Traps!

[Human Paragon 3]

Does anyone ever use the trap construction guidelines from the DMG/srd? I just looked at them, and they're A) weirdly complex and B) look like they make really lame and uninspired traps.

Traps have always been my least favorite part of D&D, not least of all because they make no damn sense. When I do use them, I try to make them unique and interesting. I really liked what 4e did with traps, because they actually created exciting encounters out of them i.e. they were tactical and engaging for the entire party, or at least attempted to be.

[illyrus]

I tend to go light on traps in games. The few times I've worried on anything complex was for a demon that had a Saw inspired "fun house" that were all custom traps. They were built using the rules of the game (so a PC could replicate them) but not the trap rules specifically.

[Seharvepernfan]

Does anyone ever use the trap construction guidelines from the DMG/srd? I just looked at them, and they're A) weirdly complex and B) look like they make really lame and uninspired traps.

Traps have always been my least favorite part of D&D, not least of all because they make no damn sense.

Do you mean the guidelines for making a trap as a DM, or the ones for a pc/npc making a trap?

I do use the ones for making them as a DM. I like traps, and I think they make sense, they just require some planning on the part of the creator. If you just have them lying around randomly, then yeah, they're probably not going to make any sense.

Consider: a dungeon staffed with, say, skeletons made by a necromancer. You have some skeletons sitting in a room; there is no door, there is only a wall that will slide down when somebody in the hallway outside triggers a trap. That trap also drops a portcullis behind the person who set it off. Now that person has their escape blocked while being confronted with enemies they didn't know existed until now.

See?

[hemming]

Yeah - they are terrible rules for designing a trap. I think its better to just make the trap you want and adjust the CR using the rules as a loose guideline

I like traps - I find they add a heightened sense of suspense and danger to the game as a player. But I also think it is very easy to overuse conventional traps.

There is a balance somewhere between the feeling that you are exploring a perilous locale and the feeling that you are mechanically rolling search and DD checks

Allowing creative solutions to traps is important to me as well, so that not every obstacle is solved by a check

[the_david]

Yeah, that's the way to do it. Also, players trapped inside the room don't have to attack the skeletons/monsters. They could just try to lift the portcullis, destroy it with a spell/reset it with disable device, and then run. This would add a bit of change from the standard hack'n'slash, although this doesn't work on groups using the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach.

There was someone complaining about an "unbeatable trap" on the Paizo boards. (Magical trap that launched a Fire Ball every round originating from the 60 ft. high cealing. Trigger was a divination spell like Arcane Eye or something? The complaint was that he couldn't reach or even see the trigger without being hit repeatedly, and thus wasn't able to disable it) The people responding came up with a lot of ways to bypass this unbeatable trap (Like using invisibility.) proving that he didn't think outside the box.

And honestly, here's what's wrong with traps in D&D/Pathfinder. They are unimaginative. I really dislike it when players are saying "I search this room" or "I try to disable this trap". Someone said in a blog that they just become speedbumps.
I prefer the old style traps, when you had to prod everything with a 10-foot pole.