge makes you know too much" from a gameplay standpoint is still relevant in that both are starting to become cumbersome to implement, rules-wise?
-
Now, if you wanted to use it to fluff out a justification for a desired gameplay effect:
ie. reducing the ability to over-stack ability bonuses - under some form of diminishing returns/maximum bonus cap per level.
you could probably swing that bat: but that's kind of a different thing, and honestly a bit of a rabbit hole, in and of itself.
I personally like Ozy's comparison, both for comedy factor, and from a gameplay standpoint: more points makes you better is an intuitive result.
I'm definitely of the opinion that without having an elegant and intuitive gameplay-oriented reason to back up simulationism, it often errs on the side of making rule systems bulky for no real added "fun". Simulationism in a game should make the game more intuitive by tying it in with expectations based on fundamental expectations of reality.
To tie it back into the context of the traps/perception topic:
Is the justification that "trap searching requires active effort because idle attention is flawed" straying into simulationism at the expense of gameplay? In that a player will probably expect at least some chance to notice something that hints at the danger?
What does running the rules, as written/FAQed add to the player experience? I can see a sense of danger being a possibility: but for me it strays to far into the old "rocks fall, you die" thing.
I could see such an argument meaning you'd require a higher reactive perception check/roll: but removing the possibility entirely seems a bridge to far, to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To tie it back into the context of the traps/perception topic:
Is the justification that "trap searching requires active effort because idle attention is flawed" straying into simulationism at the expense of gameplay? In that a player will probably expect at least some chance to notice something that hints at the danger?
What does running the rules, as written/FAQed add to the player experience? I can see a sense of danger being a possibility: but for me it strays to far into the old "rocks fall, you die" thing.
I could see such an argument meaning you'd require a higher reactive perception check/roll: but removing the possibility entirely seems a bridge to far, to me.
If the players expect that they should be able to see through rugs, walls, lids, and what have you, you may want to manage their expectations better. That they have some indication that a situation may have hidden dangers is a task for the GM.
Several people have offered their opinions that the rules can enhance the gameplay experience (mostly me, admittedly). The old "rocks fall, you die" is a failure of writing, not game design.
The old "rocks fall, you die" is a failure of writing, not game design.
Er - two things:
1. Some people like that kind of gameplay experience - there is a non-trivial resurgence in 1st edition rule remakes currently.
2. If you did play 1st ed. you may have forgotten just how lethal traps were - poisoned needle was save or *die*. You'd run into that kind of trap at level 1. That was the game design.
People still had fun - but it did make for lots of 'use the dagger to poke at the thing and see if it explodes' moments. 3rd edition changed traps dramatically - Honestly I think they are too watered down these days, it would be nice to have a happy medium.