Are Traps Fair in a Party With no Trapfinding?

[Amphetryon]

See title for topic. In your opinion and experience, is the DM playing fair if he includes traps* in the various adventure dangers a party with no means of Trapfinding encounters?

*"includes traps" means on some otherwise reasonably appropriate places, like the back door to the Big Bad's lair or the locked treasure chest inside the noble's house. It does not mean "there's a trap every 10' against which you must save-or-die, LOL."

[JusticeZero]

Yes, it's fair. They just learn to stop and do things to avoid traps.

[jiriku]

Yes, they're absolutely fair, and can encourage all manner of ingenuity as players try to find ways to remotely trigger traps without making a Disable Device check. In old-school d&d, thieves had absolutely terrible Find Traps percentages at low level and there was nothing they could do about it. Thus, the party almost never took the thief's word for it and checked everything out carefully by mundane (non-skilled means). Disarming traps wasn't much better, so parties often had to figure out a low-tech method of safely navigating around a trap that the thief had found but couldn't disarm.

[Vaz]

Depends what the Party expect from a game. There should be challenges to overcome. Some can be military/combat based, some can be social, some can be skill based, and some can be quest-based.

Even if the party doesn't have some form of access to a dedicated trap-locator as a party member, there should be some allowance for the location thereof such traps - such as "Gather Information" or "Kn. Local" to discover any appropriate "guides", or the ability to just bull doze right through it (summons/tanky fighters etc). It also depends on what threat you're facing. Tucker's Kobolds, or a Dragon might have loads of traps - whether minor physical traps (such as pitfalls) to major magical ones, like 120% real shadow conjurations, or if you're facing a bugbear bandit hideout, they might have a couple of bear traps or tripwires dotted about.

If the party proceed onwards regardless, in the past, I've played the "voice of consciousness", giving the parties highest wisdom or intelligence type characters a note saying that there's a likelihood there may be traps (if there is or isn't). This gives such members a second thought. If there is a dedicated Trapfinder type character, and they're not utilising that ability, however, that's a different manner. It would be like a wizard using Evocation, not using their available abilities to their best, and it's down to the party to sort that out in character (or out).

[sideswipe]

it is the players fault if no one took trapfinding. but some traps don't need it.

things you can do to avoid or disarm traps without trapfinding.
use a 10ft pole with a hook on the end and a large weight. avoid area.
detect magic and dispel
break things that may be trapped.
use spells to trapfind
hire a rogue
meat sheild trapfinding body.
may other exotic or harder things.

[Gildedragon]

Depends on the trap

traps that can be avoided or escaped once triggered are fair game (see (spiked) pits, dart-shooting hallways, poisoned doorknobs, exploding runes, flooding rooms with exits)
traps that cannot be escaped if triggered (such as crushing room traps, collapsing hallways) are not fair game as the players will inevitably trip them (they have no way to not do so) and thus be punished for something they have no agency over.

Some traps that would normally not be fair game can be fair game if it is possible for the party to somehow defeat them (crushing room if the party has a a ridiculous strength member that can push the wall back, or a spellcaster that can make the party ethereal or melt the stone away or the like)

As a general rule, however, no-escape traps are bad form, even with a trapfinder.

[eggynack]

I would generally seek to make use of encounter traps from dungeonscape, both with and without the trapfinding guy. They solve a lot of the silliness inherent in traps, like how luck and single party member based they are. Trap based skills make you better at dealing with encounter traps, but normal fellows can still participate.

[Thrudd]

See title for topic. In your opinion and experience, is the DM playing fair if he includes traps* in the various adventure dangers a party with no means of Trapfinding encounters?

*"includes traps" means on some otherwise reasonably appropriate places, like the back door to the Big Bad's lair or the locked treasure chest inside the noble's house. It does not mean "there's a trap every 10' against which you must save-or-die, LOL."

Yes, traps are a thing in D&D and the players know that (or they will after their first couple dungeons and they keep falling into pits and getting poked with poison needles). It is up to them to figure out how to deal with the realities of their dangerous expeditions.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Traps are best used sparingly, regardless of the party composition. Just look at the cost of a single trap, and then compare that to the total value of all the loot in the dungeon.

For example, DMG Table 3-3: Treasure Values per Encounter says an EL 5 encounter should have about 1,600 gp worth of loot. Let's look at the prices of CR 5 traps (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/traps.htm#cr5Traps): five times as much, six times as much, ten times as much, negligible, 7.5 times as much, eleven times as much, eleven times as much, fourteen times as much...

Most traps realistically encountered should be considerably lower CR than the party level. They'll be more of a hindrance than a standalone threat, in situations which the party probably won't be actively looking for them anyway. For example, they kick in the door to a room full of ogres and everyone charges in. The Paladin falls down a pit trap and is effectively removed from the battle! In that case, it doesn't even matter if there was a Rogue in the party, because nobody was looking for traps.

A spellcaster can get the Summon Elemental reserve feat in CM and just use it to Nodwick all the traps anyway. Plus an earth elemental can earth glide through stone walls/floors/ceilings, and a water elemental can flow through narrow openings, so once your elemental has found a trap you can simply order it to destroy the trap if it has an automatic reset, and you have a highly expendable minion to scout ahead for the party.

[Zanos]

I don't include traps if nobody in the party can be expected to reasonably cope with them. I also feel that they slow down gameplay considerably as the party argues about who touches the door first.

I love magic items that aren't always looking out for their owners best interests, though.

[jaydubs]

The DM should adjust the game for the party. That doesn't mean you should never add traps, just that you probably want less traps, or traps that are easier to disarm without a rogue. I.e., traps with logical rather than skill based solutions. Or traps that are easy to avoid as long as you make the perception check, and thereafter act as environmental obstacles rather than things you have to use disable device on.

To put it another way - if no one has trapfinding, it's probably because no one wanted to play a rogue. The players shouldn't be punished for not wanting to play certain classes. As long as the traps are adding to the fun, they're good. If it turns into a lesson in "this is why you need a trapfinder," it's bad.

[Emperor Tippy]

If the player characters are stupid enough to embark on quests where traps existing is a perfectly reasonable thing (i.e. virtually every campaign) without having a method to deal with traps on them then they deserve to be punished for it.

[Captnq]

Yes. Hell Yes. a Million times yes.

[Sith_Happens]

As long as the more dangerous traps are in logical locations, it's the party's fault if they don't approach such spots with caution and keep a ten foot pole on hand.

[thethird]

I normally try to CR traps so they are a fair encounter for one party member, because there is going to be one person with trapfinding. Still I try to use them sparingly because other players may feel dumb while one of them deals with traps. In groups without trapfinding, it depends, if the party had a reasonable chance of having trapfinding for example a rogue who decided not to invest in search, traps will still be there in the same vein. If there is no way anyone could get trapfinding or similar tools to deal with traps the encountered traps will have a lower CR and will be designed so they can be bypassed using resources available to the party (the party will need to expend resources to beat the encounter as opposed to rolling a skill check).

I.e. I do think they are fair, but you should try not to build the campaign around them, and try not to feel like it is someones job to deal with traps.

[Kazyan]

If the player characters are stupid enough to embark on quests where traps existing is a perfectly reasonable thing (i.e. virtually every campaign) without having a method to deal with traps on them then they deserve to be punished for it.

This happened in my campaign. Heavily paraphrased:

Me: Okay, there's one of the BBEG's moveable towers coming for you. What do you do?
PCs: We Wish ourselves* to where the MacGuffin on the side of the massive column is. Then we tell the plot NPC to use her plot powers on it.
Me: Just like the last few times?
PCs: Yep.
Me: You didn't check for traps.
PCs: Oops.

(120d6 fire damage for everyone)

*They had an artifact that could do a Wish-a-port 1/day.

[Flickerdart]

Are incorporeal monsters fair against a party that can't hit them? Are flying creatures fair against a party that can't fly and has no ranged capabilities? Are hydras fair against a party that doesn't have fire or acid available?

If your PCs can't detect the traps then you're just going "haha take this damage" at whatever times and then the game gets on with it.

[Amphetryon]

Are incorporeal monsters fair against a party that can't hit them? Are flying creatures fair against a party that can't fly and has no ranged capabilities? Are hydras fair against a party that doesn't have fire or acid available?

If your PCs can't detect the traps then you're just going "haha take this damage" at whatever times and then the game gets on with it.

I have explicitly been told "no" to the questions you pose, on this forum. . . sometimes with CAPITAL LETTERS and/or italics to emphasize how unfair those things were perceived as being. That, in part, informed my decision to ask this particular question.

[Zanos]

I have explicitly been told "no" to the questions you pose, on this forum. . . sometimes with CAPITAL LETTERS and/or italics to emphasize how unfair those things were perceived as being. That, in part, informed my decision to ask this particular question.
I know there are people on this very forum who think those things are perfectly fair.

[Flickerdart]

I have explicitly been told "no" to the questions you pose, on this forum. . . sometimes with CAPITAL LETTERS and/or italics to emphasize how unfair those things were perceived as being. That, in part, informed my decision to ask this particular question.
Yeah, they're rhetorical questions. Obviously, you shouldn't do any of those things, or use traps against a party that has no way of dealing with traps. Traps are stupid even when you have ways of handling them, but what do random occasional damage or debuffs actually add to the game?

[eggynack]

Are incorporeal monsters fair against a party that can't hit them? Are flying creatures fair against a party that can't fly and has no ranged capabilities? Are hydras fair against a party that doesn't have fire or acid available?
I think it depends on how hard it would be for the party to deal with those things if they wanted to. So, if you're a tier one caster, and you just didn't carry anything that deals efficiently with incorporeal monsters, or flight, or that deals fire or acid damage, then that's on you to deal with (though it seems unlikely, honestly, at least for some of those). If you're a fighter, and every one of those things demands a massive drain on your resources in the form of a flight item, or a flaming weapon, then I think those would possibly be unfair. The wizard can be prepared against all of these things, and the fighter really can't. That also applies here, as casters have resources that can help with traps, even if they don't have the necessary skills. Alternatively, you could always include those things under the assumption that running and coming back with the right tools is a thing.

[Amphetryon]

Yeah, they're rhetorical questions. Obviously, you shouldn't do any of those things, or use traps against a party that has no way of dealing with traps. Traps are stupid even when you have ways of handling them, but what do random occasional damage or debuffs actually add to the game?

So, it does nothing - in your opinion - to hinder immersion if all appearances are that nobody in the world is at all concerned about protecting their valuables, or their homes, by the use of something the books and the game's general history and tenor indicate is reasonably easy to afford?

[Flickerdart]

So, it does nothing - in your opinion - to hinder immersion if all appearances are that nobody in the world is at all concerned about protecting their valuables, or their homes, by the use of something the books and the game's general history and tenor indicate is reasonably easy to afford?
There are so many immersion-breaking things about traps that it's not even funny, starting with their exorbitant cost for their CRs and ending with their damned inconvenience to anyone having to go past them all the time (or their impossible resilience when left in an abandoned dungeon or one populated by monsters).

If you're concerned about your property, buy an adamantine door and a good lock. It'll be much more effective, doesn't cost extra to be resetting, and you won't accidentally murder anyone.

[jedipotter]

Traps, like anything else are fair game. It's not like you should not have ghosts in the game just as the group has no ghost touch weapons.

[jiriku]

Traps, however, are just good clean fun. I've run a trap-heavy dungeon two or three times with parties that had no meaningful skill-based way to detect or disarm traps. It was a blast for all concerned (sometimes literally). They poked, they prodded, they rolled stones, sometimes they just blundered on through. They smashed and they dispelled and they screamed and occasionally died. Every now and then they pushed a monster into a trap and high-fived all the way around the table at their cleverness. These dungeons were (in)famous sources of d&d war stories for years afterwards. The question you should ask is not "can I do it?" It's "how can I do it right?"

[Chester]

It's absolutely fair to have traps without a trapfinder. They can learn how to avoid them.

It's absolutely unfair to have traps that result in death and / or TPK, like 200 foot pit traps, if they don't have a good trapfinder.

It's one thing to add an element of danger. It's another to "punish" them for not having someone with that skill.

[Demonic Spoon]

Traps in 3.5 are terribly designed.


So, it does nothing - in your opinion - to hinder immersion if all appearances are that nobody in the world is at all concerned about protecting their valuables, or their homes, by the use of something the books and the game's general history and tenor indicate is reasonably easy to afford?


They are? a basic arrow trap - a trap that, when sprung, shoots a 1d6 damage arrow at you - costs 2000 GP. Beyond the raw absurdity of such a cost, that has got to be about the least cost effective way to protect valuables imaginable. You can buy a lock with a pick DC of 40 for 150 gold pieces.

Furthermore, traps aren't an interesting mechanic. Either you have someone with trapfinding and who thought to search for traps (and has enough ranks to find it), or you don't. Then, if you find it, you either have the requisite skill (Disable device) to disarm it, or you don't. It's only even remotely interesting or engaging for one member of the party, and artificially punishes parties that don't happen to have someone with the right class to possess trapfinding.

It kind of seems like traps were something that exists to fulfill the fantasy trope of "Dungeons have traps, and thieves exist to disarm them", rather than actually providing any interesting or compelling gameplay.

I was rambling a bit there, but to actually answer the question:

-If the traps cannot reasonably be avoided or their effects mitigated without having someone with trapfinding in the party, and the party is just SOL, then it is unfair
-If traps are something that the party will run across and be inconvenienced but not killed by...something that will cause some damage or unfortunate status effects but not by itself kill party members, then it is probably fine.
-If the traps are extremely dangerous, but can be found and navigated without having an arbitrary class feature in your party, then that is the ideal and can make for some really cool encounters.

[Amphetryon]

Traps in 3.5 are terribly designed.



They are? a basic arrow trap - a trap that, when sprung, shoots a 1d6 damage arrow at you - costs 2000 GP. Beyond the raw absurdity of such a cost, that has got to be about the least cost effective way to protect valuables imaginable. You can buy a lock with a pick DC of 40 for 150 gold pieces.

Furthermore, traps aren't an interesting mechanic. Either you have someone with trapfinding and who thought to search for traps (and has enough ranks to find it), or you don't. Then, if you find it, you either have the requisite skill (Disable device) to disarm it, or you don't. It's only even remotely interesting or engaging for one member of the party, and artificially punishes parties that don't happen to have someone with the right class to possess trapfinding.

It kind of seems like traps were something that exists to fulfill the fantasy trope of "Dungeons have traps, and thieves exist to disarm them", rather than actually providing any interesting or compelling gameplay.

I was rambling a bit there, but to actually answer the question:

-If the traps cannot reasonably be avoided or their effects mitigated without having someone with trapfinding in the party, and the party is just SOL, then it is unfair
-If traps are something that the party will run across and be inconvenienced but not killed by...something that will cause some damage or unfortunate status effects but not by itself kill party members, then it is probably fine.
-If the traps are extremely dangerous, but can be found and navigated without having an arbitrary class feature in your party, then that is the ideal and can make for some really cool encounters.
Yes, I'd say that for a Big Bad or a noble (see the opening post) those are reasonable prices. The arrow trap isn't the only option, nor is it the cheapest, of course.

[jiriku]

It's a matter of what you protect. I would not protect my valuables with a trap, unless it was something cheap like a poison needle on the handle of a coffer. I might protect the king's valuables with a trap, although more likely the king owns land and not mountains of gold, and has guards to protect his personal home where his personal wealth is located. The king's traps are more likely to be sharp glass built into the tops of the walls to discourage climbers and alarms to alert the paid guards. But the kingdom's valuables, those are worth trapping. For that I'll pull out all the stops. And if I'm, say, a mighty pharoah who expects to return from the dead when my worshippers reanimate me at the dawn of the next age, and I'm protecting my own corpse as well as my most treasured magic items? Yeah, I'm gonna trap that six different ways, and all of them nasty.

[Thrudd]

Are incorporeal monsters fair against a party that can't hit them? Are flying creatures fair against a party that can't fly and has no ranged capabilities? Are hydras fair against a party that doesn't have fire or acid available?

If your PCs can't detect the traps then you're just going "haha take this damage" at whatever times and then the game gets on with it.

"Fair" has nothing to do with it. If those things exist in the game world, PC's will have to deal with them at some point. If the players encounter something they can't deal with immediately, they should attempt to escape. If it is something they must eventually defeat, then they should figure out what they will need to do that and come back with a plan.

There are many ways to find or avoid traps beyond the rogue's skills.
A.) Every character has an intelligence and wisdom score with which they can search for and spot things.
B.) The players, being sufficiently cautious, should be on the lookout for possible traps and ambushes all the time. A player who is smart enough to foresee possible trap locations should be able to find ways to increase the chance of finding things or setting things off without getting hurt (the reason why there is a ten foot pole, among other things, on the equipment list).
C.) Learning to avoid traps is a part of being a good D&D player. If you always cater the game's environment to match the characters' abilities, they will never learn or be able to solve any difficult problems.

[Flickerdart]

"Fair" has nothing to do with it.
Does the title of this thread escape you?


Yes, I'd say that for a Big Bad or a noble (see the opening post) those are reasonable prices. The arrow trap isn't the only option, nor is it the cheapest, of course.
Really? Because those are CR1 traps. The amount of treasure you are supposed to receive for a CR1 encounter (presumably protected by the trap, somewhere beyond it) is 300gp.

The cheapest CR1 trap is 400gp. You literally spend more money on the trap than on what it's protecting, and it doesn't even reset. Or you could buy a DC40 lock and put it on an iron door, for under half that cost, and keep out everyone for a good few levels.
The cheapest CR2 traps are magic traps, at 500gp and 40xp a pop (which is clearly the craft price, so 1000gp to have one installed). Treasure value? 600gp.
CR3. Cheapest trap? 3000gp. Treasure value? 900gp.
19,700 is the cheapest you get at level 10, when traps cap out. It's a shame that treasure value for that encounter is 5,800gp.

[Zanos]

C.) Learning to avoid traps is a part of being a good D&D player. If you always cater the game's environment to match the characters' abilities, they will never learn or be able to solve any difficult problems.
Coming up with challenges that the characters can deal with in their respective toolkits is just part of being a good DM. Constantly "challenging" players with things they cannot interact with makes you a bad DM.

Yeah if the party walks into a crypt and encounters a ghost without magic weapons that's their fault, but you probably shouldn't just plop down incorporeal stuff in front of them before they can even afford enchanted gear.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Before 3.5 was published, 3rdedition.org had a very active forum. There was a very comprehensive and thorough post there that's unfortunately been lost to the ages, titled something like, "Rogues Are Worthless And Traps Are Dumb." It touched on the flaws of both the mechanics and cost of traps in the game world, as well as the flaws of the rogue as both a class and as a party role. Some of the key points that are relevant to this topic:

Rogues are expected to be at the front of the party to look for traps, or even to scout ahead alone. They lack the defenses and durability to be the very front character in the party when going into an encounter, and they lack the capability to hide from, deal with, or even escape from an opponent when scouting ahead alone. Hide checks automatically fail if you don't have cover or concealment, and nearly every monster has Darkvision or Low-Light Vision, whereas most PC races only have one of those, or neither.

Rogues are expected to be the ones to find and disarm traps, but lack the proper defenses to survive a trap that they fail to find or disarm. Traps make attack rolls to deal damage, which the Rogue is poor at defending against, or they have deadly poison, but the Rogue has a poor Fort save. Granted some traps have a Reflex save, which the Rogue is good at, but there are at least as many traps that his class capabilities make him poorly suited to handle.

Traps are prohibitively expensive, so much so that a party should return to a lair they've previously cleared out to dismantle and remove or otherwise extract any traps that were present in order to sell them for several times more than the total value of the treasure from that lair! The first time a party does this, the DM will seriously reconsider including any traps at all.

There's absolutely no reason that a character of any class with Search will automatically fail to find any trap with a Search DC above 20 even if he's getting double or triple that for his check result, just because he doesn't have Trapfinding. That class feature only exists to give the Rogue class a purpose in the party, without it there's absolutely no reason to bring a Rogue character with your party if there's a capable candidate of any other class who you could bring instead. Sneak Attack is also a terrible mechanic, and it actually gets worse the higher level you get because more and more opponents will be immune to it.

Granted most of these points were made during 3.0, when classes like Scout and Artificer and Beguiler and Spellthief didn't exist, as well as ACFs/Domains that gave other classes Trapfinding. Plus there weren't mechanics to enable a Rogue to damage undead, constructs, elementals plants, or anyone with heavy fortification. Granted there' a feat called Finding the Secrets in the Kingdoms of Kalamar Player's Guide, which requires 6 ranks in the appropriate Knowledge skill, Improved Critical, and a +9 BAB, and only applies to one creature type each time it's selected. Mercifully that book has the official D&D logo on the cover so its contents are canon, but a Rogue would need to dip Fighter at 11th level for Improved Critical, then take that feat at 12th level, then 15th level, then 18th level to be able to sneak attack three creature types that are normally immune.

At the end of the day, playing a Rogue is a chore that someone gets stuck with, and if nobody is willing to take one for the team and roll a character of a weak, incapable, antifun class because the party needs him to, the party should not be punished for it. In the days of 2nd Edition the Cleric fit this description, at least that class is now strong enough that people are willing to play it!

[Gildedragon]

"Fair" has nothing to do with it. If those things exist in the game world, PC's will have to deal with them at some point. If the players encounter something they can't deal with immediately, they should attempt to escape. If it is something they must eventually defeat, then they should figure out what they will need to do that and come back with a plan. The D&D world is not an objective construct and the list of rules of in the DMG et cetera are not a comprehensive list, but rather tools one of the players can utilize to build a fun and dynamic system.


There are many ways to find or avoid traps beyond the rogue's skills.
A.) Every character has an intelligence and wisdom score with which they can search for and spot things.
B.) The players, being sufficiently cautious, should be on the lookout for possible traps and ambushes all the time. A player who is smart enough to foresee possible trap locations should be able to find ways to increase the chance of finding things or setting things off without getting hurt (the reason why there is a ten foot pole, among other things, on the equipment list).
Yes but without trapfinding all traps with a DC higher than 20 are not find-able.
Furthermore the 10' pole and similar means are remote trap triggering mechanisms. Some traps when triggered produce an unovercomable obstacle. Obstacles should be overcomable by the party for there to be a game.


C.) Learning to avoid traps is a part of being a good D&D player. If you always cater the game's environment to match the characters' abilities, they will never learn or be able to solve any difficult problems. Likewise learning to construct encounters that are fair, fun, and challenging is part of being a good D&D player. Just tossing traps around to a party that cannot handle them fails on all fronts. A challenge that cannot be overcome is not a challenge

[Thrudd]

Coming up with challenges that the characters can deal with in their respective toolkits is just part of being a good DM. Constantly "challenging" players with things they cannot interact with makes you a bad DM.

Yeah if the party walks into a crypt and encounters a ghost without magic weapons that's their fault, but you probably shouldn't just plop down incorporeal stuff in front of them before they can even afford enchanted gear.

Yes, you don't constantly throw things at them which they have no hope of dealing with. You design a world which is logical and consistent, and gradually present them with increasingly difficult situations. But it begs believability and verisimilitude that they always happen to have the right weapon, spell, etc, to deal with everything they encounter in the world. This makes it feel like a video game. Some small percentage of encounters should be overpowered for the party, and I would include in that things they don't have the tools immediately on hand to overcome

If something dangerous is coming up, give them opportunity to learn about it first, hear rumors about what is ahead. They should be able to find out that a certain forest has dangerous monsters, or that the dungeon is rumored to house a haunted crypt, or that the mad wizard devised devious traps to defeat robbers. They can choose to go there or not, and make decisions about how to prepare for it.

If you never give your players a decision about where to go and what to do or let them find information about where they are going, then yes, it is not fair to give them challenges that are impossible for them to deal with. However, even in this case, just because they can't defeat a creature in combat or disarm a particular trap does not mean they are helpless, the DM must give them options. Maybe they must find another path that isn't filled with traps or an unbeatable creature, or they need to talk to the creature instead of fighting it.

Not giving the players choices makes you a bad DM. What makes a TTRPG different from a video game is that you really can do anything you want and go anywhere you want in the fictional world, you aren't restricted to the area the game forces you to go and the path that has been programmed.

3e may not be the best rule set for traps and rogues BtB, but it can be made to work with a little jiggling of the rules and some common sense modifications. A DM who wants to use traps and for the game to be fair can figure out ways to do that. It does not require everything in the world to be custom tailored to the PC's abilities.

[Amphetryon]

Furthermore the 10' pole and similar means are remote trap triggering mechanisms. Some traps when triggered produce an unovercomable obstacle. Obstacles should be overcomable by the party for there to be a game.
The DMG arguably disagrees, indicating that 5% of encounters should be overwhelming. Would you call a DM who ignores the guidelines in the DMG good, or bad?

[Gildedragon]

The DMG arguably disagrees, indicating that 5% of encounters should be overwhelming. Would you call a DM who ignores the guidelines in the DMG good, or bad?

overwhelming does not mean impossible to overcome. means extremely difficult. Otherwise characters only ought ever last about twenty encounters.

As to your non-sequitur: depends how they do so.

[Vaz]

If the party is unable to understand the concept of "this is too strong, let's run" then they deserve to only last 20 encounters.

[Gildedragon]

If the party is unable to understand the concept of "this is too strong, let's run" then they deserve to only last 20 encounters.

Fair enough. But if they don't get a chance to know that that is the case (as is the case with traps, because, you know, they can't find them) then it is hardly fair.

Much easier to say after encounter 19 "welp you all died. Time to roll up new characters"

[Zanos]

If the party is unable to understand the concept of "this is too strong, let's run" then they deserve to only last 20 encounters.
Honestly with how squishy characters are in general in D&D people tend to be dead or otherwise knocked out of combat before they realize they're in an overwhelming encounter. If you don't have someone in the party that can reliably make knowledge checks they won't know they're outclassed until the monster has already full attacked and probably killed someone.

[Flickerdart]

If the party is unable to understand the concept of "this is too strong, let's run" then they deserve to only last 20 encounters.
Haha, running away being viable in 3.5, good joke.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Honestly, I hate traps. In my experience, they're either a minor speedbump (oh no, I took damage! Pass me that healing wand, would you?) or an instant-kill, and neither one is fun. Finding traps is either a boring skill check or a meticulous roleplaying slot-- or, more commonly, both. Putting one trap at the start of your dungeon sets of an hours-long attack of paranoia that (at best) halves the amount of progress you were expecting the party to make.

So... embrace the opportunity to avoid traps without having anyone feel like they wasted character resources on a trapmonkey.

[Vaz]

Fair enough. But if they don't get a chance to know that that is the case (as is the case with traps, because, you know, they can't find them) then it is hardly fair.

Much easier to say after encounter 19 "welp you all died. Time to roll up new characters"

1. You're poking around in monster filled dungeons and wizard towers. Why would you not hire a "trap guy", whether that is some summon which walks down the corridor, trapfinder, or big stupid fighter (dominated or otherwise, party member)?
2. Why would you say after level 19 you all died? That's the chance for the party to bring out the big guns. A Sarrukh, for example, can be overcome by a CR10 party easily. A Tarrasque by L7. Some things are inherently too tough - the CR12(?) Adamantine Horror, or the CR13 Steel Dragon with Epic Spellcasting, and it is down to the DM to judge appropriately when laying things on too thick.

Regarding how dangerous the world is, that is kinda quite possibly why Life-restoring magic is available. Either roll up a new character, or have a small quest where you have to recover the body/get the diamond dust or whatever magical doodad/money required you need to get the cleric to restore your dead buddy to full life. Heck, have the party necromancer raise the dead party member as a Dread Warrior.

[Flickerdart]

1. You're poking around in monster filled dungeons and wizard towers. Why would you not hire a "trap guy", whether that is some summon which walks down the corridor, trapfinder, or big stupid fighter (dominated or otherwise, party member)?
I don't know about you, but alternating rounds of "we have the trap guy pull the book out" and "your trap guy died, insert 10gp for new trap guy" don't add anything to either immersion or enjoyment for me.

[Jeff the Green]

"Fair" has nothing to do with it.

You are exactly right. For entirely wrong reasons, sure, but still right.

The question should be whether it's fun. Obviously this is going to vary between players and groups, but I'm a pretty solid "no" here, regardless of whether the party has a trap-finder. There are a few exceptions. One DM used create trap to put traps in bizarre places to signify that we were getting close to a derro's encampment. And of course fighting Combat Trapsmiths (or a homebrew inventor of mine that can make inventions that fire traps—including pit traps)

The problem is that there's no real player choice involved. If you have a trapfinder, you roll the dice a couple times and hope they're high enough. If you don't, you either have a summoned creature go ahead of you at all times or pray the traps don't kill your fighter.

Puzzle traps and combat encounters involving traps are fine because they do have an element of choice involved, but then having a trapfinder or not typically doesn't matter for those.

[Gildedragon]

1.Why would you say after level 19 you all died?

I said nothing of level 19.
What I said was: Encounter 19, as in just the encounter before encounter 20;before the expected 95% percentile overwhelming encounter.

An encounter which your rebuttal to my post implied it ought be "this is too strong to face"

My objection was to overwhelming encounters that cannot be avoided or overcome. As it is the DM's will that these inevitable insurmountable encounters happen to the party, and as their only possible outcome is death. If a DM one believes such encounters are "fair game" then best not to wring one's hands about it and just declare those lvl 2 adventurers dead.

[Darkweave31]

I think it would be reasonable to include traps, but I feel like they should be used in more rare occasions... That said, your party may also have fun improvising to get across an obviously boobytrapped room. It could also be fun for the fighter to take a swinging blade to the face and keep going like it's nothing.

Basically, just don't overuse them and you'll be ok with the occasional surprise.

EVEN BETTER IDEA!!!
As an alternative to traps that would normally require a rogue to disarm, make them more like puzzles that anyone could solve, but would require strategy and roleplay to overcome rather than a disable device check.

[Ravenica]

They are perfectly fair, however...

You are also required by statute 6, paragraph 8, line 4, to ensure there is a body of water next to it, so a merfolk may pop out after they have triggered it, and inform them of what it is. (IT'S A TRAP!)

[Amphetryon]

I don't know about you, but alternating rounds of "we have the trap guy pull the book out" and "your trap guy died, insert 10gp for new trap guy" don't add anything to either immersion or enjoyment for me.

Does "The monster roars and swings mightily at you, doing [X arbitrary but non-fatal amount of damage for absolutely no in-game effect]" add to your immersion or enjoyment? If so, what makes it different? If not, could you clarify how you're playing the game?

[Flickerdart]

Does "The monster roars and swings mightily at you, doing [X arbitrary but non-fatal amount of damage for absolutely no in-game effect]" add to your immersion or enjoyment? If so, what makes it different? If not, could you clarify how you're playing the game?
I try to avoid simple HP-damage-dealers for precisely that reason. However, even brute encounters are preferable to traps, because they aren't a tax on making it to the end of the campaign. I see a monster, I have choices - I can charge it, I can sneak up on it, I can try to keep away and use a bow, I can try luring it into an environmental hazard. A trap just sits there until the DM tells me that someone walks into it.

[Thrudd]

I think it would be reasonable to include traps, but I feel like they should be used in more rare occasions... That said, your party may also have fun improvising to get across an obviously boobytrapped room. It could also be fun for the fighter to take a swinging blade to the face and keep going like it's nothing.

Basically, just don't overuse them and you'll be ok with the occasional surprise.

EVEN BETTER IDEA!!!
As an alternative to traps that would normally require a rogue to disarm, make them more like puzzles that anyone could solve, but would require strategy and roleplay to overcome rather than a disable device check.

That's really what traps originally were/are supposed to be. As everyone can see, 3e's default take on traps and trap finding is not great. Having someone specialized in trap finding and disarming should make it easier, but it should never be impossible for anyone to notice and figure out how to avoid a trap. They should also be used sparingly, because traps really aren't that much fun, in isolation. They are a part of making the overall experience fun, because they are part of what makes exploring the dungeon dangerous, along with wandering monsters. The challenge of the dungeon is what makes it fun.

The good DM places traps in places that make sense. They are protecting a treasure or an important area. They are a part of defenses against possible attackers, like pits and spikes on the obvious path up to a defensive position. They aren't randomly strewn through all the hallways. The big obvious entrance of a place, or an obvious treasure out in the open without other defenses are things that should inspire paranoia and careful study, and are good candidates for traps.

[SimonMoon6]

I hate traps, but...

If PCs know that they will never encounter traps if they can't deal with them, then what's the motivation for having the skill set to deal with traps?

To me, this says, "Don't learn to deal with traps or else you'll HAVE to deal with traps!" And nobody wants to deal with traps.

[Flickerdart]

If PCs know that they will never encounter traps if they can't deal with them, then what's the motivation for having the skill set to deal with traps?
There isn't even with traps in the game. It's a tax on the party that one unlucky sod is forced to bear. There are no benefits to dumping resources into Trapfinding, merely drawbacks to not doing so.

[weckar]

The question you need to ask yourself is whether, as a DM, you want to have your PCs exist within the world or have the world exist around your PCs. If the first, and the world has challenges they can't tackle, so be it. They will either find a creative solution, or another path to take.

[Vaz]

There isn't even with traps in the game. It's a tax on the party that one unlucky sod is forced to bear. There are no benefits to dumping resources into Trapfinding, merely drawbacks to not doing so.

And summons/hirelings can't be used? Similar to how you can actually defeat monsters by diplomacy or sneaking past, there is more than one way to skin a cat/beat a trap.

There don't actually have to be any benefits either - similar to moral quandaries such as who to save or who to support. Sometimes, you might just want to drain party resources. All parties have to have some manner of resource sink - whether its in BSF, (whether in character, or summons), healer (whether in character or items), scout (whether through divinations, summons, or items) etc. The trapmonkey can often fulfill the scout role as well, and often has spare skill points left over for socials.

If a DM is only going to throw things at a party can beat anyway, what's the point in playing if you know you've won? The DM might as well just write a book and have the players read it.

[Amphetryon]

I try to avoid simple HP-damage-dealers for precisely that reason. However, even brute encounters are preferable to traps, because they aren't a tax on making it to the end of the campaign. I see a monster, I have choices - I can charge it, I can sneak up on it, I can try to keep away and use a bow, I can try luring it into an environmental hazard. A trap just sits there until the DM tells me that someone walks into it.

Hit point loss is a tax on making it to the end of the game. If there's a trap, you have choices - you can go around it, go through it and hope your defenses - be they saves, HP, antitoxin, or whatever -are strong enough to handle the challenge, you can try to trigger it from afar, you can try removing the section of the dungeon (used here in its broadest sense as 'encounter area') via some other means.

What's your difference in definition, precisely, between 'trap' and 'environmental hazard?' How is a trap not an environmental hazard?

[VoxRationis]

Are incorporeal monsters fair against a party that can't hit them? Are flying creatures fair against a party that can't fly and has no ranged capabilities? Are hydras fair against a party that doesn't have fire or acid available?

If your PCs can't detect the traps then you're just going "haha take this damage" at whatever times and then the game gets on with it.

No.
Are the flying creatures themselves ranged? A hippogriff just requires some held actions and AoOs to defeat, even if no one in the party brought a bow.
Improved Sunder. Or cleverness; give them some environmental advantage they can use to defeat it (trick it into collapsing a rickety bridge, for example).

A trap should be placed in a logical location: not where the "authorized" inhabitants are likely to set it off, but capable of defending something important. "Something important" should be kind of apparent to a PC. I don't have to have trapfinding to know not to touch the giant gem-on-a-pedestal standing in the middle of a featureless room without at least checking the rest of the dungeon to see if I can find some clues as to what it does.

[Flickerdart]

Hit point loss is a tax on making it to the end of the game. If there's a trap, you have choices - you can go around it, go through it and hope your defenses - be they saves, HP, antitoxin, or whatever -are strong enough to handle the challenge, you can try to trigger it from afar, you can try removing the section of the dungeon (used here in its broadest sense as 'encounter area') via some other means.

What's your difference in definition, precisely, between 'trap' and 'environmental hazard?' How is a trap not an environmental hazard?
What part of "with no trapfinding" do you not understand about this thread?

[JusticeZero]

I'd actually say that a trap finding character around is a reason to not bother with traps. It's like designing a video game, where you have some puzzle gated rooms. If at some point you will have someone whose special ability is "push A to solve puzzle" then is it really worthwhile to spend the time making the puzzles anymore?

[weckar]

What part of "with no trapfinding" do you not understand about this thread?

Bold question to ask the OP whether they understand their own thread.

[Coidzor]

Are hidden doors or hard to find/notice loot fair in a group without ranks in search? Ambushes or hiding enemies in groups w/out Spot?

[Gildedragon]

Are hidden doors or hard to find/notice loot fair in a group without ranks in search? Ambushes or hiding enemies in groups w/out Spot?

Much worse tha that because you can always untrained spot or search and get lucky, or invisible past an ambush by luck or constant stealthing

[JusticeZero]

Yes. These aren't usually randomly distributed things. Also, anyone can invest in those, unlike the class feature "Trapfinding".

[Amphetryon]

Are hidden doors or hard to find/notice loot fair in a group without ranks in search? Ambushes or hiding enemies in groups w/out Spot?

I would guess that those in this thread who have thus far objected to traps in games with groups that cannot find traps would find the above similarly objectionable. Likewise, I am still unclear as to whether letting a group of (for instance) 2nd level characters blunder into the lair of a huge ancient black dragon would be just as unfair.

[JusticeZero]

I've done that. I mentioned various landmarks, and the party charged the biggest, baddest, and evillest sounding one against the judgement of the NPCs they were traveling with. When they got into sight of the place, they hit a CR+4 encounter that routed them and got them to run away. (The enemy didn't make any move to pursue them.)

[Flickerdart]

Bold question to ask the OP whether they understand their own thread.
That question then is all the more important. If the trap is not detectable, none of those choices are involved, and if the OP understands that, they understand the answer to their own question.

[Thiyr]

Are hidden doors or hard to find/notice loot fair in a group without ranks in search? Ambushes or hiding enemies in groups w/out Spot?

Ultimately, I think that yea, those are somewhat unfair. Not to say they shouldn't be used, but they're unfair. I mean, an ambush is basically a monster-trap without trapfinding being required to find it. That said, sometimes things are unfair.

But giving them some non-roll method of inferring "hey, there's something going on" works to make that less...cruel. If you go into an established dragon's hoard and find a small pile of copper and a single area of the floor that's a less dusty than the rest? Yea, probably something there (even if you can't find how to open it). Animals going quiet for no good reason? Maybe there's a big ol' devil ambush, maybe someone cast silence, maybe you've taken too many blows to the head and are hallucinating/going deaf. How you react is up to you. If the players randomly stumble into the CAVE OF FIVE THOUSAND FACEMELTERS, that's being a jerk. If the map they got was marked with a burning skull at the cave, townsfolk tell them "Every year strong adventurers TRY to clear the cave, but they come back dead....and with melted faces", and they still go in like it ain't no thang? Well, that's their fault, they made an informed choice.

Similarly for traps, if the party walks forward and gets an eyeball full of acid and a pit trap to the everything out of nowhere? Not cool. If there's a bloodstain on the raised dais (which is actually a massive piston which crushes you into the visible spikes on the ceiling)? You've given them at least some kind of warning that something died here for some reason. Plus, that opens up trying to use other checks to better figure it out if you're so inclined and willing to ad-hoc some skill results.

[Shining Wrath]

Fair? They are *necessary*. If you don't have someone with trapfinding, then the skill points / class features that would have covered that are instead doing something else. And giving the party more of what they specialized in when they've left a gaping hole in their capabilities is not how you give them a challenge.

Make them spend some spells on summoning and detecting.

[deuxhero]

I'm not sure traps are fair in a party WITH trapfinding. Only 1 character is tested and if he fails, everyone blames him and if he doesn't, nobody cares.

[eggynack]

I'm not sure traps are fair in a party WITH trapfinding. Only 1 character is tested and if he fails, everyone blames him and if he doesn't, nobody cares.
Indeed. Just a really terrible mechanic overall. As I mentioned early on, encounter traps. They're sweet.

[Vaz]

That question then is all the more important. If the trap is not detectable, none of those choices are involved, and if the OP understands that, they understand the answer to their own question.

If the trap is undetectable even with trapfinding maxed out, then that's the DM's fault for designing a trap with a DC60+ check that the party cannot be reasonably EXPECTED to be able to bring to the table. If the party is looking for CR20 difficulty hidden traps, when they're ECL1, then THAT isn't fair. If the party is looking for CR1 traps when they're ECL1, then THAT is fair, even if the party isn't actually capable of finding said trap due to lack of having trapfinding.

Put it this way, Are [Ships] Fair in a Party with no [Profession; Sailor]?

As ever, talking to your party beforehand and lining out the general gist of things eg. "you're going to be adventuring in dungeons. Dungeons have been known to have traps" is fair to the party, giving them fair chance to get someone with trapfinding - whether that be through Leadership for followers/cohorts, Enchantee's, Socio-manced, basic hirelings, summoned/animated creatures, or the Find Traps spell, etc, the options are there.

There is enough provision with the rules and usually the game setting to have the party be capable of encountering anything. If there are additional RP restrictions, such as having a Paladin in the party limiting your Sorcerer's ability to hire a thief to guide them through the dungeon, or the Druid objecting to summoning small animals and forcing them to run down potentially trap filled hallways, then that makes a better story than just having everything handed to you on a plate simply because you have the tools at hand to deal with it.

If they don't have the tools at hand, then they need to find a way to get to that tool - and if they plan to survive, then by getting access to such should be their first aim. If they don't, then more fool the party. You should start small, before slinging disintegrating spell traps at the party, something that you know they can survive, before unleashing the big guns.

[torrasque666]

See title for topic. In your opinion and experience, is the DM playing fair if he includes traps* in the various adventure dangers a party with no means of Trapfinding encounters?

*"includes traps" means on some otherwise reasonably appropriate places, like the back door to the Big Bad's lair or the locked treasure chest inside the noble's house. It does not mean "there's a trap every 10' against which you must save-or-die, LOL."

Sure it is. For a long time my group didn't have a trapfinder. Our solution? Sent the giant Warforged who can tank almost any damage and is immune to death effects. I'm still our parties trapfinder because I just shrug everything off my massive metal backside.

[JusticeZero]

A lack of Trapfinding doesn't mean that you can't find traps. At 10th level, it's a +5 skill bonus. That's it. 1/2 level added to the skill check. That's pretty minor stuff in the big scheme of things, since if you NEEDED that bonus to find or disarm the thing on a search, you're not likely to succeed in dealing with it anyhow.
Also allows you to disarm magic traps instead of, you know, Dispel or coming up with a halfway clever way to counter it. It's not necessary.

[VoxRationis]

There isn't even with traps in the game. It's a tax on the party that one unlucky sod is forced to bear. There are no benefits to dumping resources into Trapfinding, merely drawbacks to not doing so.

One could make the same argument for any defensive skill or attribute, such as Armor Class, concealment, assorted immunities, or the Concentration skill.

[Thiyr]

A lack of Trapfinding doesn't mean that you can't find traps. At 10th level, it's a +5 skill bonus. That's it. 1/2 level added to the skill check. That's pretty minor stuff in the big scheme of things, since if you NEEDED that bonus to find or disarm the thing on a search, you're not likely to succeed in dealing with it anyhow.
Also allows you to disarm magic traps instead of, you know, Dispel or coming up with a halfway clever way to counter it. It's not necessary.

Note: that's only correct for Pathfinder. In 3.5, per d20srd,


Trapfinding
Rogues (and only rogues) can use the Search skill to locate traps when the task has a Difficulty Class higher than 20.

Finding a nonmagical trap has a DC of at least 20, or higher if it is well hidden. Finding a magic trap has a DC of 25 + the level of the spell used to create it.

Rogues (and only rogues) can use the Disable Device skill to disarm magic traps. A magic trap generally has a DC of 25 + the level of the spell used to create it.

A rogue who beats a trap’s DC by 10 or more with a Disable Device check can study a trap, figure out how it works, and bypass it (with her party) without disarming it.

So while in PF its less of an issue, in straight 3.5 it's a major stumbling block if a search check is your only method of knowing that the wall is gonna kill you.

[Starchild7309]

I think its completely fair. As you said in the original post, in appropriate places where there should be a trap, then put one there.

A little funny note: I had a group that was notorious for rushing forward. They had a trap finder, but would ignore him till someone fell victim to a trap and then the rest of the place was searched completely. I made a pit trap that had a floor above it that once X amount of medium sized creatures stood on it, it collapsed. The party being super greedy too I set it up with a big pile of treasure on top of it, taking into account the treasures weight. Sure enough, The party sees gold, rushes over, 1st person steps into the trap area and nothing happens, then they all decide its safe and step on the floor causing I believe all but the rogue to fall 100 foot into the main treasure vault with spikes below. Boy they were pissed, but they had all the necessary abilities to find it and avoid it, they just ignored good sense.

[Raimun]

Traps are hardly ever more than a nuisance. I wouldn't be too worried because of that.

My problem with traps is that they hardly ever make sense. Who in their right mind would trap the place where he lives? Or how could the traps work without maintencane in a place that hasn't seen a living soul in hundrers of years?

For some reason, GMs never seem to trap places like entrances to vaults that hold valuable loot or active battle grounds where enemy activity is expected. Usually, only the places where traps don't make sense are trapped.

[Pex]

You could apply a house rule that anyone can search for non-magical traps.

[Jeff the Green]

Or how could the traps work without maintencane in a place that hasn't seen a living soul in hundrers of years?

It's a holdover from old editions, which got it from pulp fiction and its pastiche, Indiana Jones. The thing is that the traps in Indiana Jones work because a) as a pastiche and fond parody, so it's not supposed to be thought about too much and b) they're actually suspenseful and interesting. Figuring out how to take the idol without screwing up the balance of the pedestal is interesting; running from a boulder is interesting; finding your guide dead because he didn't listen to your instructions to stay out of the light is interesting.

They cease to be interesting when you give them D&D mechanics as they're basically a few rolls you have little influence over. (Maybe the first one could be made into a puzzle trap. But it's kind of an obvious solution and would end up boiling down to an Appraise check to estimate the weight of the idol and a Sleight of Hand or Dexterity check to swap the bag of sand and the idol.) A game focused on being Indiana Jones/Lara Croft could make traps interesting, but D&D is, and has always been, a combat simulator first and an RPG second.

[Amphetryon]

It's a holdover from old editions, which got it from pulp fiction and its pastiche, Indiana Jones. The thing is that the traps in Indiana Jones work because a) as a pastiche and fond parody, so it's not supposed to be thought about too much and b) they're actually suspenseful and interesting. Figuring out how to take the idol without screwing up the balance of the pedestal is interesting; running from a boulder is interesting; finding your guide dead because he didn't listen to your instructions to stay out of the light is interesting.

They cease to be interesting when you give them D&D mechanics as they're basically a few rolls you have little influence over. (Maybe the first one could be made into a puzzle trap. But it's kind of an obvious solution and would end up boiling down to an Appraise check to estimate the weight of the idol and a Sleight of Hand or Dexterity check to swap the bag of sand and the idol.) A game focused on being Indiana Jones/Lara Croft could make traps interesting, but D&D is, and has always been, a combat simulator first and an RPG second.

How are the attack and damage systems of D&D mechanics more interesting, by that metric? They're a few rolls you have possibly a little more influence over, when you boil it down.

[VoxRationis]

Traps are hardly ever more than a nuisance. I wouldn't be too worried because of that.

My problem with traps is that they hardly ever make sense. Who in their right mind would trap the place where he lives? Or how could the traps work without maintencane in a place that hasn't seen a living soul in hundrers of years?

For some reason, GMs never seem to trap places like entrances to vaults that hold valuable loot or active battle grounds where enemy activity is expected. Usually, only the places where traps don't make sense are trapped.

That would be a result of...

POOR DMing (Dun dun dun....)

The DM's Guide even says explicitly that areas frequently traveled by the inhabitants of a dungeon are not going to be trapped. If they built the dungeon, they wouldn't have done something so inconvenient and dangerous to themselves, and if they didn't, they'd have found a way to disarm the trap anyway by the time the PCs show up. (Although that gives me a good idea for an encounter...)

Having traps at random intervals in a corridor is unfair even if there is a rogue in the party. Tomb of Horrors gets a pass for being intentionally vicious, and famously so, but your average dungeon should be better than that.

[prufock]

Anything is fair, even inappropriate challenges, as long as you aren't using them to kill your party or DM power trip... just don't overdo it! Just because you don't have a character with the Trapfinding class feature doesn't mean they can't deal with traps. Summons, ranged weapons, 11-foot poles, tossing heavy rocks down a corridor, and putting your tank out front to soak the damage are all valid tactics vs traps.

[SimonMoon6]

Much worse tha that because you can always untrained spot or search and get lucky

Not necessarily. In one adventure, the party I was in all had Wis penalties and no ranks in Search (what can I say? Savage Species had just come out and we were all trying out various monster races). So, we encountered an area where the only way out was through a secret door.

None of us could find it. Not even taking 20. (The DC was 20.)

This indirectly led to a TPK. (We couldn't get out the easy way, so had to try to escape through the horde of monsters.)

[Zanos]

Not necessarily. In one adventure, the party I was in all had Wis penalties and no ranks in Search (what can I say? Savage Species had just come out and we were all trying out various monster races). So, we encountered an area where the only way out was through a secret door.

None of us could find it. Not even taking 20. (The DC was 20.)

This indirectly led to a TPK. (We couldn't get out the easy way, so had to try to escape through the horde of monsters.)
Search is Int based.

[Vogonjeltz]

Are incorporeal monsters fair against a party that can't hit them? Are flying creatures fair against a party that can't fly and has no ranged capabilities? Are hydras fair against a party that doesn't have fire or acid available?

If your PCs can't detect the traps then you're just going "haha take this damage" at whatever times and then the game gets on with it.

I have explicitly been told "no" to the questions you pose, on this forum. . . sometimes with CAPITAL LETTERS and/or italics to emphasize how unfair those things were perceived as being. That, in part, informed my decision to ask this particular question.

PCs are going to have encounters they are incapable of winning. Sometimes running away is the correct answer.

Choosing to forego the services of a rogue has consequences.


Really? Because those are CR1 traps. The amount of treasure you are supposed to receive for a CR1 encounter (presumably protected by the trap, somewhere beyond it) is 300gp.

The cheapest CR1 trap is 400gp. You literally spend more money on the trap than on what it's protecting, and it doesn't even reset. Or you could buy a DC40 lock and put it on an iron door, for under half that cost, and keep out everyone for a good few levels.
The cheapest CR2 traps are magic traps, at 500gp and 40xp a pop (which is clearly the craft price, so 1000gp to have one installed). Treasure value? 600gp.
CR3. Cheapest trap? 3000gp. Treasure value? 900gp.
19,700 is the cheapest you get at level 10, when traps cap out. It's a shame that treasure value for that encounter is 5,800gp.

Actually, the cheapest trap you can build is 100gp market value, (33gp build material value).

Here it is (designed by myself just now using the SRD20 site rules):

Super super basic arrow trap:
CR 1; mechanical; location trigger; automatic reset; attack +10 ranged (1d6+4/x3, arrow); search DC: 21; disable device DC: 0; market price: 100gp

Here's the beauty of this guy. It's dirt cheap at 30gp per trap.

4 CR 1 encounters per day means this trap + 12 kobolds in groups of 4 will net the players an average of 900gp in treasure at the end of the rainbow.

Minimum treasure possible: 0.
Maximum treasure possible: 120pp; 3 art objects worth up to 36,000gp total; and 3 minor magical items whose value can conceivably reach 245,000gp each.

I think 30gp is fair for what might be protected.

[DeltaEmil]

The cheapest trap you can build are the CR 1/2 booby traps from DMG 2, because if you have the time, they're free.

[Pex]

But giving them some non-roll method of inferring "hey, there's something going on" works to make that less...cruel. If you go into an established dragon's hoard and find a small pile of copper and a single area of the floor that's a less dusty than the rest? Yea, probably something there (even if you can't find how to open it). Animals going quiet for no good reason? Maybe there's a big ol' devil ambush, maybe someone cast silence, maybe you've taken too many blows to the head and are hallucinating/going deaf. How you react is up to you. If the players randomly stumble into the CAVE OF FIVE THOUSAND FACEMELTERS, that's being a jerk. If the map they got was marked with a burning skull at the cave, townsfolk tell them "Every year strong adventurers TRY to clear the cave, but they come back dead....and with melted faces", and they still go in like it ain't no thang? Well, that's their fault, they made an informed choice.


Not necessarily. The players can honestly conclude that is an adventuring hook. They're the adventurers, the heroes of the story. They're supposed to go into places NPCs say are dangerous and clear it out. That's the point of playing the game. If the party is not supposed to go there, why is the DM telling them about it? The DM is being vague. "Melted faces". That just entices. If the DM wants to establish world setting that an area is dangerous and not to be entered until high level as planned, he needs to be more specific. He needs to outright tell the players that's dragon country or beholder country or medusa country or whatever. He needs to establish that area is a campaign plot goal to be accomplished down the line. Just saying "It's dangerous, others have entered but never returned" is an invitation, not a police barrier.

[Curmudgeon]

This is D&D, and traps are an integral part of the game.

Let's try this question shifted to a different context: is magic fair in a party with no spellcasting?

It wouldn't be reasonable to remove all magical foes from the game just because the party lacks spellcasters, and it wouldn't be reasonable to remove all traps from the game because the party lacked trapfinding.

In D&D, there is no http://img.informer.com/icons/png/32/909/909744.png option.

[Dalebert]

Bloody skeleton (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/skeleton-medium/skeleton-bloody) minions are great for triggering traps.

[Dyhmas]

Well, in a group without a Rogue, traps are a good way to create tension. I mean, if a group is entering a crypt thinking it'll be easy (wich is entirely possible, depending on their lvls/optimization), a well placed trap can make they take things more seriously. So does monsters, I know.

Other than that, traps allow you to have a game where the mage gets so paranoid over them, in a famed Rogue's treasure vault, that he literally starts blasting the walls, ceiling, floor and anything else that could, should or would possibly be dangerous. (it was pretty funny, actually)

-Dyhmas

P.S. As I post this, I realize that traps are simply necessary, if not mandatory sometimes. In the example above, not to place traps in a vault built by a famed Rogue would probably break immesion, to say the least.