regarding passive perception skill checks and after some long banter sessions, our group feels that the passive skill mechanic in 4.0 is more a hindrance to "fun" then anything else. Anyone else getting this feeling?
So what we are planning on doing is throwing passive perception checks right out the window and replacing it with a pseudo-type 3.5 method like this:
Whenever a player would have made a passive check under the 4.0 rules I will now instead roll a hidden "passive" check for him and if successful tell him what he sees. If my party approaches a room with a trap of DC 22 - I just roll a dice for all players who could possible spot it and see who notices it. This allows my high perception player to more likely detect stuff but also gives the other players a chance to sneak in a sighting he may miss.
When they walk past a secret door or monster hiding, the same thing. No more auto-detect anything just because you automatically get a 10 on every passive attempt.
Ah but won't they know something is up if you're rolling dice behind the screen and meta-game an active check anyway at that point.
Well possibly, but I plan on rolling the dice behind the screen quite often as a "nervous habit". However, if they see through my ruse and suspect something is up, to avoid the "roll until 20 syndrome we're enacting a house rule that limits the number or rerolls on any active checks to the ability modifier tied to the skill. In addition I'm also tossing around the idea of making each subsequent roll a +1 DC since a failed result might have the PC thinking nothing really is there.
So hopefully here's how things will change when entering a room with a DC 22 trap.
Old Way: Upon entering the room DM says, "Mr. Ranger notices the pressure plates on the floors."
New Way: Upon entering the room (DM makes 4 rolls - one player has only a 1 modifier) - everyone misses. Players are leery and want to actively check the room. The DM tells each player they can make their perception rolls. All miss again and DC goes to 23. Now only 3 players have rolls left but one is only a +2 so he's out. Remaining 2 make a roll and lo and behold the Ranger get an 11 and detects it and his partner rolls a 20 and also detects it at the same time.
Any thoughts?
If he isn't insane, he'll have to be around level 10 to passively see that trap.
Any thoughts?
It sounds more complex than necessary, but you should at least try it out - it might work out just fine for your group.
I might try something more like: "When a character fails a passive skill check, he can roll a check as a free action, but he must use the rolled result instead." Either as a general rule, or perhaps as a feat or a character option of some kind.
That said, I'm not clear on why you have a problem with passive checks. If you could lay that out, I think we could all help think of how to address the problem a little bit better.
How high is your ranger's passive perception that he would automatically see a DC22 trap on the floor?
Um... 22? (or more) That's +12 (normal) Perception. It's not that hard to get (5 training + 3 Wis + 2 Elf = +10 right off the bat, so either level 4, or level 2 with a higher Wis).
EDIT: Or you can have it at 1st level with Skill Focus, as your edited post points out.
Um... 22? (or more) That's +12 (normal) Perception. It's not that hard to get (5 training + 3 Wis + 2 Elf = +10 right off the bat, so either level 4, or level 2 with a higher Wis).
Hey, if that guy managed a +3 or more in wisdom, I'd just give it to him. He would have to put his 16 in wis or his 14 plus racial mods. What he suffers for that is totally worth being able to see traps like that.
Hey, if that guy managed a +3 or more in wisdom, I'd just give it to him. He would have to put his 16 in wis or his 14 plus racial mods. What he suffers for that is totally worth being able to see traps like that.
A ranger isn't suffering much for that, since Wisdom is his Secondary ability score.
If you are wanting to add some suspense, roll for the players behind yoru screen - but use their passive scores as a minimum. Then all you have to do is set the DC for the check based on the level of challenge you are looking for... meaning you should set the DC a few levels above the party (use page 42 of the DMG for that) and to a hard difficulty if it is actually supposed to be hard to notice something.
otherwise, just leaving it as is typically allows a character to feel that investing in Perception was a good choice.
A ranger isn't suffering much for that, since Wisdom is his Secondary ability score.
It's actually his tertiary stat. (third down) Dex is so much more important, even if you go with 2weapon fighting. It affects your AC and your Init and your Reflex...
Maybe if you built an archer, wisdom would be your secondary. You'd have a max of +2 in str, but you'd have a high enough wisdom that... this is worth investigating. I like this hawkeye concept and it totally makes sense that he would see the traps.
It's actually his tertiary stat. (third down)
I get that for Two-Weapon builds, but I really don't get why they suggest that for the Archery build. I've only played a "just archery" ranger, and Strength... really wasn't necessary.
I fail to see how having a character that is supposed to be good at something fail randomly is "fun" let alone "more fun" than the character actually being good enough to notice things.
Because if there is no chance to fail then there is no suspense and hence no real reason to do it IMO. His character is good - not perfect. With the current RAW most traps he comes across he automaticcal finds them - period- if he doesnt automatically find them - then he has to know to take an active check for any chance of finding it.
If you fail to see how this detracts form the game then I suggest moving on to another thread - nothing to see here.
meaning you should set the DC a few levels above the party
Currently I would have to set the he DC at a hard 7th level for him not to detect it. That's 5 levels above him! Not to mention at that level almost no one else in the group could even actively find it.
I'm not clear on why you have a problem with passive checks.
Read the thread I linked - it clears up most of what people seem to be missing with my post.
I have players in my group that have taken Skill Training (not selected as a class skill, but SKILL TRAINING as a FEAT), Skill Focus (Perception), and made sure they had a high Wisdom score despite it not being a class skill.
If I were to remove passive skill checks, that means I roll a d20 for his Perception. THAT means I could roll a '1'.
How is making a character who has invested half of his character's stats in Perception and min-maxed to never be caught off-guard, be caught off-guard, more fun?
I can't imagine telling those characters "Yeah. You didn't see or hear the half-giant walking up behind you. Luck of the dice."
"...what?"
"I rolled a 1 for you. You didn't detect the half-giant."
"But... that's all I'm good for, is hearing things. Why aren't you using the passive rules anymore?"
"Because this is more fun, when I get to ruin the facets of your character you min-maxed to get! Ruining your character at critical moments is fun, you see!"
Still. Some groups may not like passive skill checks. If everyone in your group willingly says "I don't like passive Perception and Insight checks. Remove them. Make it random" I'd say make it so: if the group agrees its more fun, use the house rule that's more fun for them.
BUT.
If the vote is NOT unanimous, you have two options: use random rolls for everyone who wants random rolls, and passive checks for the person who wants passive checks. OR, don't do it at all. In the case of ruining some people's character min-maxing, give each person the choice.
I never, ever, would use a house rule that would **** off more than 0 people in my group.
I'd even argue it makes more sense: After all, a well-concealed, stationary, deactivated trap can't be noticed by happenstance. You have to ACTIVELY find it, so you don't hunt down traps like that.
Someone sneaking around? Passive check. Noticing a lie in a conversation? Passive check. Noticing someone standing still while invisible? Active check. Noticing an omission in a conversation? Active check.
Oh, and one last note:
I don't think it's RAW that traps are detected passively. I don't recall any place--though I could be wrong--where it says that things with Perception DCs are automatically detected by high enough Passive Perceptions. I only think it says that active Stealth checks are made against Passive Perceptions, or active Perceptions are made against passive DCs.
I don't think it's RAW that traps are detected passively. I don't recall any place--though I could be wrong--where it says that things with Perception DCs are automatically detected by high enough Passive Perceptions.
Perceiving Traps and Hazards
When the party is within line of sight of a trap, compare each character’s passive Perception check with the DCs of the traps in the room. A PC whose passive Perception is equal to or higher than the DCs notices the trap or the relevant aspect of the trap.
So if there is a pressure plate, they see a stone that looks out of place in the floor. If there is a trip wire - they see it. If there is a large net full of rocks hanging from the ceiling, they see that too.
I will never understand why someone would want a character that is obviously supposed to be amazingly good at something to have a random chance of failure at tasks that are not amazingly difficult.
It's like deciding that the maxed out strength score fighter should always have a chance that he lose an arm wrestling match with an octogenarian human opponent: not really that much fun for the person who is playing a character that they want to be "the best" at something.
It's actually his tertiary stat. (third down) Dex is so much more important, even if you go with 2weapon fighting. It affects your AC and your Init and your Reflex...
Maybe if you built an archer, wisdom would be your secondary. You'd have a max of +2 in str, but you'd have a high enough wisdom that... this is worth investigating. I like this hawkeye concept and it totally makes sense that he would see the traps.
I'm not arguing one way or another on the actual topic at hand, but a Cleric who takes the multiclass ranger feat wouldn't be "sacrificing" anything for high Wis. Plus he could take Skill Focus on top of that if he really wanted to be the party's trap-spotter.
It's actually his tertiary stat. (third down) Dex is so much more important, even if you go with 2weapon fighting. It affects your AC and your Init and your Reflex...
Maybe if you built an archer, wisdom would be your secondary. You'd have a max of +2 in str, but you'd have a high enough wisdom that... this is worth investigating. I like this hawkeye concept and it totally makes sense that he would see the traps.
Actually, Dex is only important for Two Blade Rangers that use HEavy Blades. Otherwise its Str, Con, Wis.
However, I do see the sense in "we already know this is going to happen, given that, I should plan for it". I have found myself either realizing, "The DM never planned to have these dudes surprise us" (in the case of the best session of DnD I've ever had, lol) or "I just figured the rogue would find that trap... Now I need to know what it does..." (as a DM, yeah when she had to roll over a 2 to find the trap, I figured she'd find it) in 3.5.
Actually, Dex is only important for Two Blade Rangers that use HEavy Blades. Otherwise its Str, Con, Wis.
Explain.
Explain.
If your going for Hammers, your gonna want a good Con for your Hammer Rythm and Hammer Rythm with mulptiple attacks is useful and you need a good con for Bludgeon Mastery. For Axes you want Strength and Con for obvious reasons (Deadly Axe and Axe Mastery). All so Wis might be secondary for axes if you go into Pitfighter, adding your Wis to all those hits is gonna hurt..
I think most players really enjoy hearing things like "for your character, that trap might as well have had a red blinking light on it."
Also, in rooms when there is a battle going on, the high perception chaaracter rarely has a chance to run around and spot every square, so it keeps everyone on their toes when movign around.
If your going for Hammers, your gonna want a good Con for your Hammer Rythm and Hammer Rythm with mulptiple attacks is useful and you need a good con for Bludgeon Mastery. For Axes you want Strength and Con for obvious reasons (Deadly Axe and Axe Mastery). All so Wis might be secondary for axes if you go into Pitfighter, adding your Wis to all those hits is gonna hurt..
I don't really know the game past heroic. Still, dex is the primary stat for archery rangers.
With a two anything fighter, are you just expected to trash your ac or spend a feat on heavier armor?
....I suppose the stats are in your favor. HUH, I hadn't even thought about that. It's pretty sweet.
Try using passive perception in this way - it only detects that 'something' isn't quite right. When you tell this to a player, they will roll a perception against the DC and you can tell all after a success. This way, you aren't always just letting them get the info just by walking past...
I like this one a lot. Good idea.
DM: You see some pressure plates on the floor.
Player: I make an active perception check.
DM: Uh, you lost those pressure plates, you seem to recall they're somewhere in the room.
It would make sense to me to put the passive value below 10, like 6 or something, so that at least then most of your active checks will be higher.
If you really want to throw your high Perception Ranger off, let him see the traps but make it more than meets the eye. Let him see the traps, but have a Lurker huddle around the corner and unleash a range attack on the trap breaker. Mention the trap, but also mention what he thinks is a large ruby that only he can see and could be his, all his, MWAHAHAHAHAHA!
In my current group the ranger has 19 passive perception and I have 15 as a rouge. If he see's a trap I whip out my tools and get to disarming and the same with hidden doors.
It hasn't seemed to break the game or make it less fun in any way, shape, or form. It sure beats in most cases sitting around in a room, with the DM rolling for wandering monsters, while we all take 20 's while searching the room hoping to find the trap or secret door.
Best so far is calling for a perception check and "banking" it for the next perception-event which may be now or a few minutes or a half hour.
I don't really know the game past heroic. Still, dex is the primary stat for archery rangers.
With a two anything fighter, are you just expected to trash your ac or spend a feat on heavier armor?
....I suppose the stats are in your favor. HUH, I hadn't even thought about that. It's pretty sweet.
Ironically, yes, thats what you do, you pick up armor up to scale or plate (Usually Scale), go Dwarf, pick up Dwarf Training, grab some warhammers and go to town.
Then silently cross them out as they do passive checks. They won't always notice things, but no rolling and they still get bonuses from having good skills. But it's still variable.
At any given level on the heroic tier, the difficulty of an average level-appropriate task is 12+level/2 (given the average heroic ability score of 14).
The range of an optimized skill check at these levels (where optimized is defined as training, an appropriate ability score of 16, and the appropriate Skill Focus feat) is 12+level/2 to 31+level/2.
To clarify, that's a level 1 character rolling a 31 on a skill check, right there. Judging by the DCs in the PHB, the most difficult mundane task imaginable tops out at 30 (scaling a sheer ice wall is a good example, for Athletics).
To put it another way, the range of an optimized skill check at any level in the game BEGINS at the difficulty appropriate to an average level-appropriate task.
An optimized character will succeed at an average task 95% of the time, assuming that a natural roll of 1 always fails.
Assuming a +5 DC mod for moderate difficulty, the character will succeed 75% of the time.
A +10 DC mod for challenging difficulty still results in a 50% success rate.
I am still reserving judgement on these facts, for the time being, but there they are.
-Let them see it, but the disarm DC is incredibly high. When they fail a disarm, bad things happen (trap, mobs, etc).
-Let them see only part of the trap. They see the pressure plate, but cannot tell what it does.
-Let them perceive something, but whatever they perceive doesn't actually do anything. The actual trap is a high DC of something else.
-Do a reversal roll: roll for the DC of traps. If the trap would be DC 22, then make the DC d20+11.
-They see the traps, there's just nothing they can do about it. They know there are magical crossbow turrets that will spring out, they know where they will spring out from, they know that crossing the room will set it off, but the control panel (if you use such crass objects) is across a room full of pressure plates.
-The trap is, itself, a trap. Disarming it arms something else.
-The player crossing the room to disarm a trap fails to notice, until they are noticed in turn, that there is something large, mean, and living just around the corner, that was previously out of sight.
-The disarmed trap can be rearmed when the badguys show up.
-Include entirely magical, non-physical, traps that do not rely on perception, or else a combination of perception + arcana.
-Put the traps in a dark room, granting the traps concealment or total concealment. You can't see them unless you bring lights into the room, which gives away your location and voids stealth.
-If a guy uber-specializes in perception, let him perceive a lot. I mean, it's what he wants to do. Just plan on that when dealing with difficulty. It's a bit like trying to figure out how to avoid a striker dealing damage - don't try to shut down what they're supposed to be doing.
Another dozen ideas, just off the top of my head.
The problem is not passive checks. The problem is that DCs in D&D4 are on a completely different scale than they were in D&D4.
No, that's not a problem. Use whatever DC you want, on any scale you want. If you want the DC to be 50 at level 1, make it 50. If it helps have fun, then that's what you do. I've made a DC 5 trap - the entire POINT of the trap was to be noticed. A perceptive player would've wondered why it was so easy - why I laughed when they wanted to do a perception check, picked up the die, and told them not to bother because they see X. Oh, ok they say, and wander over to disarm. See "the trap is a trap", above.
I just roll a dice for all players who could possible spot it and see who notices it.
Die! Roll a die! Die is singular, dice is plural! You cannot "roll a dice" anymore than you can "mass murder a man". You can "roll dice", "roll three dice", "roll several dice", or even "mass murder a village" (I won't stop you); but if you are going to use a singular article (a/an/the) you need to follow it with a singular noun!
The problem is that DCs in D&D4 are on a completely different scale than they were in D&D4.
Huh?
Die! Roll a die! Die is singular, dice is plural! You cannot "roll a dice" anymore than you can "mass murder a man".
Shut up or I'll commit genocide [sic] on you.
Shut up or I'll commit genocide [sic] on you.
Do it. I dare you. I Double-Dog DareTM you.
4E's design theory is that the players generally should notice traps. The challenge is instead in dealing with them once you've noticed them; there's not much challenge in "out of the blue, you randomly take damage".
THIS.
Traps in 4th Edition now serve a purpose besides subtracting HP from the player characters and stroking the egos of killer DMs.
Do it. I dare you. I Double-Dog DareTM you.
Wouldn't that be the physical challenge, though?
I just haven't found an elegant way to handle the mechanical aspects of things that are supposed to surprise the Players. Whether it's calling for checks, using a passive score, or rolling in secret, all of them have some downside I hate.
Best so far is calling for a perception check and "banking" it for the next perception-event which may be now or a few minutes or a half hour.
Yep. Instead of rolling as a nervous habit, just roll a series of like 10 perception checks for everyone before they ever arrive. When they get to a spot where they would need to roll, just look at your paper to see what the results and they will be none the wiser.
No, that's not a problem. Use whatever DC you want, on any scale you want.
Sorry, problem is the wrong word. DC scale is the issue.
Huh?
::sigh:: Replace one of the 4s with a 3. Was it really that unclear? There are only two games we discuss here that involve DCs, and I was comparing those two games. Does the typo really matter?
THIS.
Traps in 4th Edition now serve a purpose besides subtracting HP from the player characters and stroking the egos of killer DMs.
Your mother is fat.
...What, are we not trading unsubstantiated insults? I thought we were trading unsubstantiated insults.
::sigh:: Replace one of the 4s with a 3. Was it really that unclear? There are only two games we discuss here that involve DCs, and I was comparing those two games. Does the typo really matter?
Only insofar as it creates an immediate "WTF?" response. :P
Edit: And calling someone's mother fat is an insult to their mother, not to them. Hell, my mother is fat, but I'd almost pity the fool that got in her face with it. I'm over 30 years old and active duty army, and I still wouldn't want to tangle with my mom.
I feel a bit silly as a DM creating something that I know will either be automatically missed by everyone or automatically seen by one or more. I did like the old spot checks with a little randomness thrown in.
Our DM solves this problem in the same way that it has always been solved. Either he lets us pass it, or gives us a hint. For instance, we were about to move out of an area, and the DM suggests "Are you sure you want to go down the stairs?"
Now i didnt catch it, neither did the other guy sitting next to me, but (most importantly) our rogue caught the hint, and started actively rolling his perception checks (as his are at 19 at 4th level). We needed around a 22 to see a secret door, but it was only through taking time that we actually found it.
Also, our DM allows us to search an area (usually a pretty big area) thoroughly (not take 20, but pretty close) if we spend an hour doing nothing but searching. We have begun doing other stuff in this hour, like casting rituals, eating meals, prepping fallback ambush traps and creating cover areas, etc.
Sometimes it feels more like an actual frontier adventure than 3.5 did, since in 3.5 it was simply take 20 if you have enough time on your big buffs, but if not, come back to it later when the big bad is dead... cause you have to race through the dungeon to maximize your cleric and wizzies buffs that they have cast
the passive perception is more like the "take 10" rule from 3.5, and i don't understand how that has fundamentally changed. If some ninja was leering at the party, I could either ask them to make spot, or if they were winding down for the day, perhaps just allow take 10s for his movements, since the ninja might be taking 2 hours to position himself... etc.
"You burn an hour checking out the area. You have found nothing so far, but in the middle of your search a scout patrol shows up. Roll init."
the passive perception is more like the "take 10" rule from 3.5, and i don't understand how that has fundamentally changed.
It hasn't changed. Again, what has changed is the ratio of skill bonus to DC. Taking 10 used to be for easy tasks. Taking 10 on a task of average difficulty used to succeed about (gasp) half the time. Now it succeeds nearly 100% of the time.
YMMV. Set your DCs as you see fit.
I never, ever, would use a house rule that would **** off more than 0 people in my group.
Can I trade you for my DM?
Taking 10 used to be for easy tasks. Taking 10 on a task of average difficulty used to succeed about (gasp) half the time. Now it succeeds nearly 100% of the time.
Are you using the "revised" skill DCs then?
It's because of -that- that I haven't touched the new DCs at all for my game. I stick with something more akin to Stalker0's DC's (so, example: level 1, Moderate DC, = 18 (or about 50% success rate for a trained-but-not-specialized character).
Are you using the "revised" skill DCs then?
These days I'm setting DCs myself. The system went from bad to worse in errata.
It hasn't changed. Again, what has changed is the ratio of skill bonus to DC. Taking 10 used to be for easy tasks. Taking 10 on a task of average difficulty used to succeed about (gasp) half the time. Now it succeeds nearly 100% of the time.
I'm not sure why you believe this. The appropriate DC of an "easy" task in 3.5 is 5 (PHB, page 64). A character who "takes 10" on a DC 5 check is going to succeed 100% of the time, unless his modifier is a huge negative.
DC 10 is "average" and DC 15 is "tough" in 3.5. So it seems to me that it would be more accurate to say that you succeed nearly 100% of the time by taking 10 on easy and average tasks, and about half the time on tough ones (at low levels, anyway).
For example, take a room with a concealed door in it. Further, that concealed door has a trap in the locking mechanism. Now, let's assume that for some reason no one in the party has stated that they are actively searching that area of the room.
I check the party passive perception stats and compare to the DC of the concealed door (but NOT the trap). Two of the characters are at or above the DC. I then state, "X and Y notice some scrapes on the floor and that some of the stones in the wall seem to be worn in an odd pattern." The passive tells them that something is there, but nothing more. They then have to use an active roll (including any Aid Another, power/exploit, magic, etc. to improve chances) to find out that it is a) a concealed door and b) there is a trap in the locking mechanism.
To put it in real-world terms, it is like when you are sitting at your keyboard in front of your computer angrily typing a response to some post on these boards that you think is idiotic or inflammatory. You are so wrapped up in it (active perception is on the keyboard and screen) that you may or may not notice your wife, girlfriend, roommate (whatever) coming in the door and moving to the desk. Your passive perception has a chance to notice the movement, however. If you do well on the passive, your brain says, "Wait, did I just see something." Then you have to re-attune your active perception by looking around the room. Then you spot your wife at the desk, you gain the additional knowledge that she is grabbing some stamps and has a few bills in envelopes in her hands. If you fail the passive, you continue to write your post and don't even notice/sense that she has come and gone or why she entered the room.
Passive is the "gut feeling" sense that tells you something is wrong, amiss, askew, or akimbo. Active allows you to follow that feeling and find out exactly what that is, the reasons for it, and develop a plan of action based on the knowledge.
My two cents worth.
Incidentally, it's a better house rule to say "Traps require active searching" than "Passive checks don't exist."
I'd even argue it makes more sense: After all, a well-concealed, stationary, deactivated trap can't be noticed by happenstance. You have to ACTIVELY find it, so you don't hunt down traps like that.
More sense doesn't equal more fun.
DM: "Ok, you are at the entrance to the dungeon, what do you do?"
Rogue: "I check for traps."
DM: (Rolls Die) "What's your perception again?"
Rogue: "plus 10"
DM: (checks die) "You don't find any traps. What now?"
Rogue: "I move 5 feet forward and check the next square for traps."
DM: (rolls and checks die) "You don't find any traps, now what?"
Rogue: "You're the one that told me that I would never find a trap unless I rolled for it, keep rolling for every square. "
It also means, effectively, that a lot of ranges are much smaller (10+modifier to 20+modifier) rather than 1+modifier to 20+modifier. I don't like the fact that with rolling, sometimes the hero doesn't notice something the average person strolling down the lane would. This also helps me set difficulties on the fly. I mean, the d20 mechanic is so much more mathematically simple than, say, the bell-curve of GURPS (much less something like Shadowrun) that I can usually figure out what number something should be if I want it to be routine, hard, or really insane faster than I can look at the screen.
With the passive numbers, I can know that all of the PCs will make something difficulty 11 or lower, rather than half of them before bonuses.
I suppose part of this is coming from GURPS, where there are a LOT of rolls made by the DM for PC knowledge, and it always frustrated my players. Regardless of the perfectly good reasons for concealing these rolls (how do you KNOW you didn't find the traps?), they psychologically always wanted to roll their dice for their character. It also didn't help that everybody had Luck in GURPS, so often would have desired, after the fact, to have used their luck rerolls to spot that ambush (or whatever). With the passive perception, everybody knows that they got caught with their pants down due to a good sneaky enemy, and not to a roll of 1 on their perception check, whether or not they got to roll it themselves.
Simple: 12+[level/2]
Moderate: 17+[level/2]
Difficult: 20+[level/2]
Heroic: 23+[level/2]
Note, this assumes a PC with a +2 modifier not based on level (feat, racial, stat, etc.)
So, your "average" PC (no training, no specialization), can still hit the simpleDC's (simple or lower level traps and hazards) or moderate (of level; needs racial, stat, and jack of all trades) DC's, but it should take some training to hit difficult(training+ stat and racial, minimum) DC's. Only hyper specialized PC's could hit heroic (training, racial, stat, feat, possibly item) DC's passively.
Would that work better for the "numbers" of the system? Yeah. higher stat modifiers make the simple and moderate DC's much more reachable for more PC's, but the difficult and heroic DC's require some specialization (even for a PC with a +4 or +5 stat).
And really, if a PC is specialized to hit heroic DC's, then by the dice let them. It takes a significant amount of focus to hit those DC's consistently. Reward them for that dedication. Then, use illusions or "non-sensory" hazards that require Intuition.
4e assumes traps are part of a larger encounter. They are only 1/5th of exp of that encounter, unless they are elite, or elaborate solos.
So, the ranger spots the pressure plates of every trap he comes across, fine, let him. The goblins shooting at the party or the magma beasts should prevent him from outlining them in chalk. Let him say something on his initiative, the other players get their active rolls to spot, and if they fail that, let them role play it out. "stay away from the statues." or "There's a pit right in front of you!."
If a trap is so challenging that it's a solo encounter, it shouldn't have a obvious safe way around it. It should be a skill challenge to disable, or a combat challenge to break, or avoid.