oh no, my traps! [4E help] [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Sipex

2011-09-09, 09:29 AM

Loren

2011-09-09, 09:53 AM

Yes, you are right, the DC's look like they are way too low. If rolls were involved they would be usable, occationally, but...

One sugestion would be to simply up the DC's to something more reasonable (adjust ex accordingly) and/or use perception checks (essensially eliminating passive checks), like older versions of D&D.

Another, more interesting approach is to be clever with hidden things so that finding them doesn't negate them. In an older version of the Tomb of Horrors there was a sequence of rooms with two hidden things in them, a hidden door and a trap that shot magic missiles at creatures in the room. To disable the trap one would have to enter the room or do it remotely. The doors didn't have any opening mechanism so the players had to figure out ways of leveraging them. In both these cases having a hid perception would certainly be very useful, but the players still needed to be creative to overcome the obsticles.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-09-09, 10:33 AM

Remember, the goal to 4th edition trap design shouldn't be 'save or die' or 'Surprise damage!' traps. Traps should be something that complicates a situation and requires thought to get around.

Your PCs perception will allow them to spot traps and triggers easily but you should still make them a challenge to avoid from that point. Triggers should be placed so the PCs have to jump over them, disable them or otherwise circumvent them (ie: No simply walking around the trigger). Maybe you have a line of pressure plates, maybe opening a key door triggers the trap, maybe a trip wire is placed across the room, maybe the trap has some sort of 'electronic eye' trigger, maybe the trap is sentient (living statues?) or maybe a monster has the switch to turn the trap on. Be creative. Each different trigger type requires a different approach to avoid.

Some traps won't have triggers (ie: sentient traps), in this case the trap may be obvious to your PC but that just means the party knows about it. At this point the trap should be placed in a way that the PCs can't simply 'walk around it'.
QFT

One rule of 4e I learned awhile ago is "not everything needs to be hard." If a Player invests a ton of resources to get a high Passive Perception, let them benefit from it. As a corollary "don't make easy stuff the meat of the campaign;" if the party is really good at detecting and disabling traps, don't make detecting and disabling traps the focus of the campaign. By all means have traps, but make it so that simply detecting the trap is only half the battle.

In the alternative: I've been experimenting with some house rules for fleshing out the detection/disabling mechanics in 4e. In short, Perception lets you notice triggers but doesn't tell the PC how the trap works; Knowledge or Thievery checks are necessary to figure out what a trap does and failing those by 5 while "investigating" means you trigger the trap instead.

Snowbody

2011-09-09, 11:21 AM

I don't think you should just arbitrarily declare "you can't use passive perception to detect traps" as that is a significant change in how the game would work. A character with high perception should auto-detect easy traps.

But there is a legitimate reasons why passive perception wouldn't be in effect: if the PC is actively using perception to find something else, focusing perception in an area away from the trap.

Mando Knight

2011-09-09, 11:33 AM

In the alternative: I've been experimenting with some house rules for fleshing out the detection/disabling mechanics in 4e. In short, Perception lets you notice triggers but doesn't tell the PC how the trap works; Knowledge or Thievery checks are necessary to figure out what a trap does and failing those by 5 while "investigating" means you trigger the trap instead.
This may work, and it kinda makes sense.

Also, since it's just passive perception, let him notice things like "that statue seems odd" and such: rather than letting him always see every tiny detail, let him spot hints as to where to actively search. Sort of an uncanny awareness that something seems wrong, and a dedicated search would let him determine what, precisely, is wrong.

Crasical

2011-09-09, 04:22 PM

Is it -just- his perception that's very high? Why not start placing key traps in areas that make them hard to bypass, like a pit trap in a 10' wide hallway? That way the character with perception can feel good about noticing it, but the characters can't just walk around the trap, and have to make a thievery or athletics check to disable or leap over the pit, engaging it in some way that makes it a valid threat, albeit mitigated by the player's investment perception.

Also, has it ever bothered anyone else that you -can- disable a pit with the thievery skill?

Gillric

2011-09-09, 04:30 PM

You could also look at using the elite versions of some of the traps. They have higher DCs (not sure how much), do more damage, are worth more XP

WitchSlayer

2011-09-09, 04:50 PM

And aren't traps usually supposed to be used during fights? It might not matter if he can spot a trap if one of his allies is pushed into it or something.

Crasical

2011-09-09, 04:58 PM

You could also look at using the elite versions of some of the traps. They have higher DCs (not sure how much), do more damage, are worth more XP

Most of the traps that players would hit at 1st level have a DC 20 to locate, with a +2 to perception DC for the elite version. If the guy has a passive perception of 22, he'll meet the DC and spot even the elite versions.

Shatteredtower

2011-09-10, 10:56 AM

I don't think you should just arbitrarily declare "you can't use passive perception to detect traps" as that is a significant change in how the game would work. A character with high perception should auto-detect easy traps.

Why?

I understand that you don't want someone checking the same ten feet of corridor over and over again for two hours (1st Edition was not fun with certain people) or arguing, "Well, of course I'd be searching while we walked into this place), but if you can spot a trap without trying, it's not really a trap. It's bad enough that you can make an active check without ever having to slow down from a double move each round.

I get that passive Insight and Perception must be automatic to keep up with the Bluff and Stealth skills, but the result should not be automatic. A player with a high Perception score is already rewarded for that with a high chance of detecting opponents.

To that end, I recommend that the DM roll a secret skill check any time a passive Insight or Perception score would detect something. You'll still get the benefit of a high skill modifier without moderate or hard DCs being measures of difficulty in name only.

Besides, this might get adventure designers to cut back on the number of traps that are set off well before you coul get close enough to disable them. It might get them to ease off on group skill checks to avoid surprising the entire party as well, or at least stop playing the results of those as all-or-nothing.

Zaq

2011-09-10, 12:58 PM

Players should be rewarded for investment. That +12 Perception at level 1 didn't come free, after all. (How'd they do it, anyway? +5 trained, +3 WIS, +2 racial, +2 background?) If a player wants to be the party radar and makes a proper investment into doing so, it's simply not cool to respond by arbitrarily jacking up the DCs so that they're no better off than they would be if they hadn't invested (or, indeed, worse off, since before, maybe some of the other PCs would have had a chance to notice them as well). That's just telling the player that nothing they do is going to make a fundamental difference in the campaign.

Remember that PCs have limited build resources, and any investment in one area will necessarily prevent them from investing in another. Let the player reap the rewards of their investment. So they see your traps. Big deal! Isn't that what a good trapmonkey is supposed to do anyway? The fun of a trap is having the players deal with it, not just having the players get hit with it. HP tax traps aren't actually fun. Traps that you have to bypass are fun. Let the players see the traps. They still have to get past them somehow.

Aevio

2011-09-10, 02:51 PM

Why?

Because unless he's just blundering around like a moron, an adventurer is generally going to be on the lookout for anything odd or suspicious, especially while trespassing in an NPC's home, or investigating an ancient tomb filled with ancient magic.

I understand that you don't want someone checking the same ten feet of corridor over and over again for two hours (1st Edition was not fun with certain people) or arguing, "Well, of course I'd be searching while we walked into this place), but if you can spot a trap without trying, it's not really a trap. It's bad enough that you can make an active check without ever having to slow down from a double move each round.

It's just not believable that somebody would have such a fantastic knack for spotting things out of the ordinary, between training and natural talent and racial capability, only to have them blunder into a pit trap in the middle of a dimly-lit room, because the player didn't say "I search for traps." It should be assumed that, while in hostile territory, adventurers are always looking out for danger. If they didn't, they would have probably died a long time ago, due to their bumbling idiocy.

Shatteredtower

2011-09-10, 03:27 PM

Because unless he's just blundering around like a moron, an adventurer is generally going to be on the lookout for anything odd or suspicious, especially while trespassing in an NPC's home, or investigating an ancient tomb filled with ancient magic.

You don't think traps would be designed to thwart intruders that would be looking out for danger? You don't think looking around should force them to slow down a bit?

Think about that. The run action impedes the accuracy of your attacks and makes it harder to defend yourself, but doesn't interfere with your ability to spot a hidden tripwire before you've tripped it. You're penalized on Stealth checks for trying to move too quickly, but not Perception checks. Some forms of difficult terrain are considered such because you have to slow down to walk across them, but looking out for trigger plates on the same floor is less challenging.

The rules could stand to be made more consistent here. I don't mind how easily one can build a character to automatically pass a moderate skill check of your level, but you shouldn't be doing the same for hard checks two levels above your own no matter what you paid for the privilege. A hard check of your level should always entail some risk of failure, no matter how slight.

Loren

2011-09-10, 04:29 PM

Aevio

2011-09-10, 05:13 PM

You don't think traps would be designed to thwart intruders that would be looking out for danger? You don't think looking around should force them to slow down a bit?

I think that "traps.. designed to thwart intruders that would be looking out for dangers" is represented by traps with higher DCs. And I also think that characters exceptionally skilled at eyeballing their surroundings should be allowed to spot these traps if their DC falls within their "passive perception" limits.

Think about that. The run action impedes the accuracy of your attacks and makes it harder to defend yourself, but doesn't interfere with your ability to spot a hidden tripwire before you've tripped it. You're penalized on Stealth checks for trying to move too quickly, but not Perception checks. Some forms of difficult terrain are considered such because you have to slow down to walk across them, but looking out for trigger plates on the same floor is less challenging.

Just because the PHB doesn't specifically spell it out doesn't mean the DM can't fiat a penalty for these situations. It would make sense that it's harder to spot a trap while running, so the DM can be like "-2 penalty to passive perception while running."

I don't understand why people insist that just because the PHB doesn't say it, that the DM can't make a houseruling. Especially when the meat of D&D has always revolved around the DM making gut calls to avoid having to repeatedly hold up the game by digging through the rulebooks.

Aevio

2011-09-10, 05:22 PM

After sometime to contemplate, it seems to me the fundemental problem here is that this situation uses two static variables. Since both DCs and Passive skills are fixed the DM essentailly decides whether or not a character will see a trap before the party even enters the room. Passive Perception is intended to oppose Stealth checks. Trap DC's are intended to oppose Perception checks. Therefore, Passive Perception should not be used to oppose Trap DC's. Either the trap should be making a Stealth check against the Passive Perception (an odd way of thinking of the situation) or the PC should make a perception check against the trap's DC. I would agree with Shatteredtower, recommend rolling a Perception check for the PC behind the screen using their Passive Perception modifier. This way an element of chance is perserved (taking control of the situation away from the DM) while the PC is still rewarded for their investment (with a high chance of success).

They're also screwed by the dice a good 50% of the time.

This isn't about realism or any of that other nonsense. It's about streamlining the effort of checking for traps and hazards and making a player's skill choices matter. If a player dumps that many resources into pulling an amazing Perception modifier, and the DM takes away passive perception, you're making the player's character choice worthless about 40% of the time (just throwing a random percentage out there, assuming that the DC of the average trap is between 18-20).

If you REALLY want them to trip over the trap, there are other ways to do it. Set the trap in a room of supernatural darkness. Set a double trap, where one trap triggers if you bypass the first one.

Honestly, it kinda sounds like some of you guys are just upset because players can't be totally screwed by the dice anymore.

thubby

2011-09-10, 06:15 PM

Honestly, it kinda sounds like some of you guys are just upset because players can't be totally screwed by the dice anymore.

or helped by them...
without a random element, i'm arbitrarily deciding what happens. that doesnt just not reward the investment, it makes the investment meaningless.

but suppose all i want is for dice to potentially screw players. whats wrong with that?
without a chance for failure, it stops being a game, much less fun. (that's one of the reasons people dont actually play pun-pun)
obviously 50/50 doesn't represent the chances of a well trained observer in this circumstance.

supposing you treated it like hide vs spot, the spotter should win 65% of the time. which would mean i'd just have to adjust the DC

Aevio

2011-09-10, 06:41 PM

or helped by them...
without a random element, i'm arbitrarily deciding what happens. that doesnt just not reward the investment, it makes the investment meaningless.

but suppose all i want is for dice to potentially screw players. whats wrong with that?
without a chance for failure, it stops being a game, much less fun. (that's one of the reasons people dont actually play pun-pun)
obviously 50/50 doesn't represent the chances of a well trained observer in this circumstance.

supposing you treated it like hide vs spot, the spotter should win 65% of the time. which would mean i'd just have to adjust the DC

Without a chance for failure, the DM can determine what's an appropriate encounter later in the dungeon without the need to constantly fudge numbers when, 5 minutes ago, the party's rogue accidentally rolled a 3 and bumbled right into a fireball trap that lit everybody on fire.

If you want them to bumble into a trap, you set the DC above their highest passive perception check. After you pull this trick a couple times, they'll start slowing down and actively checking for traps that may not necessarily be visible on their passive check.

Just because a False Floor Pit is a DC 20 perception check in the DMG doesn't mean that the DM can't bump it up to DC 22 for being an Elite trap, than tack on a -2 perception penalty for dim lighting.

I hate playing freeform, and I'll scream it from the rooftops, but even i realize that the game doesn't stop being a game just because you didn't get to roll the dice. The game is about the players' reactions to the stuff the DM throws at them, whether it comes from a roll of the dice or not. Tossing a D20 just adds an element of unpredictability, and gives players a set construct to work within.

Zaq

2011-09-10, 07:01 PM

Again, detecting traps and defeating traps are not the same thing. Just because they can see the trap doesn't mean they just get to ignore it. On the contrary, the traps will probably have a bigger impact on the session as a whole, since the players will have to actually think about it. Consider the following:

Scenario 1:
Party: "We move forward down the hallway, keeping an ear out for any goblins up ahead."
DM: "Well, you [didn't roll high enough/didn't have a high enough passive check] to notice the pressure plate beneath your feet. A flurry of arrows bursts forth from the walls. Everyone takes damage!"
Party: *grumbles, scratches off a healing surge apiece* "Well, at least that's over. What's in the next room?"

Scenario 2:
Party: "We move forward down the hallway, keeping an ear out for any goblins up ahead."
DM: "Well, Strag the All-Seeing notices that the entire hallway is actually a pressure plate, and what you initially took to be geometric carvings are actually holes in the walls. There's definitely a trap here, probably involving arrows or something."
Party: "OK gang, now what do we do? Let's brainstorm and see how we can get past this. Anyone got any rituals? Let me see if I have any appropriate items . . ."

Frankly, I'd have way more fun with #2, and the players are likely to actually care about the traps more. What do you hope to get out of using traps? In what way do you hope it'll make the game more fun? If you want them to care about and worry about traps, you can do it better with visible traps than invisible HP taxes.

Loren

2011-09-10, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Aevio
If you want them to bumble into a trap, you set the DC above their highest passive perception check.

Most players I've come across hate this sort of thing (it smacks of railroading) and would rather be told that they can't take a 10 on finding traps so the DM will role for them. But that's my experience.

---
Edit
Edit 2, removed edit 1 due new findings. Apologies to all or any who were misled by the previous edit.

Aevio

2011-09-10, 09:31 PM

Most players I've come across hate this sort of thing (it smacks of railroading) and would rather be told that they can't take a 10 on finding traps so the DM will role for them. But that's my experience.

---
Edit
Edit 2, removed edit 1 due new findings. Apologies to all or any who were misled by the previous edit.

That's why you don't tell them. Letting your players know the mechanics behind your encounters takes away the mystery and suspense of the game.

When I say "increase the DC," I mean "give bonuses to the trap/penalties to the players in certain situations that warrant them, so that a high perception skill isn't always an auto-spot."

If you mix up the traps/hazards in a way that various situations grant various bonuses/penalties to their checks, the players are going to actually think about their skills instead of just relying on the GM to let them auto-spot everything as they walk down the hallway. They may figure out a way to give themselves circumstance bonuses, or to circumvent the penalties that were preventing them from previously spotting the unknown trap.

In this manner, not only do you make skills matter, but you also get the players to think of dungeons (caves, ruins, houses they're burglarizing, whatever) as more than just a set of tiles for them to traipse their miniatures along until Passive Perception notifies them of the next trap.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-09-10, 09:37 PM

In this manner, not only do you make skills matter, but you also get the players to think of dungeons (caves, ruins, houses they're burglarizing, whatever) as more than just a set of tiles for them to traipse their miniatures along until Passive Perception notifies them of the next trap.
To the contrary - you make the Players' build choices not matter. Plus you make Passive Skills irrelevant, which is a separate issue.

If a Player pays the opportunity cost of getting a high Passive Perception, he should benefit from doing so. If you arbitrarily (or "situationally") raise the DCs, then you are penalizing the Player's build choice as much as if you raise every monster's defenses by 1 when the Player takes Expertise. Either you should tell the Players that you're not using Passive Skills, or you can make spotting the trap only half the battle.

Aevio

2011-09-10, 09:54 PM

To the contrary - you make the Players' build choices not matter. Plus you make Passive Skills irrelevant, which is a separate issue.

If a Player pays the opportunity cost of getting a high Passive Perception, he should benefit from doing so. If you arbitrarily (or "situationally") raise the DCs, then you are penalizing the Player's build choice as much as if you raise every monster's defenses by 1 when the Player takes Expertise. Either you should tell the Players that you're not using Passive Skills, or you can make spotting the trap only half the battle.

I didn't say it was a perfect solution, but for those who seem to have a problem with passive perception "ruining" their traps, it's a feasible workaround.

No matter what sort of encounters you build, the DM always (yes, always) has the last say as to how simple or difficult the encounter is. If nobody took Perception as a trained skill and the highest passive roll was a 12, the DM could drop every single trap DC to 11 under the explanation that "the person who laid the trap was an amateur, making them blatantly obvious even to the most untrained eye."

The fact is, the DC doesn't actually matter. What matters is whether or not he wants the characters to find his trap. Sometimes the players do something unexpected, forcing the DM to improvise, and that's OK. but the wide majority of the time, whether the players succeed or fail depends on the DM's whim. The important part of the game is that the players feel that their contributions actually matter, and that they not feel like they're being railroaded.

Each DM has their own personal style. Some want more control over what the PCs can and can't do. Some want less. But there are ways to accomplish those goals without just throwing a D20 at it.

Vknight

2011-09-11, 01:06 AM

Passive is your normal awareness and as such should be compared to the traps DC in perception. They are equal or perception wins then the person notices the trap.
With this in mind here is were you have fun. Yes Revindor notices the pressure plate separating the party from the goblin archers but here is the big question. How do you get to those archers and what is the actual trap.

Example Encounters With Traps.

-Bugbears, or Hobgoblins, or Goblins that push or slide with a pit trap at the bottom of which is a rat swarm.

-A long corridor with flaming traps, pits, pendulums, arrow slit traps(One of those repeated 2or 3 times) at the end a pair of artillery monsters to shot the PC's on the way down.

Traps are to be environmental obstacles made by monsters, to increase there chances of survival through the classic I live here so I know all its secrets. So get a trap or make a custom trap and fit it to some monsters.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-09-11, 11:05 AM

The fact is, the DC doesn't actually matter. What matters is whether or not he wants the characters to find his trap. Sometimes the players do something unexpected, forcing the DM to improvise, and that's OK. but the wide majority of the time, whether the players succeed or fail depends on the DM's whim. The important part of the game is that the players feel that their contributions actually matter, and that they not feel like they're being railroaded.
That is one way to approach DMing, but not the only way. In Forge-Speak, this is known as "Illusionism" -- the act of creating the illusion that your Players' choices matter. Personally, I try to minimize the amount of Illusionism in my game because all it takes is one perceptive Player to realize he is being Railroaded.

Aevio

2011-09-11, 11:11 AM

That is one way to approach DMing, but not the only way. In Forge-Speak, this is known as "Illusionism" -- the act of creating the illusion that your Players' choices matter. Personally, I try to minimize the amount of Illusionism in my game because all it takes is one perceptive Player to realize he is being Railroaded.

Actually, that's the only way to approach DMing.

Whether you railroad your players, or give them absolute, unhindered freedom; the second most important part of being a DM (only second after "make sure everybody is having fun") is making sure your players feel as if their decisions matter.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-09-11, 11:28 AM

Actually, that's the only way to approach DMing.

Whether you railroad your players, or give them absolute, unhindered freedom; the second most important part of being a DM (only second after "make sure everybody is having fun") is making sure your players feel as if their decisions matter.
And I would argue that actually making your Players' decisions matter is the better way to DM.

But this is a conversation for another thread :smallsmile:

Shatteredtower

2011-09-11, 01:09 PM

They're also screwed by the dice a good 50% of the time.

While I think you're overstating the percentage, that's not really the point.

It may surprise you that one reason I'd like to change the rules for passive Perception is because I've been dealing with more groups that have stopped including someone with a high Perception score. It turns out that being able to automatically detect level appropriate traps and lurkers is less fun for a number of players.

I'm not interested in placing things that a party can't find. In fact, when I do place a trap (or lurker) that a party may miss, I like leaving clues that point to its presence, things that are much more likely to be spotted by the perceptive members of the party. Choices matter more than numbers again.

The rules don't modify checks to account for how fast you're travelling because they want to keep the modifiers simple. I'm okay with that, and with adjusting that, but I'm not so fond of a situation that means that either your passive Perception/Insight or a hard check against these skills is irrelevant.

Zaq, sometimes detecting a trap is the same as defeating it. That should not be an automatic indicator that the trap is bad. Heck, the second scenario you described makes me wonder what you have against the Thievery skill. Let's try a different scenario:

Passive Perception (Easy check): The kobolds retreat before you.

Passive Perception (Moderate check): You notice that the kobolds are taking some care in where they step. The floor of the cave ahead has been cracked in a few spots.

Passive Perception (Hard check): The cracked floor isn't the only place the kobolds avoid stepping. (Alternatively, "The kobolds aren't taking particular care to avoid cracked sections of floor.")

Active Perception (Hard check): Well, doesn't that look unpleasant...

See? The completely unobservant now know to look out for cracked sections of floor they'd have overlooked, and the moderately observant might opt to look a little harder for the trap's actual location. People might even consider aiding one another in the course of locating trapped sections of the room. They can still opt to navigate around the trap, increase the space available to them by disabling it (whether with the Thievery skill or through an inventive application of other resources), or try to use it against the kobolds with a bit of forced movement. It may even be possible to combine these ideas, such as a clear-and-steer strategy, opening one path for your group so they can better use the remaining traps to their advantage.

Alternatively, you could upgrade the difficulty of the three passive checks by one category and let someone with a high enough passive Perception roll a second check as a free action to spot the trap right away. Or you can have people roll again to confirm the result of their passive score.

(This makes sense. People might readily notice one item while overlooking another no better hidden than the first.)

Consider the same scenario in combination with a lurker. The right level of perception might give people cause to realize the danger before it strikes, even if they don't actually see the creature. In some ways, that might work even better, since people might then use knowledge checks in a bid to figure out what left these signs, and that might in turn lead to other choices made before the lurker strikes. The party might even opt to take a different route to their next destination and avoid the encounter completely.

When there's no other incentive, certainty damages interest. Skill challenges acknowledge that all-or-nothing parameters aren't much fun, so why should passive checks lead to that same limitation?

Loren

2011-09-11, 01:12 PM

It's one thing to dupe a bunch of teenagers used to MMORPGs it's another to dupe PHD and MD candidates who remember thAC0. The amount of illusionism that will work with some groups won't with others. But this is a bit off topic.

Here are some ideas I've thought of for the OP.

Traps come in different situations and are intended to achieve different things. Now it seems to me that different approaches to dealing with these situations will a) produce interesting and "fun" results and b) work in an elegant and efficient manner.

Situation 1: The party is encountering enemies in a room with traps.
This seems to be the situation that was envisioned by the creators of 4E when they discussed the basic use of traps (DMG p 85-87). In these cases the DC of a trap is opposed by Passive Perception when there is a direct line of sight (not the DC modifiers on PHB p 187, although I think that the penalty for distance should be increased dramatically). These rules seem like they would work fairly well (although things might start to fall apart for a simulationist if one starts to ask about how information about the location of a trap should be conveyed to one player who passed the check mid-combat without telling the players who failed or how that PC would pass the information on to his allies, but this is a digression.)

Situation 2: a trapped hall
In this case the trap is the encounter. Thus, this would probably be best described as a solo trap. According the DMG (p 86-87) solo traps should dealt with as a skill challenge. In which case one would do better to review the rules and advice for skill challenges. Since everyone hates being asked for a perception check and then not being told about seeing anything because they all clearly failed I'd recommend rolling the initial perception check behind the screen for everyone.

Situation 3: a trapped chest
In my opinion one ought not be able to tell if a chest is trapped from across the room (at least without super powers/magic) as partially defeats the point. Therefore, I don't think that the rules presented in the DMG for traps should really apply in this situation. Instead, I think that the player interaction with the object should make an active perception (search) check.

edit
I again agree with Shatteredtower, who has an uncanny ability to post while I'm writing.

Aevio

2011-09-11, 01:38 PM

While I think you're overstating the percentage, that's not really the point.

It may surprise you that one reason I'd like to change the rules for passive Perception is because I've been dealing with more groups that have stopped including someone with a high Perception score. It turns out that being able to automatically detect level appropriate traps and lurkers is less fun for a number of players.

An interesting note: some players find it even less fun to repeatedly come within an inch of death, because nobody has a proper perception modifier.

Everybody plays differently and has different interests when they're gaming. If your players find it more enjoyable to NOT see traps and bumble into them, that's completely up to them. But it's worth stating that there are going to occasionally be strong repercussions for not having all your bases covered. If your players already know that none of your traps are life-threatening, then there's really no incentive to bother with Perception to begin with.

Loren

2011-09-11, 01:44 PM

It's not the fact that they get hurt it's the risk that people find enjoyable. If there isn't a chance that they'll get hurt their successes are meaningless.

Aevio

2011-09-11, 02:29 PM

It's not the fact that they get hurt it's the risk that people find enjoyable. If there isn't a chance that they'll get hurt their successes are meaningless.

This statement is only true under the assumption that a DM absolutely MUST take away passive perception checks in order to create risk. Since that is blatantly untrue, your statement holds no water.

Shatteredtower

2011-09-11, 03:15 PM

An interesting note: some players find it even less fun to repeatedly come within an inch of death, because nobody has a proper perception modifier.

I'm afraid I read your arguments as a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. You've suggested that if I don't want people finding a trap, I should create situations in which the DC to find it is higher than the party's best passive Perception check...and then you tell me that players won't have fun if they're always getting smacked by traps they couldn't detect.

I'm not interested in creating a situation in which players have no option but to bumble into traps, as you describe it. I'd rather build atmosphere by giving out hints that players might want to look a little harder for an unseen danger.

If there's a "death trap" ahead of the party, I'm not going to be subtle with my hints. I'm also going to make sure there's at least one alternative path to their destination. In some cases, it may even be possible to determine the measures necessary to bypass the trap without ever locating the means necessary to disable it.

Making the indicators of a trap easier to find than the means to disable it opens up a lot of options. (I know this is already being done for cases involving a control panel.) Each character can still make up to three attempts per round to find it, four with an action point. If they know it's just another hazard, they know they've got the option to ignore it and takes their chances. If they can determine that it's got a fair chance of killing some of them in short order, they'll know it's in their best interests to be thorough. They can still opt to take the risk, but they're still qualified enough to try to avoid it if they wish.

Considering how many traps rely on attack rolls anyway, is it any more frustrating to be killed by a pendulum blade trap you didn't spot or by the orcs in the same room? It may hit harder, but it's a lot less mobile.

(Heh. I see Loren beat me to it this time.)

Aevio

2011-09-11, 04:30 PM

I'm afraid I read your arguments as a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. You've suggested that if I don't want people finding a trap, I should create situations in which the DC to find it is higher than the party's best passive Perception check...and then you tell me that players won't have fun if they're always getting smacked by traps they couldn't detect.

*Sighs*

Do I really need to say this? Moderation. It's not fun for something to always be one way, or always be another. My thoughts are simply suggestions to help patch whatever problems others seem to be having with the system, without butchering it by trying to turn it into 3.5.

-Snip-

Only skimmed the rest of your post. I'm tired of making book-long replies that are all basically saying the same thing.

Shatteredtower

2011-09-11, 04:41 PM

Do I really need to say this? Moderation. It's not fun for something to always be one way, or always be another.

Sure. That's why I suggest the free reroll where passive Perception would currently detect a trap automatically. As it stands now, either you'll always notice a given trap or you'll always miss it.

Aevio

2011-09-11, 04:45 PM

Sure. That's why I suggest the free reroll where passive Perception would currently detect a trap automatically. As it stands now, either you'll always notice a given trap or you'll always miss it.

... you're seriously giving me a headache.

Whatever, you win. I'm tired of arguing. I've made my point quite thoroughly, for anybody who actually cares about what I was saying.

Loren

2011-09-11, 07:16 PM

Only skimmed the rest of your post. I'm tired of making book-long replies that are all basically saying the same thing.

Yah, I think we're beating a dead horse here.

Anymore ideas to help out the OP?

Shatteredtower

2011-09-11, 08:30 PM

... you're seriously giving me a headache.

Nah, that comes from trying to leave a conversation with the last word. See where indecision over cake leads?

Seriously, though, a little uncertainty is good for the game. Remember how you wrote that PCs would be expected to be alert all the time? Well, that little bit of uncertainty is just how you make sure that's true. Passive Perception as it is now means one guy gets to play Spider-Man while the rest of the Avengers can slack off.

Take one guess what a party with no passive Perception score above 17 does with minor actions each round. With two or more of them at it, they're spotting more lurkers and traps than you'd think. Have you ever seen a player express delight for winning initiative with the lowest initiative modifier? This happens about as often, and it's no less fun to watch.

Thomo

2011-09-11, 10:42 PM

so im running a 4E campaign and I've hit a bit of a snag.

one of my players has a 22 passive perception at lvl 1. that means any traps that would be even remotely in the party's level range are going to be instantly spotted.
and, lets face it, without some fear of failure, traps are just boring. conversely, i don't want to not reward the investment. i feel like the lack of a roll has neutered one of my favorite toys.

thoughts, suggestions?

The way I work passive perception probably isn't the norm, but I think it works well. Basically, if they have a passive perception high enough, then they detect something out of the ordinary - not what it is, but a feeling that somethings 'not right'.

Fluff it up as a sense of foreboding, some kind of 6th sense etc. They can then take a Perception check to find the trap - this allows for some chance of failure.

I also only usually use traps when they are pressed for time, so they usually can't take 10 to try and find it, and have to make a choice when in combat about searching or fighting.

Snowbody

2011-09-12, 08:07 AM

I also only usually use traps when they are pressed for time, so they usually can't take 10 to try and find it, and have to make a choice when in combat about searching or fighting.

That was my first thought too. But by RAW, passive perception is not the same as taking 10. Passive perception is the level of perception that a PC has all the time when s/he is not using active perception. There's nothing in the rules about being unable to use passive perception when rushed/stressed/in combat.

Thomo

2011-09-12, 06:06 PM

Oh, I understand that. I just didn't explain myself properly. The way I work it is this:

Passive Perception: If this beats the targets DC, then they get the impression that something is there, but they have to actively search for it (i.e. make a roll or take 10).

Take 10/ Roll: This is what the roll to beat the target DC. Passive perception gives them a 'feeling' that something isn't right, this allows them to actively identify what it is. They can either roll and add their perception modifier or, if they have time, take 10.

Snowbody

2011-09-13, 08:01 AM

Thomo -- I like your way -- I'm thinking of doing it that way in the game I DM -- but it's not RAW. Nonetheless I like it so much I'm probably going to steal your idea.

The Reverend

2011-09-13, 02:21 PM

Probably already mentioned.

The kobold description in 4e states one of their favorite tricks is to use hidden areas and secret rooms to observe from and to activate traps AFTER the adventuring party has past thru those areas. Have a running fire fight with some poisoned crossbow using kobolds who are luring the PCs deeper into the dungeon while their confederates turn on traps after you pass. You lead the pcs either into a Scooby doo scene chase in a large room with a dozen secret passages and traps, the kobolds then are either killed or hide and the PCs have to then get back to the main part of the dungeon thru the hallways they thought were safe.

Alternately the kobolds lead the pcs into a monsters lair now they have to negotiate the traps or get eaten. Monster should be hard enough that running seems like the better idea but its slow sp it can't just run after them, but fast enough they to roll thru the traps, can't take twenty or ten. Monster screams down the hall " hurry up hurry up is coming its coming!!!". Would add a sense of urgency to the scene.

This way it doesn't matter if they saw it or not.