Traps and Search [Archive] - Wizards Community

Traps and Search [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Xeviat-DM
04-15-07, 06:42 PM Traps are a mainstay of fantasy literature. They are the primary reason adventuring parties require a rogue. They are a great way to defend a base, or keep pesky tomb robbers out of a grave. Many spells are functionally traps, and the DMG has a detailed system for trap creation (which has been expanded in many books). In spite of all this, over five years of DMing, I have grown out of using traps.

In all of my experience, traps bog down the game. They either feel like cheating (such as a trap that is designed so carefully that there is no way for the PCs to find it), or they slow the game down to a crawl. If a DM makes extensive use of traps in their game, they should be prepared for their players to search every inch of every room, one twenty-five square foot square at a time. This might be smart adventuring, but it isn't action packed adventuring, or even well paced adventuring.

Looking into the genre of dungeon delving, careful observers may note that most characters of the rogue archetype don't go through a dungeon crawl like that. Adventurers know where traps are likely to be found, and search only those places, or they have a preternatural sense for traps which allows them to spot traps before triggering them. Further still, traps in the adventure genre, such as films like Indiana Jones, often function more like extended encounters rather than one shot DM laugh-fests.

At the moment, I haven't put enough thought into this subject to offer a way of making traps themselves more interesting, but I think I have a way of making traps more fair and time-manageable. First step is to treat search as an passive skill; when a PC comes across the triggering mechanism for a trap, make a search check for them (or have them make a search check if your players are good at not meta-gaming) against the DC of the trap. If their check succeeds, then they notice the trap in advance. Similarly to the movement skills, a -5 penalty should be applied to this check if the searcher is moving more than half-speed (representing that they aren't being careful), a -10 penalty if they are double moving, and a -20 penalty should be applied if the searcher is running (representing that they aren't looking at all).

With this change in place, I think traps could be easier to run, but I'm not sure this makes them any more interesting. Any input?
jaelis
04-15-07, 08:35 PM My favorite uses for traps are either traps that the PCs know are there, and finding a way to disable/work around them is part of the adventure, or else traps that are part of a fight (such as the orcs fall back retreating, but if the party chases too fast, they fall in the pit trap that the orcs had been standing right behind.) Including them in a fight though makes the fight a lot harder... you really have to adjust the opponents to compensate. (That's why they are orcs instead of ogres.)

I think Search should be used mostly for finding clues, not traps.
Inigo Carmine
04-15-07, 10:41 PM I grew out of "traps" after about my 3rd or 4th session of D&D. At least traps in the traditional sense.

1) I hate having something you need 1 particular class to accomplish.

2) There really isn't much excitement to them.

I don't know if the whole mechanic of them needs to be changes, I think they just need to become a little less common.

When I DM, I use them, but only very occasionally, and usually in obvious spots. If you're breaking into the Royal Treasury, you can probably expect some traps. If you're walking down a dungeon that is populated with monsters, you're not going to find any traps.

I also allow anyone to search and disable them (though if you don't have the skills, goodluck), and use almost always mechanical ones (ie DCs around 20ish).
The_sleeper1
04-15-07, 11:02 PM I think there is some use in useing them but they are more limited than other things you can pit adventures versus.

Something I find that helps is to place them logicaly, no large posion traps in the middle of a inhabated area or traps that are in areas that will see constant use. Most traps I put in major through ways of unused areas or make the area seem unusual in some way so that the PC's have a clue that theres something different.

a DM saying out of the blue ok save or die is just bad DMing imo.
Xeviat-DM
04-16-07, 03:17 AM I just noticed something very odd in the trap system that is making me consider the spell system itself.

A magical trap is a CR 1+spell level, or 1+ 1/7 damage. 7 damage is 2d6. A first level spell can deal up to 5d6 damage, or 17.5 damage, which would be CR 4, even though it's only first level.

Odd?
BW0222
04-16-07, 08:47 AM Xeviat-DM,

In all of my experience, traps bog down the game.

How so?

It make no more table time to search a hallway that it does to say you walk across it.

"I search the hallway for traps." The DM rolls or the player takes a 10. Nothing to it.

In game, it only takes six seconds per 5' square, or 1 minute for a 50' hallway or 25 minutes to search an large two sorry house. Even taking a 20, a 60' hallways only takes 24 minutes and the building say 8 hours. Considering that it may have taken hours or days to reach the dungeon, you are going to sleep for 8 hours shortly, and most campaigns rarely go more than a few years in-game... time is rarely an issue.

Looking into the genre of dungeon delving, careful observers may note that most characters of the rogue archetype don't go through a dungeon crawl like that.

Movies are hardly a genre. They also don't spend hours showing folks clearing mines, cleaning their weapons, making food, etc. They focus on the sixty second fire-fight.

Adventurers know where traps are likely to be found, and search only those places, or they have a preternatural sense for traps which allows them to spot traps before triggering them.

And D&D adventurers still have the option of only searching certain places or more carefully searching places which they think a trap might be. I'm sure most folks coming into a room with an unguarded golden idol would be taking a 20 on searching for traps on the idol.

Further still, traps in the adventure genre, such as films like Indiana Jones, often function more like extended encounters rather than one shot DM laugh-fests.

Any many players when faced with traps will roleplay taking serious measures to avoid being hit by them. Detect magic to determine the school, putting up protections, ways to by-pass the trap such that even if it goes off they aren't hit by it, etc.

First step is to treat search as an passive skill; ...

This makes traps even less than an enounter. Folks don't even have to say they are looking for them. And no one is going to spot a mine while running through a mine field.

With this change in place, I think traps could be easier to run, but I'm not sure this makes them any more interesting. Any input?

Why is this any easier to run? The only difference is that players don't have to say "I'm searching for traps." You still need to roll or have them take 10. And if they start running into traps, they will start taking 20 in certain areas.

Further, your system just doesn't make sense. If someone puts a glypth in a city street or a pit trap in the middle of a forest, folks moving along minding their own business wouldn't have any hope of finding it.

I'm not sure what the problem is here?

Are players rolling for every 5' they search? If so, just have them (or you secretly) roll once for every area they are searching and apply this the first time they encounter a square with a trap in it. On all the others, they obviously don't find any traps. They can also take a 10, or 20 and avoid the roll entirely. You can have them pre-roll several search checks if necessary and use these as they search various areas. About the only table time taken is a player saying "I search X for traps."

Is this an in-game time issue? Is six seconds per 5' square some type of problem? Moving through a dark cave full of traps... I certainly wouldn't be moving any faster? Are they aging at a hundred times the normal rate in your campaign or running into mile long tunnels? Otherwise, there is honestly no reason that a typical group of adventures couldn't easily search every 5' square of a 2 or 3 battlemap-sized dungeon and still make it home in time for brunch -- or maybe dinner if they started taking 20s.
Leilond
04-16-07, 08:59 AM I usually have some premade rolls for search on my notes
Whenever the rougue tell me "I search trap in that square" I "check" a prerolled result (only if there's a trap, otherwise I made the move but didn't really check it) and tell the result to the rougue
If the rogue tell me "I search for traps every square of the room before puttin my feet on" I will do the previous work for every trap in the room, until he find one or put his feet on

I really take in account the "TIME NEEDED" because if they must accomplish a task within some time (beforse sunlight or so on) they must wisely choose where to "take 20" because each square will take out 2 minutes and a simple 10squarex10square room will take 200 minutes (more than 3 hours) and they probably cannot lose so much time in searching for traps

It really don't take away any time at all... expecially because I put traps only where there's a reason to be. A secret entrance (not used by common dungeon monster), an important door (treasure door)
I never put traps "random" (it is stupid to put a trap in the bathroom... enemy cannot set off and set on the trap everytime they need it!)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xeviat-DM 04-15-07, 06:42 PM	Traps are a mainstay of fantasy literature. They are the primary reason adventuring parties require a rogue. They are a great way to defend a base, or keep pesky tomb robbers out of a grave. Many spells are functionally traps, and the DMG has a detailed system for trap creation (which has been expanded in many books). In spite of all this, over five years of DMing, I have grown out of using traps. In all of my experience, traps bog down the game. They either feel like cheating (such as a trap that is designed so carefully that there is no way for the PCs to find it), or they slow the game down to a crawl. If a DM makes extensive use of traps in their game, they should be prepared for their players to search every inch of every room, one twenty-five square foot square at a time. This might be smart adventuring, but it isn't action packed adventuring, or even well paced adventuring. Looking into the genre of dungeon delving, careful observers may note that most characters of the rogue archetype don't go through a dungeon crawl like that. Adventurers know where traps are likely to be found, and search only those places, or they have a preternatural sense for traps which allows them to spot traps before triggering them. Further still, traps in the adventure genre, such as films like Indiana Jones, often function more like extended encounters rather than one shot DM laugh-fests. At the moment, I haven't put enough thought into this subject to offer a way of making traps themselves more interesting, but I think I have a way of making traps more fair and time-manageable. First step is to treat search as an passive skill; when a PC comes across the triggering mechanism for a trap, make a search check for them (or have them make a search check if your players are good at not meta-gaming) against the DC of the trap. If their check succeeds, then they notice the trap in advance. Similarly to the movement skills, a -5 penalty should be applied to this check if the searcher is moving more than half-speed (representing that they aren't being careful), a -10 penalty if they are double moving, and a -20 penalty should be applied if the searcher is running (representing that they aren't looking at all). With this change in place, I think traps could be easier to run, but I'm not sure this makes them any more interesting. Any input?
jaelis 04-15-07, 08:35 PM	My favorite uses for traps are either traps that the PCs know are there, and finding a way to disable/work around them is part of the adventure, or else traps that are part of a fight (such as the orcs fall back retreating, but if the party chases too fast, they fall in the pit trap that the orcs had been standing right behind.) Including them in a fight though makes the fight a lot harder... you really have to adjust the opponents to compensate. (That's why they are orcs instead of ogres.) I think Search should be used mostly for finding clues, not traps.
Inigo Carmine 04-15-07, 10:41 PM	I grew out of "traps" after about my 3rd or 4th session of D&D. At least traps in the traditional sense. 1) I hate having something you need 1 particular class to accomplish. 2) There really isn't much excitement to them. I don't know if the whole mechanic of them needs to be changes, I think they just need to become a little less common. When I DM, I use them, but only very occasionally, and usually in obvious spots. If you're breaking into the Royal Treasury, you can probably expect some traps. If you're walking down a dungeon that is populated with monsters, you're not going to find any traps. I also allow anyone to search and disable them (though if you don't have the skills, goodluck), and use almost always mechanical ones (ie DCs around 20ish).
The_sleeper1 04-15-07, 11:02 PM	I think there is some use in useing them but they are more limited than other things you can pit adventures versus. Something I find that helps is to place them logicaly, no large posion traps in the middle of a inhabated area or traps that are in areas that will see constant use. Most traps I put in major through ways of unused areas or make the area seem unusual in some way so that the PC's have a clue that theres something different. a DM saying out of the blue ok save or die is just bad DMing imo.
Xeviat-DM 04-16-07, 03:17 AM	I just noticed something very odd in the trap system that is making me consider the spell system itself. A magical trap is a CR 1+spell level, or 1+ 1/7 damage. 7 damage is 2d6. A first level spell can deal up to 5d6 damage, or 17.5 damage, which would be CR 4, even though it's only first level. Odd?
BW0222 04-16-07, 08:47 AM	Xeviat-DM, In all of my experience, traps bog down the game. How so? It make no more table time to search a hallway that it does to say you walk across it. "I search the hallway for traps." The DM rolls or the player takes a 10. Nothing to it. In game, it only takes six seconds per 5' square, or 1 minute for a 50' hallway or 25 minutes to search an large two sorry house. Even taking a 20, a 60' hallways only takes 24 minutes and the building say 8 hours. Considering that it may have taken hours or days to reach the dungeon, you are going to sleep for 8 hours shortly, and most campaigns rarely go more than a few years in-game... time is rarely an issue. Looking into the genre of dungeon delving, careful observers may note that most characters of the rogue archetype don't go through a dungeon crawl like that. Movies are hardly a genre. They also don't spend hours showing folks clearing mines, cleaning their weapons, making food, etc. They focus on the sixty second fire-fight. Adventurers know where traps are likely to be found, and search only those places, or they have a preternatural sense for traps which allows them to spot traps before triggering them. And D&D adventurers still have the option of only searching certain places or more carefully searching places which they think a trap might be. I'm sure most folks coming into a room with an unguarded golden idol would be taking a 20 on searching for traps on the idol. Further still, traps in the adventure genre, such as films like Indiana Jones, often function more like extended encounters rather than one shot DM laugh-fests. Any many players when faced with traps will roleplay taking serious measures to avoid being hit by them. Detect magic to determine the school, putting up protections, ways to by-pass the trap such that even if it goes off they aren't hit by it, etc. First step is to treat search as an passive skill; ... This makes traps even less than an enounter. Folks don't even have to say they are looking for them. And no one is going to spot a mine while running through a mine field. With this change in place, I think traps could be easier to run, but I'm not sure this makes them any more interesting. Any input? Why is this any easier to run? The only difference is that players don't have to say "I'm searching for traps." You still need to roll or have them take 10. And if they start running into traps, they will start taking 20 in certain areas. Further, your system just doesn't make sense. If someone puts a glypth in a city street or a pit trap in the middle of a forest, folks moving along minding their own business wouldn't have any hope of finding it. I'm not sure what the problem is here? Are players rolling for every 5' they search? If so, just have them (or you secretly) roll once for every area they are searching and apply this the first time they encounter a square with a trap in it. On all the others, they obviously don't find any traps. They can also take a 10, or 20 and avoid the roll entirely. You can have them pre-roll several search checks if necessary and use these as they search various areas. About the only table time taken is a player saying "I search X for traps." Is this an in-game time issue? Is six seconds per 5' square some type of problem? Moving through a dark cave full of traps... I certainly wouldn't be moving any faster? Are they aging at a hundred times the normal rate in your campaign or running into mile long tunnels? Otherwise, there is honestly no reason that a typical group of adventures couldn't easily search every 5' square of a 2 or 3 battlemap-sized dungeon and still make it home in time for brunch -- or maybe dinner if they started taking 20s.
Leilond 04-16-07, 08:59 AM	I usually have some premade rolls for search on my notes Whenever the rougue tell me "I search trap in that square" I "check" a prerolled result (only if there's a trap, otherwise I made the move but didn't really check it) and tell the result to the rougue If the rogue tell me "I search for traps every square of the room before puttin my feet on" I will do the previous work for every trap in the room, until he find one or put his feet on I really take in account the "TIME NEEDED" because if they must accomplish a task within some time (beforse sunlight or so on) they must wisely choose where to "take 20" because each square will take out 2 minutes and a simple 10squarex10square room will take 200 minutes (more than 3 hours) and they probably cannot lose so much time in searching for traps It really don't take away any time at all... expecially because I put traps only where there's a reason to be. A secret entrance (not used by common dungeon monster), an important door (treasure door) I never put traps "random" (it is stupid to put a trap in the bathroom... enemy cannot set off and set on the trap everytime they need it!)