Should I just remove all traps? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

daremetoidareyo

2015-10-22, 02:17 PM

No.

Just rethink the psychology of traps. Why do you trap things?

From there, you can build all the traps you want, and your PCs will have to compensate.

Alarm traps serve a purpose that isn't a swinging blade, it is to summon defenses.

Traps on treasure chests, particularly poisoned darts, are placed when a person has something of value and is surrounded by greedy and curious jerks.

Magic traps, particularly through the use of the earthbound spell feat (PHB2) are a great way for a really fast spellcaster to put some damaging distance between himself and the PCs. Glyph of warding is another great use of resources for someone who wants to keep others from entering a specific area.

I am not saying that you have to over trap everything-just because your PCs are weak on this front

I am saying that you don't need to molly coddle them. Goblin sorcerers with earthbound spell that ride worgs that harass the PCs are gonna be setting traps. Necromancers are gonna use glyphs of warding in their layer. Hobgoblin war parties will set alarm traps at night when they bed down. Wizards are gonna fabricate crazy dart traps with exotic poisons on the treasure chest that stores their back up scrolls. A man-eating ogre is gonna dig a pit trap, and fill the bottom with rust monsters, just to get all those pesky weapons and armor off people.

gogogome

2015-10-22, 02:26 PM

daremetoidareyo

2015-10-22, 02:31 PM

We're currently playing a bunch of premade adventures, so right now I don't create traps.

Problem with the trap monkeying is they barely go through 1 corridor before saying "We can't win the next fight if we spend any more spells on celestial dogs" and rest for the day. So one floor of a dungeon/ruin ends up taking a month... which means the hobgoblins were just doing absolutely nothing but standing still for one month waiting for the adventurers to enter their room.

You got to give a time limit to the quests. You got x days before the mcguffin is lost forever. You have 10 minute adventuring day problem. You can make a deal with the PCs out of character. You'll only use traps that make sense, so they can have more resources at their disposal, but you're also going to start putting the kibosh on this style of play, because while effective for them, it bores the heck out of you as a DM. Traps can be fun, but if they are keeping you and the PCs from having fun, get rid of 'em.

Troacctid

2015-10-22, 02:37 PM

torrasque666

2015-10-22, 02:44 PM

We're currently playing a bunch of premade adventures, so right now I don't create traps.

Problem with the trap monkeying is they barely go through 1 corridor before saying "We can't win the next fight if we spend any more spells on celestial dogs" and rest for the day. So one floor of a dungeon/ruin ends up taking a month... which means the hobgoblins were just doing absolutely nothing but standing still for one month waiting for the adventurers to enter their room.
See, from my standpoint, the hobgoblins doing nothing rubs me the wrong way. The hobgoblins know the dungeon, their home. They would know when members of their band don't come back from duty. They would try to find them. This isn't just coming from a Good viewpoint, I'm far from it. But Hobgoblins are almost stereotypically "Evil army guys". They have protocol to follow. They're gonna wonder where their troops are. This means that they'll likely come across your resting party and possibly catch them with their robes off.

Rubik

2015-10-22, 02:47 PM

If you want to utilize traps that the players have to deal without summoning spam and that make sense in the context of the dungeon, turn them into ambush adjuncts that the denizens of the dungeon spring on the party.

For instance: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?155518-Tucker-s-Kobolds-PEACH-3-5&p=8664950&viewfull=1#post8664950

Flickerdart

2015-10-22, 02:50 PM

When they are expected, traps are just a waste of everyone's time. What does "we cast SMI" "your badger explodes into gibs" twenty times add to the game? Nothing.

Next time they send a monkey to its hallway-related death, let it live. And the next. And the next.

Once they let their guard down and stop wasting spells, skip a few more traps and then drop them into a scorpion pit.

Jack_Simth

2015-10-22, 03:00 PM

I'm with daremetoidareyo. Traps make sense in plenty of contexts, and you should use them in those contexts. Just don't place them in nonsensical spots, and make sure they wouldn't be a danger to the dungeon's residents.

Also, pro tip, traps become a lot more interesting when they're incorporated into a combat encounter rather than hidden in an otherwise empty stretch of corridor. Spinning blades popping out of the walls and floor can add new tactical dimensions to a fight as both players and enemies maneuver around them, or even try to push each other into them.

And for Pete's sake, tell your players to roll a bowling ball down those corridors instead of spewing spell slots.
Summon Monster I is a very inefficient way of dealing with traps.

(Wand of) Unseen Servant (or a collar of perpeptual attendance) + lots of mundane sacks + a mundane pick. Use pick to extract 100 pounds of rock from the wall. Fill a sack. Cast Unseen Servant. The Unseen Servant drags the 100 pound sack full of rocks across wherever you wanted to go. The Unseen Servant is not targetable, so only needs to be replaced when it triggers an area attack. Lasts an hour off of a wand charge at caster level 1, more out of actual spell slots. Then just Detect Magic constantly (Permanence, repeat castings, or better: Permanent Arcane Sight) via one of the other characters.

Grod_The_Giant

2015-10-22, 03:05 PM

Yes. Your players clearly aren't a fan of them, and seem like they're getting frustrated by the whole ordeal of trying to deal with them. If something is making your group unhappy, get rid of it. Gaming is supposed to be fun-- if part of it feels like a chore, you're doing it wrong.

Personally, I hate traps. There's pretty much no good way to use them, short of incorporating them into a combat encounter-- at which point they're less "traps" and more "dynamic environment." But seriously, how many ways can a trap go?

The party finds it (probably with a skill roll), disarms it (probably with another roll) and moves on. Time is wasted to no good purpose.
The party misses it and someone gets hit for a minor amount of damage. Someone burns a spell slot/wand charge to fix them and the party moves on. Time is wasted to no good purpose.
The party misses it and someone gets hit for significant (even lethal) damage. Griping commences, as the players (rightly) complain about being instantly taken out of the game because of one bad roll/because they didn't read your mind about where there were traps.

None of those options are at all appealing.

Flickerdart

2015-10-22, 03:09 PM

Summon Monster I is a very inefficient way of dealing with traps.

(Wand of) Unseen Servant (or a collar of perpeptual attendance) + lots of mundane sacks + a mundane pick. Use pick to extract 100 pounds of rock from the wall. Fill a sack. Cast Unseen Servant. The Unseen Servant drags the 100 pound sack full of rocks across wherever you wanted to go. The Unseen Servant is not targetable, so only needs to be replaced when it triggers an area attack. Lasts an hour off of a wand charge at caster level 1, more out of actual spell slots. Then just Detect Magic constantly (Permanence, repeat castings, or better: Permanent Arcane Sight) via one of the other characters.

You'll probably want to double up on the Servants and sacks, since it's hardly unlikely that a pressure plate would be calibrated for a heavy weight, especially by Small trapmaking races like kobolds.

sleepyphoenixx

2015-10-22, 03:19 PM

Just because your group hasn't invested into trapfinding is no reason to exclude traps.
Traps are a fact of D&D - your group clearly knows this, but they choose to not prepare for it and now they're trying to weasel around their lack of foresight.
And trapping things clearly makes sense when you have adventurers stomping into your cave to slaughter your families and take your stuff.

Sure, ten poison spike traps in a row are boring, but that's hardly the only trap possible. There are plenty of ways to make them interesting, and in a fashion that isn't dealt with by sending a summon first.

Incorporating traps into combat encounters is a pretty solid way of turning them from "the rogue rolls search and disable device" into something with actual impact.
Archers in cover are nice, but the encounter gets a lot more memorable when there's also a spike-filled pit trap between them and the PCs.
Having to fight a bunch of incorporeal enemies gets a lot more interesting when you also have to watch your step.
A summoning trap that spawns reinforcements every few rounds unless dealt with will force your players to actually think instead of just using brute force.
A teleport trap the ports the unlucky victim into a pit of vipers/acid/lava.

You can also key magical traps to ignore certain types (or subtypes). It would certainly stop them from circumventing everything with summons.
It makes sense if your party have certain types like Undead or Outsider that anyone with sense wouldn't want in his dungeon (an unpleasant surprise to the Necropolitan wizard that thought it would just let him dump his Con without drawbacks if nobody actually checks for traps), and for a band of Yuan-Ti or Ogres keying their traps to humanoids doesn't really have any drawbacks, it just reduces the chance for accidents. The fact that it stops people getting around it with SM1 is an unexpected side benefit.

The options are endless. The classic room with a moving wall, traps that buff enemies, traps that change terrain, traps that release poison gas into the whole room...
Your players should want to have a trapfinder, and it should be an important position, not just a gimmick that takes up time between combat encounters.
They should be afraid to enter a dungeon room unless its been checked by an expert first instead of just letting a badger run through and calling it done.

On the other hand you should consider where you place traps. It makes sense to trap a door or chest. It makes sense to put up traps on a chokepoint to help defenders. Trapping an unremarkable stretch of featureless corridor doesn't really make much sense, unless the whole corridor is the trap.

And the whole "we have no more spells so we rest now" problem, also known as the 15-minute adventure day, is easily dealt with by having the world keep moving no matter what the players do. If they take a month to clear a single dungeon floor chances are that the occupants either swarm them or leave for less dangerous accomodations. With the loot, of course.
Spells are supposed to be a limited resource that is carefully rationed, not a limitless fountain of power that is easily restored at-will with enemies politely waiting for the party to be ready.

Or maybe your players just want to play a hack & slay game in the style of Diablo.
In that case you can remove all traps and just run one combat encounter after the next with a line or two of fluff justification thrown in, if you can stomach it as a DM.

Boogastreehouse

2015-10-22, 04:38 PM

*

They've been saying traps don't exist in real life dungeons so why would they in d&d? Who puts a swinging pendulum scythe trap in the middle of a corridor? Not a single medieval castle has that.

Not a single real-life medieval castle had to worry about Wizards and Clerics barging in and looting the place.

...They're all some sort of tripped out spellcaster or gish variants, and the traps just slaughter all of them.

And there you have it. Traps exist in the D&D setting because they are effective at slaughtering all sorts of tripped-out spellcaster or gish variants.

No one, I mean no one, plays rogue in my group.

Then they deserve to get slaughtered. Okay, maybe that's an over-reaction, but if you remove traps to suit their specific style of play, you're actually making the setting less believable. Traps exist in these worlds because kings and other castle/dungeon owners need to deal with intruding high-level magic-havers.

*

oxybe

2015-10-22, 04:58 PM

TIRED OF GETTING HIT WITH RANDOM FALLING BOULDER TRAPS?
TIRED OF GETTING CAUGHT IN COVERED PITS?
TIRED OF HAVING WALL-MOUNTED BLADES CUT INTO YOUR KIDNEYS?
TIRED OF FEEDING EXPENSIVE POTION AFTER POTION TO THE PARTY'S MEAT WALL?

WELL DOES OXYCORP HAVE A SOLUTION FOR YOU!

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll258/oxybe/portablerogue_zps806a0dec.png

25LBS OF SOLID OAK SIMULATE THE WEIGHT OF A YOUNG HALFLING, READY TO THROW ITSELF INTO CERTAIN DEATH. SECURED WITH A MITHRIL SPIKE AND TETHERED TO 50FT OF SILK ROPE, THE PORTABLE ROGUETM IS A PARTY'S BEST FRIEND!

OXYCORP PORTABLE ROGUE: AVAILABLE AT YOUR LOCAL GENERAL STORE!

elonin

2015-10-22, 05:28 PM

I'd like traps more if they could be puzzled through. Not to say that the logic has to be something the PC's know from the beginning, but it sits better with me if after having wrecked a dungeon or other setting and there is a consistent logic behind their placement. It's OK if the guy who built the place was then followed by someone else who placed some other traps etc (more complex but still consistent even if it's harder to see). We've all seen modules or games in general that has the appearance of having been placed as though it was a random encounter.

I'd say let them play the way they want treating the traps as an obstacle. The answers given above (unseen servant dragging a bag of rocks) could work but makes a good bit of noise and could call down all the nearby (and not so nearby) monsters. I'll admit that in one group I was in we used a meat shield to be our trap finder.

OldTrees1

2015-10-22, 05:38 PM

1) They are having trouble with the traps
2) They waste time and sleep a lot just to deal with the traps
3) They find the traps unrealistic

Solution:
3) Have you been judiciously placing traps only in places that make sense for traps? Imagine your dungeon without any traps and have a rogue walk through it. What places in the dungeon would trigger the Rogue's "Spider Trap Sense". Remember that traps cost money to build and most dungeons have or used to have allied traffic.

2) If casters are resting too frequently then you should examine the CR layout and impose time restrictions.

1) If the Brilliant and Wise casters are still having problems with the traps when placed realistically and of the correct CR, then adjust the traps from Lethal traps to Weakening traps + nearby encounters.

StreamOfTheSky

2015-10-22, 06:12 PM

Unless it's just a small party (and not gestalt) where they just plain cannot cover all of the typical roles, no. They made their choices, those choices will have consequences. You could use less traps, but I wouldn't remove them entirely just because the party decided they're not a problem. If no one wants to be a rogue or the like, I'll offer trapfinding as a feat... (getting search and DD ranks will still be tough, though)

If you're going to get rid of traps, do it b/c they slow the game down, if anything. I hardly use them for that reason. A few traps, and the entire party becomes super-cautious and the game slows down to a crawl as they want to check EVERYTHING. Even just having them take 10, it bogs things down. If time goes by and they're not finding any, they'll start wanting to check again / take 20 / etc... Because they're SURE that door must be trapped, they just didn't look hard enough. Ugh...

OldTrees1

2015-10-22, 06:31 PM

Eisfalken

2015-10-22, 06:37 PM

I hate to be like this, but if they refuse to take someone who at least can sense traps, then that's on them, not you. They can pay a share of loot to an NPC rogue to go with them.

If they refuse to go further due to lack of summon spells, slightly increase the ratio of wandering monsters. After all, they're spending way more time in the area; eventually, that should bring more attention to their activities when they are prowling around. If someone spends a week slaughtering my guards and minions, I'm not going to sit there like a moron and not increase the patrols some to catch those interlopers.

Just always make the increase of monster patrols more natural to the situation, and do it as gradually as it would ideally happen. As in: first week, BBEG notices something amiss in his front dungeon areas, sends a few more scouts to check; second week, the scouts aren't coming back, he sends minions to get more troops; third week, twice as many monsters, and a reward for whoever brings him the PCs' heads. Feel free to even deplete some of BBEG's treasure for this reason, since he obviously can't just shoot gold coins from his butt.

(Note to self: create monster that shoots gold coins from butt, have it die suddenly after PCs get it, drink delicious tears.)

Seriously, though, there shouldn't actually be that many traps in a game, unless it's, like... Tomb of Horrors or something ridiculous like that. I don't remember that many traps in the entire module set from vanilla 3.0 (aka the "Ashardalon" adventures). Is this official or third party modules you're using? Maybe some designer wanted to be the next Tomb of Horrors author and went a little nuts on the traps...

Grod_The_Giant

2015-10-22, 09:22 PM

[rant]

Just because your group hasn't invested into trapfinding is no reason to exclude traps.

They made their choices, those choices will have consequences.

I hate to be like this, but if they refuse to take someone who at least can sense traps, then that's on them, not you.
3.5 is stupid about traps-- you need a specific ability, and there aren't many options for how to get it. You shouldn't punish your players because no-one wanted to play a Rogue. There's a difference between in-game choices and metagame choices. If you tell the party "there's an ancient red dragon that lives here" and they run into its lair and try to stab it, they've made poor choices and should certainly lose. If they use poor tactics in a fight and wind up getting their butts kicked, they've made poor choices and should certainly lose. But creating a character is not a choice with a consequence. Would you let a player roll up to an undead heavy campaign as a Rogue, or a golem-dominated game as a Warlock? (I certainly hope not.) It's preposterous. It's letting them lose the game before they ever start playing.

Then they deserve to get slaughtered. Okay, maybe that's an over-reaction, but if you remove traps to suit their specific style of play, you're actually making the setting less believable.

to suit their specific style of play
Bull****. Bull****. Your entire job as GM is to make a game that's enjoyable for everyone. Not for you-- for everyone. If your players like hack-and-slash, don't give them intrigue. If they like stealth, don't make them do run-and-gun operations. If they like serious drama, don't give them slapstick. And if you can't run a game that everyone will enjoy, let someone else GM.

So... yes. You should absolutely change the game to fit your players' specific style of play. That is, in fact, your one job as GM. Everything else is secondary. Does "make your players happy" mean they should effortlessly win everything? No, Mr. Strawman, it does not. Most people enjoy a little bit of challenge to their game. But it absolutely means that if they say "we don't like traps," you shouldn't include traps.

Don't give me "verisimilitude" either-- you're the one designing the world, you're the one designing the dungeon. You can have it do whatever you want. If you decided that trap spells just don't exist in your setting? That no, kobolds don't have the improbable engineering skills to make perfectly-hidden deadfalls and clockwork-driven hidden blades? Then guess what-- they don't! No-one can stop you! It's okay! And no-one will call you out on it, because it's a change the players want.

[/end rant]

LTwerewolf

2015-10-22, 09:29 PM

I put traps in regardless. If they don't want to have someone to trapfind, that's on them. Places that should be trapped are. Places that should not be trapped aren't. I use a wide variety of traps depending upon who it was that would have set it, so they can make their adjustments accordingly. Not every trap can be set off by the wand of celestial monkey however and they need to realize that.

I always counteract the 15 minute workday by making sure active places are patrolled regularly, that weather happens, and that the encounters they do get tend to take long amounts of time. Not every encounter has to start 30 feet away from the enemy. Not all enemies should be grouped up into fireball formation.

Anlashok

2015-10-22, 09:41 PM

I'm sort of surprised with how much I see GITP complaining about overbearing DMs at the number of people nodding in agreement when someone says "No one wants to play a rogue? WELL THEN THEY DESERVE TO DIE."

I mean if I threw a shadow at a group of low level fighters and rogues and then told them all they should have been wizards when they died I'm pretty sure you'd all call me a terrible DM.

Zanos

2015-10-22, 09:45 PM

-wisdom-
Grod speaks it. My players don't enjoy traps. They generally don't want to play skillmonkeys. I don't usually enjoy designing traps. I don't enjoy the way they play the game when I include traps, either, because 20 minute discussions about who's opening the door after throwing rocks at it for 10 minutes aren't fun. Consequently, traps are not often an aspect of games that I run. Ambushes totally are, though. And a door might occasionally lock behind them.

Nobody can tell you you're playing the game wrong if you or your players don't enjoy an aspect of it. Just ask yourself what you lose and gain by not having traps in the game, enjoyment wise.

I seriously doubt people would complain if you suggested running a game that was light on combat encounters or social skill challenges, to make a comparison.

oxybe

2015-10-22, 09:50 PM

I'm sort of surprised with how much I see GITP complaining about overbearing DMs at the number of people nodding in agreement when someone says "No one wants to play a rogue? WELL THEN THEY DESERVE TO DIE."

I mean if I threw a shadow at a group of low level fighters and rogues and then told them all they should have been wizards when they died I'm pretty sure you'd all call me a terrible DM.

well they should have played wizard, fighter is a horribly underpowered and boring class :smalltongue:

Der_DWSage

2015-10-22, 10:26 PM

Following up on Grod's wisdom, traps in D&D are rather poorly designed. As it is, most traps are just 'zap traps.' You do some damage, they move on with a wand of cure light wounds or they lose a pony to a trap, and they move on with their lives. Or their pony gets poisoned, or electrocuted and they know which square to avoid setting it off again.

I would heartily recommend reading The Angry GM (http://theangrygm.com/ask-angry-traps-suck/)'s article on traps, and ask yourself, in your heart of hearts, do the traps really add anything to the game? In a few specific locations, sure. In the Kobold den, or the Maze of the Mad Engineering King, I could see traps. Otherwise...why not just shelve those traps, and replace them with another encounter of some kind, or a non-damaging issue to deal with? And with those traps, why not replace the swinging scythe with something that's actually a challenge to overcome, like a room that slowly crushes you if you can't break it first, or a room that traps you inside, sounds the alarm, and calls for other monsters in the challenge?

tl;dr version:Remove traps that just deal damage. Those are boring. Other traps are okay-ish, so long as there's still a way to overcome them.

LTwerewolf

2015-10-22, 10:31 PM

tl;dr version:Remove traps that just deal damage. Those are boring. Other traps are okay-ish, so long as there's still a way to overcome them.

I agree with this partially. I don't use many traps that are raw damage. I use a few, sure, but most of my traps have effects. A cave-in trap in a cave means they're likely going to need to find a new path, or spend resources/time on removing the blockage. Pit fall traps tend not to drop just 10 feet, but send them to a different floor and the party can either jump down together, figure out how to get them back up (which can be more difficult than it sounds) or find a way down/up to group back up. Traps need to add something interesting. Also my traps tend to be self resetting, so sm1 won't really work too well outside of showing them where the trap is.

OldTrees1

2015-10-22, 10:42 PM

tl;dr version:Remove traps that just deal damage. Those are boring. Other traps are okay-ish, so long as there's still a way to overcome them.

Counter-intuitive though it may be, thematic damage traps that are below an appropriate CR can help set the mood for a dungeon/ruin (when used sparingly as a spice).

Ex:
At ECL 4 a party went into a "Fire dungeon" (truth is more complicated). The first 2 side rooms had resetting Cr 1 Burning Hands traps at the doors. Small details like that enhanced the description of the dungeon.

Der_DWSage

2015-10-22, 10:56 PM

Eh. At that point, it's less a trap and more of a dungeon feature.

Troacctid

2015-10-22, 10:57 PM

Pretty sure most traps in dungeons are dungeon features.

Zale

2015-10-22, 11:12 PM

Rubik

2015-10-22, 11:28 PM

I would ask your players why none of them want to play Rogues, or trapfinder classes, then try to change the classes to make them more appealing. Because it may be that they all find Rogues boring and won't play them because of that, even if they're useful.

Otherwise, I fully agree with everything Grod says.Is factotum available? Maybe they just need something a bit more versatile. Try tossing a few factotums out as allies or as enemies and show them what the class is capable of. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4890.msg164767#msg164767)

LTwerewolf

2015-10-23, 12:22 AM

Spellthief is also an option.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-23, 01:20 AM

I'm sort of surprised with how much I see GITP complaining about overbearing DMs at the number of people nodding in agreement when someone says "No one wants to play a rogue? WELL THEN THEY DESERVE TO DIE."

No one has to play a rogue or any other class with trapfinding to deal with traps. Your own players have demonstrated this, albeit in a terribly inefficient way. Traps are one of the game's minigames. It's just a much less popular one than the character building, combat, social encounter, empire building, etc minigames. Trapfinding add the search and disable device skills are just the most direct, reliable, and effective interface for this particular minigame. Other posters have pointed out a bevy of alternatives both magical and mundane for finding traps by simply setting them off remotely.

Here's a couple more that might avoid triggers;

Detect magic and dispel; magical traps radiate magical auras and can be suppressed. Both magic aura detection and magical suppression options are trivially easy to make constantly available and are useful outside of this niche as well.

The predictive method; traps are placed where they lie for a reason (usually). Think for a moment, when entering a new area, "would I lay traps here?" and, if the answer to that is affirmative, "where would I lay traps in this area?" Look for clues that can suggest the presence of traps rather than the traps themselves; scorch marks on the floor, a peculiarly irregular pattern on the floor, the remains of previous victims, etc. Sift these clues around in your brain for a minute and simply avoid where you -think- the traps should be even though you don't know where they actually are.

Hirelings; if you're not willing to do it yourself, pay someone else to do it. Don't expect him to contribute to combat unless you wanna give him a full cut of the adventure's take but an NPC with trapfinding and the two appropriate skills isn't gods awful expensive to keep around, ya know. Alternately, bind one. Either planar binding or the lesser known spirit binding should be able to get -something- with trapfinding.

And as a final point on trapfinding in the party, since no one's mentioned it yet, a single feat can get you the ability to shape the theft gloves soulmeld and a fourth level spell lets you bind it to your hands; trapfinding in exchange for a feat and the inability to wear magic gloves on the days you want to use it. See Magic of Incarnum for details.

I mean if I threw a shadow at a group of low level fighters and rogues and then told them all they should have been wizards when they died I'm pretty sure you'd all call me a terrible DM.

This is a function of the group's optimization level. There are cheap alchemic items and special materials that allow completely non-magical characters to deal with incorporeality just fine, even at level 2. Some people might call you a bad DM for this but I would disagree with them unless you were reasonably certain that your players had no idea these options exist and you gave them not even the slightest hint that undead (the type with the largest proportion of incorporeals) might be coming up in the near-ish future.

A few final notes on traps;

Traps can serve narrative and game purposes that shouldn't be overlooked. They can set the tone and enhance the feel of a certain dungeon much like in oldtrees1's example and they can act as a simple resource drain before a more interactive encounter. The former has obvious benefits while the latter is a bit annoying but can be used to good effect in skilled hands.

Dungeonscape has a wonderful section on what was termed encounter traps, whereby classical mechanical traps are either strung together in creative ways or combined with other elements to make interesting encounters beyond the simple binary of either the trap thumps you for damage/debuff or it was avoided succesfully.

Finally, while he let his own distaste for the basic trap mechanics bleed into his argument quite heavily, grod_the_giant has a valid point. While traps certainly can, and in many cases do, serve a particular purpose in the narrative and gamist senses, it is your responsibility as a DM to decide whether or not they add anything meaningful to -your- game.

If your only reason for using them is because the module you're running says to and your players are getting seriously annoyed, you should probably just drop them. They can be made to work quite well but module writers don't often do a very good job of making then work well for one of any number of reasons.

Boogastreehouse

2015-10-23, 03:24 AM

*

Bull****. Bull****.

Okay, it's not like I don't see your point. I'd even agree with it under different circumstances, but look at the context of this specific situation:

You've got a whole party of people playing a teamwork-oriented game, they all want to get to play the tier 1 god-classes or the sexy gish-types. Then they have to rest frequently (apparently without consequences) because they're burning through their spells so quickly.

This isn't about adjusting play to fit a group's style, so much as it's catering to players who want to have the game handed to them on a silver platter.

*

Yahzi

2015-10-23, 05:09 AM

kobolds don't have the improbable engineering skills to make perfectly-hidden deadfalls and clockwork-driven hidden blades?
Grod is right. The traps in D&D make no sense at all. Mechanics that reset themselves - where does the energy come from? Spell traps that teleport parties, but the world as a whole doesn't have teleport traps as travel devices? Or the classic - Tomb of Horrors with its 10x10x10 ft adamantium door. That's right, a stupid puzzle trap that costs orders of magnitude more than the entire dungeon and all of its loot.

Traps should be obvious. As others pointed out, the creatures living in those areas need to know where the traps are. Finding them isn't the issue. Defeating them is the issue. They come to a doorway that is obviously protected. They can either go around it, out-think it, or just suck up the effect. Or, the trap is part of the creature's defense in an encounter. There's a ledge with archers on it, and the way up to the ledge is obviously dangerous somehow. Make a Reflex save, or find another way to get to the archers.

Find Traps is a useless skill because it means the Rogue plays his own game while the party sits and waits. Disarm trap is a useful skill, because when the players figure out what they want to do ("we jam an iron rod into the revolving floor to stop it from opening!") they can make a roll. Nobody has to be a rogue to do that; the rogue just gets a bonus at it. A successful disarm roll on an acid trap means the rogue gains an unbroken bottle of acid.

Either eliminate Find Traps, or replace it with a passive roll that everyone gets (rogues just get it better). Even then most traps should be obvious. Mine fields were battle control in WWII; they forced the enemy to go slow or go around. They didn't actually function as ways to destroy the enemy.

Curmudgeon

2015-10-23, 05:36 AM

I agree with most everybody else in this thread: you shouldn't change the dungeon to work only to PCs' strengths. But you also shouldn't give them half a day of undisturbed rest when they're running low on spells. If this is an inhabited dungeon, there's good reason for there to be encounters as the inhabitants move from point to point, or have semi-regular patrols specifically to deal with adventurers and other trespassers. A couple encounters per sleep period, as well as one or two instances of strange noises (which wake the PCs up, but don't lead to an encounter unless the party goes looking for the source) would be appropriate. This wouldn't be going out of your way to persecute the PCs; it would just be the reality of them trying to sleep in an inhabited dungeon.

Grod_The_Giant

2015-10-23, 07:52 AM

You've got a whole party of people playing a teamwork-oriented game, they all want to get to play the tier 1 god-classes or the sexy gish-types. Then they have to rest frequently (apparently without consequences) because they're burning through their spells so quickly.
The 15 minute adventuring day is an issue, but it's not the one the OP was asking about, and the ways to deal with it are fairly well established.

StreamOfTheSky

2015-10-23, 12:13 PM

3.5 is stupid about traps-- you need a specific ability, and there aren't many options for how to get it. You shouldn't punish your players because no-one wanted to play a Rogue.

It's not punishing them. D&D has traps. The players know this. If they choose to not bother having anyone who can handle them, that's their choice. I'm not going to scotchgard the game world for them just because they decided they don't want to be able to deal with traps. I'll make reasonable accommodations, like Trapfinding as a feat.
And I try to never make trapfinding *mandatory* -- usually having someone with rogue skills means getting nice treasure you might otherwise miss, or makes getting through the dungeon faster, easier, and safer. They can take the traps to the face and heal stick it back, smash open locked doors and make tons of noise to alert occupants, and traverse the dungeon in the visible, obvious path that's the most advantageous to the defenders. Or they can have someone w/ the rogue skills and trapfinding and quietly unlock those doors, disarm all those traps, and find the secret tunnel shortcuts the occupants of the dungeon use to get around faster and avoid dangerous areas. Their choice.
(For games that use dungeons and caves a lot...the campaign I've run the past two years is mostly outdoors so the above stuff is seldom a factor and I outright said the rogue skills -- while still useful sometimes -- would not come up as much in this campaign.)

Bull****. Bull****. Your entire job as GM is to make a game that's enjoyable for everyone. Not for you-- for everyone. If your players like hack-and-slash, don't give them intrigue. If they like stealth, don't make them do run-and-gun operations. If they like serious drama, don't give them slapstick. And if you can't run a game that everyone will enjoy, let someone else GM.

BS. The GM's enjoyment matters, too. If the GM doesn't want to run a plot-less hack and slash week after week after monotonous week, or if the GM is steadfastly against guns and modern tech when the players want it in the setting, s/he doesn't have to do it anyway just because it's what everyone else wants. Being a GM is a lot of work. Doing all that work for a game you really don't even enjoy is just sheer masochism.
It's nice you think that in any group, if one guy is unwilling to run the sort of game the players want that someone else can step up, is willing to, and can do a good job of being GM. IME, most people don't want the hassle of being GM....it's a lot of work. And doing a good job of it is tough. Your ideal world is nice, but it seems in reality, a group is hard-limited by what the one or two people willing to GM are willing to run and will always have to make some concessions. I prefer to play, and I'm constantly saving character concepts for "some other game" in the future b/c the GM I found doesn't allow it or aspects of it, or has a setting / houserules that would make playing the character more difficult than it's worth, but s/he is otherwise running a campaign I'm really interested in and seems to be a good GM. I'd rather play my 12th choice of character in a game w/ a great GM than get to play my top choice in a game w/ a poor one.

BioCharge

2015-10-23, 12:33 PM

I wouldn't remove them, but change the ways they work. I have three different types of "traps," myself:

1. "Environmental" hazards: for an example, say you have semi-animated suits of armor that swing their swords at whomever enters their threatened squares. They can ultimately be ignored, but, often living guards are in the same room and bullrush or otherwise force enemies into the suit's squares. They are unbiased, however and even attack the guards if they enter the squares. This gives the party options. They can still be disabled with trapfinding, however.

2. Puzzles: you know that classic "walk on the lettered tiles" one where the wrong tiles fall? Like that. They can be disabled (if you wan them to be) like a normal trap.

3. Encounter/skill challenges: take the classic "hall of swinging scythes." This can be dealt with in several ways; someone can tumble (as if going through threatened squares) and hit the "stop scythes" button, a character can ready an action to sunder each blade as they swing, or, again, the classic disable device.

Each have non-trapfinding methods to avoid them, plus they have easy to overcome methods for those who that live there. In the first, people just stand clear of the armored suits. The second, those that live there would know the word to use the tiles. In the third, one can assume that there would be a guard or something at the button who would disable the trap with a password.

This doesn't work as well with the traps in the DMG, but those can be used like environmental hazard traps.

daremetoidareyo

2015-10-23, 12:44 PM

Thoughtful Grod counter arguments

You know, you guys are both correct. Finding the balance is the hard part.

As a player, you want to use your build. It's your fantasy too. But the challenge is to overcome novel challenges, some of which target your weaknesses.

As a DM, it's your world, it's your systems, and you are an arbiter of communal fantasy space. This requires that all parties compromise, including players.

As a DM, you have to be both firm and pliable in equal measure. Find the preferred style of play for the entire group, lock in, and you are the only game entity that can do the heavy lifting in this regard. Players can help tremendously, but overall, it's on you.

As a DM
If the campaign stinks, it's your fault.
If a player is out of line and you don't address it, it's your fault.
If you over employ favorite schticks, It's your fault.
If you don't challenge the PCs enough, it's your fault.

So, it is abundantly obvious that this is a middle of the road type situation. PCs should have to find a way to cover their shortcomings. That is expected. Equally, DM shouldn't try to overexploit PC weaknesses. Conversely, PCs have a right to request a game that fits what they imagine. Equally, the DM needs to put challenges in the way of success, so that there is a genuine sense of accomplishment.

Jormengand

2015-10-23, 01:24 PM

The GM's enjoyment matters, too.

Great, just as well Grod said "Everyone" then.

If characters aren't having fun wading through tons of traps, then find something else for them to do that's fun for you and them.

danzibr

2015-10-23, 01:46 PM

I agree with Grod (and Zanos, and anyone else who I agree with (tautology?)).

Your job as a DM is to make an enjoyable game for everyone (you and the players). If the traps are proving to be nothing but an un-fun hassle, remove them. I also like the idea of making traps in combat rather than random corridors and stuff.

For example, my current group doesn't take D&D very seriously. They'd never bother to research optimized builds and the like. It's more like... a fun social hour. Me, I'd rather do serious D&D, but we can still have fun together. If nobody wants to be a rogue (or Rogue), I'd reel the traps way in. Likewise, if nobody plays something with good ranged offense, I'd use flying creatures very sparingly. If nobody has any means of handling a given situation in an enjoyable manner, I simply won't present such a situation.

SangoProduction

2015-10-23, 01:57 PM

Question: Is the group not enjoying them? If not, then they aren't serving their purpose. If so, which it doesn't sound like, then keep them.
The purpose of games (all kinds) is to have fun. Some people see diverse challenges as fun. Others see just shooting people in the head repeatedly as being fun. Some people like the bitter sweet taste of defeat because it makes victory seem all the more savory. And some people are just happy with an apple a day.

As a DM, you control the world, such as to direct the players' freedom and make the game fun. Of course, the DM is also a part of this group, and they need to have fun too.
So, I'll ask it again: "Is the group enjoying them or not?"

EDIT: OK, this has already been said, looking back. I just read the first couple of comments before commenting myself. Well don't I feel silly.

Abithrios

2015-10-23, 02:53 PM

*

Okay, it's not like I don't see your point. I'd even agree with it under different circumstances, but look at the context of this specific situation:

You've got a whole party of people playing a teamwork-oriented game, they all want to get to play the tier 1 god-classes or the sexy gish-types. Then they have to rest frequently (apparently without consequences) because they're burning through their spells so quickly.

This isn't about adjusting play to fit a group's style, so much as it's catering to players who want to have the game handed to them on a silver platter.

*

I quoted just one comment, but several others also expressed similar opinions. It is not my intention to pick on one person in particular.

I don't see much reason to force any one of the players to not have fun just because the party "needs" them to play a rogue (or similar). Forcing a player to do so is little different from forcing someone to play a cleric who only prepares restorative spells. The only difference is that healing is actually necessary for another major part of the game (combat), while trapfinding is easily separated without damaging any of the game's other moving parts.

Besides, if nobody has trapfinding skills, it would be perfectly in character for them to leave the dungeon and explore less trap filled parts of the world. While some people argue that a lack of traps breaks verisimilitude, I think that a world with nowhere this particular group of adventurers can engage in their profession without worrying about the walls stabbing them is even less believable.

Anyone who is unwilling or unable to provide the kind of experience the players want (be it a cakewalk or a meat grinder) is simply not qualified to be GM.

Kantolin

2015-10-23, 03:19 PM

The GM's enjoyment matters, too. If the GM doesn't want to run a plot-less hack and slash week after week after monotonous week, or if the GM is steadfastly against guns and modern tech when the players want it in the setting, s/he doesn't have to do it anyway just because it's what everyone else wants.

This is also true.

The result, however, is that if the DM wants to run a plotless hack and slash, and the players want political court intrigue, neither group is going to be happy unless they sit down and have a nice chat about it before people get upset. The DM /could/ say 'Yeah well we're getting hack and slash anyway', and the players /could/ respond, 'Yeah well we're gonna teleport to the nearest town and try to set up a Lemonade stand', and that entire cycle would just be awful.

If the DM's opinion is, 'Yeah well it breaks versimilitude for me not to have traps at all', but the players don't find them fun, then there are several options. You could have a NPC hireling accompany the party and deal with traps. This puts traps in the scene while generally making them background elements. You could use traps very sparingly - I don't like kobolds-with-traps, but I do have gnomes utilize traps - so on the two or three times the group goes to an ancient abandoned gnomish stronghold there will be a couple indiana jones-esque traps still readied. You could make any 'traps' more plot elements than anything else - the group sees an orc activate a trap and get squished by a boulder, and after some work can solve the others. Maybe the problem is the classes involved - I know one of my friends loathes clerics and druids, but was willing to try a vitalist style healer.

Now interestingly enough, telling them, 'Yeah well suck it up' /can/ work - but if so it needs to be put up front OOCly. Stating, "I really like having traps in the game and don't want to DM without them" or something. I mean, I personally don't enjoy undead apocalypses, so I wouldn't join a game that was 'This game is about an undead apocalypse!' as if I do then it's my fault. If I joined a game that's pitch was 'Political Intrigue!' and it was actually full of undead apocalypses, I'd be pretty annoyed. Now, if I went into a game that was more setting neutral and ended up apocalypsing, I'd probably have less fun but in that case it is what it is. If I felt more strongly against it I would express concerns and try to back out.

In this case you have an advantage, though - you /know/ traps are something they do not enjoy, so you can have this chat early.

Tvtyrant

2015-10-23, 03:27 PM

My suggestion will mirror those of other people. Limit the amount of traps you use and try to make them require/allow more interaction than sacrificing space/heaven monkeys. A moat filled with zombie crocodiles that has skeleton archers shooting over it from behind small bastions isn't very dangerous, but it does require the party to have a way to get a significant force over the moat. If you are good with descriptions or drawing you can make a room full of mirrors which reveal an invisible key which the party needs. The mirrors are set up so they need to find which one reveals the key directly, and then use the key on the door. Smashing a mirror causes a Shadow to attack. Puzzle traps are much better IMO than traps built around rolling dice.

StreamOfTheSky

2015-10-23, 04:39 PM

I think the OP's group in particular is difficult to "feel bad" for.

No one, I mean no one, plays rogue in my group. They're all some sort of tripped out spellcaster or gish variants, and the traps just slaughter all of them.

It's gotten to the point wherel they just cast summon monster I, let it lead the way, and once they're out of summon monster I's, they rest for the day.

They've been saying traps don't exist in real life dungeons so why would they in d&d? Who puts a swinging pendulum scythe trap in the middle of a corridor? Not a single medieval castle has that. The only time traps were used in real life were in gruella warfare and seeing how they're exploring ruins and dungeons, traps shouldn't exist.

Should I just remove all traps?

They all play casters and rest as soon as their spells run out. Maybe they play really poorly optimized casters and are just doing it b/c they all truly love being mages, but it sounds like they were powergaming, or at least trying to and failing hilariously. And then they try and pull out "it isn't like this in real life!" as an argument. If I were GM at that point, I'd say if they want a realistic game, sure. No more zany blade traps and such. And also...no magic at all, since that's also not existent in real life. :smalltongue:

The only thing I'd change if I were GM, given the above, is make traps that can't be thwarted just by sending a summoned celestial monkey ahead. In a game with magic, you'd think trap makers would keep the existence of Summon Monster I in mind when designing them. Again, I tend to go light on traps, and I prefer what one of my first GM's takes on them were (low DC to search and disarm, but really painful effects if it goes off; reward them for having at least one person who trained to deal with them). You could certainly use them less if the game currently has them all over the place. But you shouldn't have to remove them entirely just because no one in the party wants to invest in finding them. What's next? A group where no one is willing to play a class capable of healing demanding the GM to go easy on them so they don't die?

daremetoidareyo

2015-10-23, 06:27 PM

The only thing I'd change if I were GM, given the above, is make traps that can't be thwarted just by sending a summoned celestial monkey ahead. In a game with magic, you'd think trap makers would keep the existence of Summon Monster I in mind when designing them. Again, I tend to go light on traps, and I prefer what one of my first GM's takes on them were (low DC to search and disarm, but really painful effects if it goes off; reward them for having at least one person who trained to deal with them). You could certainly use them less if the game currently has them all over the place. But you shouldn't have to remove them entirely just because no one in the party wants to invest in finding them. What's next? A group where no one is willing to play a class capable of healing demanding the GM to go easy on them so they don't die?

It would be way more tense a situation if the DM had developed this campaign around a spy-infiltrator, known as "the trapper" who hunted men for sport, particularly low level mages.

Luckily he's running a module, and modules usually have borderline uninspired trapsmithing thoughts. They are just pasted in to make rogues skill set relevant to the plot through mechanics.

Templarkommando

2015-10-23, 07:49 PM

In modern warfare, you don't generally lay a minefield with the intention of taking out as many people as you lay down landmines. What generally happens is you lay down a whole bunch of mines and it cuts off a route of approach for the enemy. After the first 4 or 5 guys blow up running across the minefield, the enemy officers figure out that there's a minefield there and send for the minesweepers. If they're smart officers they might even send for minesweepers after the first guy blows up. They then spend a lot of time and effort trying to clear the minefield, or they go around to where you wanted them to go in the firstplace so you can shoot them with your machine guns. If they take the time consuming route, then you can have your spotters see them and lay down some artillery on their minesweepers. All that to say, that a trap-laden hallway doesn't have to be the only way to the treasure/macguffin. Maybe it's a split call. The adventurers can run down the hallway with all the traps - which they're rewarded for if they can overcome- or they can fight where the enemy generals have concentrated their troops and pre-planned battlefields.

There *is* a use for landmines with offensive intent, but it's usage depends on the morals (or lack thereof) of the badguys. There's a thing called a toy mine. What happens is you find a shiny bauble or a toy of some kind and you tie it to the ignition switch on the mine. This is a big thing for warlords in various parts of the world. The intent is to dismember a child with the goal in mind of keeping parents from fighting because they have to take care of a wounded(possibly permanently) child. This of course falls under the category of evil bastard uses for traps.

In regards to landmines, there's actually a big movement to get the things outlawed internationally because 1.) They apparently get more unstable as time goes on, 2.) After a war ends, sometimes they just sit in the ground for decades, and 3.) it's a danger to civilians and property.

Traps make sense in specific places. If your party is "running the gauntlet," or wondering through a labyrinth, maybe that's full of traps. Maybe there aren't a lot of traps, but there's an alarm trap on the entrances that wakes everyone up, and there's one or two guarding any treasures of significance. Maybe there's a forked hallway with burn marks on the walls and a sign that says "danger" that's filled with resetting fireball traps specifically so that the bad guys only have to guard one hall way.

There are some really frustrating ways to use traps as a DM, and I would try to avoid trap-schemes that make the game un-fun. However, if you fill the room for a battle with easy-to-dodge clearly marked and low damage spear traps that just stop players from charging across the field, suddenly, your players are Indiana Jones. The thing that I would avoid trap-wise is something that my DM did once to our party's rogue. We needed to get a plot coupon - gem thing from off of a pedestal that was surrounded by something like 30 traps with ridiculous disarm DCs. His intended effect was that the rogue should feel like he was stealing the crown jewels, but the end effect was that we had to resurrect him 3 times which wasted a lot of party resources. This frustrated the rogue player because his character kept dying, and by the time he got rezzed all the traps he had disarmed beforehand would reset. It frustrated the party because everyone had various designs on the loot that would have been saved by not needing to rez the rogue 3 times. There were 6 total plot coupons that we had to get, and we had to disarm 4 traps just to get the darned thing, and they would rearm on a pretty short timer. It was just a mess, and all that just to advance the plot to the next step. I could see doing that... maybe once... maybe. Definitely not 6 times. Traps are not there to kill parties. Traps are there to increase suspense - which the one thing I'll say about the 30 traps from hell is that it increased suspense. I'm personally a little annoyed by some of the end-game traps in 3.5, because sooooo many of them are basically save or die. I'd be *really* sparing with those.

Malroth

2015-10-24, 04:16 PM

To Make a fun trap encounter you need 3 things. The presence of the trap should be obvious to everyone almost immediately (although the nature of the trap can remain hidden), There needs to be a good reason for the trap to exist where it does, and there needs to be a way to circumvent the trap that those that live in the dungeon can use to avoid it. Any hallway that explodes a monkey from just walking through it breaks verisimilitude far more than the complete absence of traps would.

Deophaun

2015-10-24, 04:36 PM

They then spend a lot of time and effort trying to clear the minefield.
^^^ Pulling this out for emphasis.

The purpose of traps is not to kill. It's to delay and exhaust. If you let the PCs take their sweet time completing the objective, then just remove the traps; they have no point.

Otherwise, actual effective killing traps are the ones you have to deal with while worrying about archers raining death on you or ghosts coming out of the walls or generally something that doesn't give you the luxury of wasting actions casting summon monster I to trigger a pressure plate. This is why Tucker's kobolds are nasty; the warren itself is trying to kill you and the kobolds never leave you in peace to address it.

gogogome

2015-10-26, 10:43 AM

Alright thanks for your inputs everyone. I have read every single post in this thread.

I've decided to do the following.
1. Look into trapfinding hirelings and suggest them to the players.
2. Suggest the several other methods suggested by this thread. Bowling ball, portable rogue, unseen servant + sack of rocks

If all these fail then I will probably remove all traps that are not used in a combat encounter.

Again, thanks everyone for your passionate arguments.

edit: About the group not playing rogues, it's not that they're power gamers wanting the game to be handed to them on a silver platter, these guys have a specific creative thing they want to do, and mundanes can't do that.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-26, 08:29 PM

About the group not playing rogues, it's not that they're power gamers wanting the game to be handed to them on a silver platter, these guys have a specific creative thing they want to do, and mundanes can't do that.

Unless the specific thing they're looking at is "cast spells" the highlighted is probably wrong. There's precious little casters can do that noncasters can't. In most cases casters simply do a thing much faster, cheaper, and more readily than a noncaster but noncasters can do it too.

Amongst the most commonly asserted points;

Fly: flying races, hang gliders, flying mounts

Planar travel: naturally occuring portals and vortices, manifest zones, putting a bag of holding and a portable hole together

Shapechanging: changelings focused on boosting their racial ability, hengeyokai shapechanger (OA), SS ritual (admittedly difficult, time consuming, and expensive)

Magic item crafting: battlesmith, kensai, ancestral relic, legacy items

Most everything else is covered in the skills vs spells discussion in another thread.

This isn't meant to say they or you are doing it wrong. I just get tired of the tired misconception that noncasters can't do anything interesting besides stab things.

Grod_The_Giant

2015-10-26, 09:21 PM

This isn't meant to say they or you are doing it wrong. I just get tired of the tired misconception that noncasters can't do anything interesting besides stab things.
It is, however, inordinately more difficult and/or expensive and/or limited. I mean, if I want a character who can do more than 1-2 things efficiently, I'm pretty much limited to ToB for combat and to the Factotum if we're talking non-combat.

Knaight

2015-10-26, 09:36 PM

With how much the group dislikes traps, it might be worth toning it down a bit - by which I mean removing the contrived and generally ridiculous traps that tend to plague modules. A rope positioned to take a rider off a horse on a trail makes a lot of sense for a trap - the riders who know about it can avoid it, and odds are anyone using it is walking more anyways- pressure plate activated whirring blades in a main hallway is kind of ridiculous. It works in certain types of fantasy, but cutting that sort of material isn't going to be detrimental to verisimilitude at all.

Tvtyrant

2015-10-26, 09:59 PM

awa

2015-10-26, 10:23 PM

Except of course that it would take a ridiculous degree of maintenance and some way to get into the walls to service them. mechanical traps would require constant magical upkeep to be even remotely viable, and bring up the question if they have all these mechanical devices that we would be hard pressed to build today why don't they have other vastly simpler mechanical devices for stuff other than traps.

removing traps won’t break verisimilitude the existence of high tech clock work and cheap infinitely repeating spells but only for the purpose of traps is a far harder blow to suspension of disbelief then the idea that a sapient might want to live in a location that doesn't occasionally kill pets and small children if they wander into the wrong hall way.

also I totally agree with everyone who said something along the lines of don't punish meta game choices if the party is all clerics recognize they will stomp weak undead and account for it with more if you want it to be a challenge if there all rouges and you don't want it to be a tpk make less.

By all means punish in game choices but don't force people to play things they don't want to play.

A hired npc trap detector is certainly an an option but why bother its basically just a gold tax. The traps still aren’t doing anything it’s just make a couple rolls every couple rooms. It seems simpler just to remove all but the most interesting traps.

Kelb_Panthera

2015-10-26, 10:29 PM

It is, however, inordinately more difficult and/or expensive and/or limited. I mean, if I want a character who can do more than 1-2 things efficiently, I'm pretty much limited to ToB for combat and to the Factotum if we're talking non-combat.

Meh. Depends on where the line is drawn for acceptable efficiency. If the bar is just past being able to overcome level appropriate challenges then this is simply not true.

If, instead, the bar is set at a point where uberchargers are a combat staple, and evokers are a waste of time unless you're using metamagic cost mitigation then stuff starts to fall below the line but, frankly, that line seems a bit high especially given that a lot of the stuff that initiators and factotums do natively, before serious optimization is below that line.

Noncasters certainly take longer on doing things in a -lot- of cases but costs are often negligible or deferable on "sometimes" events unless you're trying to do positively everything. Efficiency outside of your primary schtick is not a primary concern unless the DM is pushing the "noncasters can't have nice things" angle.

Example: the players of an all noncaster party decide they want to start plane hopping and the DM agrees to letting them if they can figure out how.

After a few appropriate skill checks to aquire the necessary information (knowledges to remember that natural planar travel options exist, gather info to locate one) they're off to the nearest point of travel and on their way.

Alternately, somebody remembers the extradimensional storage bit and the party each put in 5625 to buy a bag of holding type 1 and a portable hole.

Alternately again, the DM throws them a bone and one of those knowledge checks tells them the city they're in happens to have an office of the planar cartographers' society and, upon going there, they discover that there is, in fact, a standing portal in the basement and after negotiating a job with the society get off to the planes immediately.

Renting an ethereal curtain, buying a scroll of shadow walking, the list just goes on and most options are either inexpensive but slow, fast but expensive, or somewhere in the middle. The only thing keeping them from taking a trip around the great wheel would be if the DM lied about being okay with the idea and cuts them off at every turn.

The same goes for most anything else you might care to name.

torrasque666

2015-10-26, 10:38 PM

Unless it is a kobold temple, with the blades set to cut above their head height. Pressure plates make a lot of sense IMO for really small sentient creatures.
To be fair, with how much Kobolds hate Gnomes, I could easily see pressure plates set to trigger at anything above all but the fattest Kobold (who is probably the leader, and probably not wandering much).
Scratch that. Though gnomes and Kobolds differed in weight more.

Solaris

2015-10-26, 10:40 PM

We're currently playing a bunch of premade adventures, so right now I don't create traps.

I usually run canned modules, too, but I've found everyone's enjoyment goes up if I go through them and do a rewrite.
A lot of those module writers are really bad at it.

Problem with the trap monkeying is they barely go through 1 corridor before saying "We can't win the next fight if we spend any more spells on celestial dogs" and rest for the day. So one floor of a dungeon/ruin ends up taking a month... which means the hobgoblins were just doing absolutely nothing but standing still for one month waiting for the adventurers to enter their room.

My problem here is... why are the hobgoblins just sitting around doing absolutely nothing? Why not have 'em launch a raid on the adventurers as a pre-emptive strike?

StreamOfTheSky

2015-10-26, 11:17 PM

My problem here is... why are the hobgoblins just sitting around doing absolutely nothing? Why not have 'em launch a raid on the adventurers as a pre-emptive strike?

Of course they're not just sitting around while the PCs takes weeks to clear the traps. ...They're laying down more traps! :smallcool:

"Having prep time" unfortunately in D&D doesn't mean much unless you're a spellcaster. The hobgoblins would probably be fools to "pre-emptive strike" if it means bottlenecking their superior numbers in a tunnel to reach the party and abandoning their defensible positions.

Here's what having prep time looks like for a typical party IME:

DM: You hear foes coming towards you from the other side of the door. You have two rounds before they get to you, what would you like to do?
Wizard: I cast shield and Polymorph!
Cleric: I cast Divine Favor and Righteous Might!
Fighter: I...uh...pose dramatically with my weapon. Then...scratch my butt, I guess.
Rogue: I find a hiding spot, and uh...guess I'm itchy, too.

Knaight

2015-10-26, 11:27 PM

Unless it is a kobold temple, with the blades set to cut above their head height. Pressure plates make a lot of sense IMO for really small sentient creatures.

In general I'd expect to see more traps for smaller creatures. There's the whole general idea of "this lot are twice our height and eight times our weight, how about we don't do anything close to a straight fight". I'd also expect to see plenty of deliberately low ceilings, villages in denser forests, etc.

Beheld

2015-10-27, 08:34 AM

Many of the best suggestions have pointed to the idea that traps in 3.5, especially in prewritten adventures and modules, are usually very poorly done for a lot of reasons, and that therefore you should rethink how the traps are placed/designed. This is all very true. To hopefully help structure your thinking about the issue, I present you this wonderful helpful guide (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Dungeonomicon_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Constructanomicon#Traps).

Solaris

2015-10-27, 09:54 AM

"Having prep time" unfortunately in D&D doesn't mean much unless you're a spellcaster. The hobgoblins would probably be fools to "pre-emptive strike" if it means bottlenecking their superior numbers in a tunnel to reach the party and abandoning their defensible positions.

Here's what having prep time looks like for a typical party IME:

DM: You hear foes coming towards you from the other side of the door. You have two rounds before they get to you, what would you like to do?
Wizard: I cast shield and Polymorph!
Cleric: I cast Divine Favor and Righteous Might!
Fighter: I...uh...pose dramatically with my weapon. Then...scratch my butt, I guess.
Rogue: I find a hiding spot, and uh...guess I'm itchy, too.

The hobgoblins can take advantage of the fact that the players are pulling back to sleep. They can go anywhere from full-on Tucker's Kobolds to ambushes with siege engines, depending on whether the party is pulling completely out of the dungeon or is sleeping in the dungeon. A few rounds of prep time is worthless, but a few hours, that's plenty of time to do all kinds of malice.

awa

2015-10-27, 10:04 AM

Malroth

2015-10-27, 01:00 PM

"
Dear Murderhobos

When you took out George, Bill and Kevin we were horrified. Your mystical power let you get past our spinning blade hallway, our lava lake and our Poison-Dart-o-matic. But then you went to sleep for reasons we cannot comprehend. We took this opportunity to pack up all our belongings and locate elsewhere.

Sincerely yours
The Hobgoblins

PS we reset all the traps behind you on our way out
"

sleepyphoenixx

2015-10-27, 01:47 PM

that assumes they have access to the goods and tools to set up those things. and of course if they spend 8 hours preparing then their fatigued and even easier to beat. I mean yes there is some stuff they can do but there are limits and from a game perspective either the counter ambush is unrealistically deadly or you will just convince them to have another nap after they deal with it.

If they're living in a dungeon full of traps chances are they know something about trapmaking and have resources on hand to make even more traps.
Really, the smart tactic to deal with the PCs is to trap every inch of corridor when they're sleeping and then waiting with the attack until they've blown all their spells and try to rest or just woke up and are sitting buffless and preparing new spells.

And if your players make it a habit to blow all their resources in 15 minutes and then go to sleep in hostile territory (probably without a guard, because they're all casters) they frankly deserve the deadly ambush, the BBEG succeeding with his plan to ascend to evil godhood and the cannon fodder getting out of the way with their loot instead of politely waiting to be slaughtered.

I think i've said it before in this thread but i'll risk repeating myself:
Spells are supposed to be a limited resource. To get through a normal adventuring day you're expected to carefully ration your daily spells instead of blowing a slot on every little problem you run across, especially at lower levels where every spell slot counts.
Not getting to rest whenever and wherever you want isn't railroading or the DM being a ****, it's one of the assumed limiting factors of spellcasters.

awa

2015-10-27, 02:02 PM

new traps cost thousands of gold and days or even weeks of labor to create by the rules

the choice presented to the characters is expend all you hp, expend spell slots, or make a new character.
of these expending spell slots is the smartest and a rope trick makes you very hard to ambush

Tvtyrant

2015-10-27, 02:03 PM

Flickerdart

2015-10-27, 02:07 PM

I think i've said it before in this thread but i'll risk repeating myself:
Spells are supposed to be a limited resource. To get through a normal adventuring day you're expected to carefully ration your daily spells instead of blowing a slot on every little problem you run across, especially at lower levels where every spell slot counts.
Not getting to rest whenever and wherever you want isn't railroading or the DM being a ****, it's one of the assumed limiting factors of spellcasters.

Page 49 of the DMG (under the header "What's Challenging?") proves you wrong. It explicitly states that an adventuring day is 4 CR-appropriate encounters long, after which PCs need to rest and replenish spells and hit points. Traps are encounters just as much as creatures - they all have CRs.

awa

2015-10-27, 02:21 PM

the problem with the careful rationed spell is that by midlevel wizards cannot contribute with out them the attack bonus and damage is so low they might as well not even bother if they want to try and do something without a spell. in some other edition the number spread was smaller so a wizard could still make a contribution with thrown darts or by hitting guys with a staff in third edition this is not the case.

stanprollyright

2015-10-27, 02:34 PM

Don't remove all the traps, remove most of the traps. Your group clearly doesn't want to play that kind of game; fine. But that shouldn't mean that traps in general are no longer a thing. The 15-minute adventuring day is a little silly, so ambushing them while they sleep is fair. You could also tweak the rules a bit so that noticing magical traps no longer requires trapfinding. That always bugged me and seemed like a way to keep the stereotypical 4-man party alive way past its time.

Curmudgeon

2015-10-27, 03:14 PM

new traps cost thousands of gold and days or even weeks of labor to create by the rules
Why do they need to be new traps? They could just as easily be traps with manual resets, which is common on the cheaper variety. While the PCs sleep, the enemies can service every trap that the PCs or some other wandering creature tripped, making them fresh for reuse.

Page 49 of the DMG (under the header "What's Challenging?") proves you wrong. It explicitly states that an adventuring day is 4 CR-appropriate encounters long, after which PCs need to rest and replenish spells and hit points. Traps are encounters just as much as creatures - they all have CRs.
Yes, but there's also this on page 75:
Multiple Independent Traps: If two or more traps act independently (that is, none depends on the success of another to activate), use their CRs to determine their combined Encounter Level as though they were monsters, according to Table 3–1 (page 49). The resulting Encounter Level is the CR for the combined traps.
A whole corridor (or even a whole dungeon) full of traps could be amalgamated into one "encounter".

Quertus

2015-10-27, 03:24 PM

You're running a pre-made module. You're running it as written. That's my cup of tea.

The party can't handle the traps well. Been there, done that, had lots of fun. I've played the inept rogue, somehow survived (2e, I had negative % chance of success for many of the skills I used). I've played the "why did the party ever think I was a rogue?" (who, when asked to check a hall for traps, looked at the party funny, then ran to the other side, turned around, and yelled, "no traps!"), had lots of fun. If the party isn't having fun with their ineptitude, then it's on them (joke!). Although, honestly, if the party isn't trying to learn, to figure out a better solution, something...

Alright thanks for your inputs everyone. I have read every single post in this thread.

I've decided to do the following.
1. Look into trapfinding hirelings and suggest them to the players.
2. Suggest the several other methods suggested by this thread. Bowling ball, portable rogue, unseen servant + sack of rocks

If all these fail then I will probably remove all traps that are not used in a combat encounter.

Again, thanks everyone for your passionate arguments.

edit: About the group not playing rogues, it's not that they're power gamers wanting the game to be handed to them on a silver platter, these guys have a specific creative thing they want to do, and mundanes can't do that.

Sounds like the right answer to me. Just suddenly removing the traps would feel unrealistic. Unless, of course, you want to say that all the hobgoblins haven't been sitting still - they have spent the past... month?... digging an alternate escape route and dismantling all the (very expensive) traps to take with them to their new home. Now that they have completed the tunnel, they leave, taking all the treasure and traps with them. Now you can make things feel realistic for both your players and yourself. ;)

"
Dear Murderhobos

When you took out George, Bill and Kevin we were horrified. Your mystical power let you get past our spinning blade hallway, our lava lake and our Poison-Dart-o-matic. But then you went to sleep for reasons we cannot comprehend. We took this opportunity to pack up all our belongings and locate elsewhere.

Sincerely yours
The Hobgoblins

PS we reset all the traps behind you on our way out
"

This.

Better yet, it having been a month, they could have built new traps, and snuck someone past who a) replaced some of the traps with cheaper versions in ways the PCs will never notice (better for the hobgoblins; matters not to the story); b) changed/moved a *single* trap in the most devastating way possible.

Flickerdart

2015-10-27, 03:33 PM

Yes, but there's also this on page 75:
A whole corridor (or even a whole dungeon) full of traps could be amalgamated into one "encounter".
Combining all those traps into one encounter makes the CR skyrocket - the DMG says that PCs should only face 1 or 2 encounters of CR+2 per day, and advises against going higher. So yes, you could make all the traps in a dungeon into one encounter, but it would be an encounter with a CR so high that it's just as bad of a DM move as throwing too many encounters per day at the party.

Der_DWSage

2015-10-27, 03:38 PM

new traps cost thousands of gold and days or even weeks of labor to create by the rules.

On that note, can we agree that the GP and time cost for traps is utterly bonkers? Five light crossbows hooked up to a pressure plate or tripwire is more likely to cost around 200 GP than 1000, and takes a few hours of work by someone that's good at setting up traps. Adding poisons to them adds to the cost, but if you already have the poison, shouldn't take longer than a few extra minutes of work.

A pit trap costs nothing more than a few good shovels, wheelbarrows, and possibly pickaxes, but might legitimately take that week to dig.

It just makes me think that there must be a unionized group of trapsetters out there, who take 'Union-mandatory coffee breaks' at every possible opportunity, as well as getting paid a ludicrous amount...because anyone that makes non-union traps tends to meet with an unfortunate 'accident.'

sleepyphoenixx

2015-10-27, 03:46 PM

Page 49 of the DMG (under the header "What's Challenging?") proves you wrong. It explicitly states that an adventuring day is 4 CR-appropriate encounters long, after which PCs need to rest and replenish spells and hit points. Traps are encounters just as much as creatures - they all have CRs.

Which is why you need to ration your spells to last you 4 CR-appropriate encounters, or less than that and however many below-CR encounters your DM throws in.
If you need a spell for every little hurdle it doesn't matter if an encounter is a CR +4 boss fight or a CR -4 poison spike trap , the spell is still gone. If you need several spells to get through a single encounter you will run out long before 4 encounters at the low-mid levels.

Which is why you should be able to deal with the minor stuff without expending (your higher level at least) spells or you'll run out long before you reach the "daily-encounter-quota".
And even after your 4 daily encounters it may not make sense story-wise for the party to rest (or not rest where they are), which is something that gets consideration in my campaigns.
It's something my players are informed of and if they don't plan appropiately it will bite them in the ass later if appropiate.

Flickerdart

2015-10-27, 03:55 PM

Which is why you need to ration your spells to last you 4 CR-appropriate encounters, or less than that and however many below-CR encounters your DM throws in.
If you need a spell for every little hurdle it doesn't matter if an encounter is a CR +4 boss fight or a CR -4 poison spike trap , the spell is still gone. If you need several spells to get through a single encounter you will run out long before 4 encounters at the low-mid levels.

When that spell is SMI, those spells slots go a looooooooooong way.

sleepyphoenixx

2015-10-27, 04:11 PM

When that spell is SMI, those spells slots go a looooooooooong way.

At level 15, maybe. Even at level 10, assuming you don't intend to use the slots for other purposes like buffs or utility spells.
At level 6? I doubt it. You actually need your lower spells for other things because you don't have enough higher level slots for the whole day.

Say you use Knock because putting skills in Open Lock is a waste. Every lock you encounter is one less Glitterdust or Web you have for combat, and a lock is hardly a CR-appropriate encounter.

If you use SM1 for trapfinding every trap is one less Grease, or Mage Armor, or Shield. Just checking a room means the spell is gone even if there weren't any traps to find in the first place, because the duration really isn't long enough for extended exploration.
And that's not taking into account the traps that aren't neutralized by having a cheap summon run into them, which will need another spell slot to bypass.

And all that assumes you always have the appropriate spell prepared in the first place. How do you know how many Knocks, Charm Persons, etc. you need in a day?
Leaving slots open is useful, but you need to have something prepared for the cases where you don't have 15 minutes to sit down with your spellbook.
Uncanny Forethought can help, but it's still limited to your Int bonus.

Solaris

2015-10-27, 04:18 PM

that assumes they have access to the goods and tools to set up those things. and of course if they spend 8 hours preparing then their fatigued and even easier to beat. I mean yes there is some stuff they can do but there are limits and from a game perspective either the counter ambush is unrealistically deadly or you will just convince them to have another nap after they deal with it.

Leaving aside the dubious basis of the premise that "Eight hours of work leaves you fatigued" (even in real life, unless I and my fellow soldiers were superhuman when we did similar fortification work without appreciable fatigue), if at the end of taking six hours to prepare for an ambush/trap (because you don't want to give these casters time to recover their spells) they're in a stand-up, head-on fight against the party then they're doing it wrong.

new traps cost thousands of gold and days or even weeks of labor to create by the rules

the choice presented to the characters is expend all you hp, expend spell slots, or make a new character.
of these expending spell slots is the smartest and a rope trick makes you very hard to ambush

They're sitting in a dungeon full of treasure and the party is taking a month to clear the dungeon. The hobs have everything they need. Multiple hobgoblins can work together to craft the traps and siege engines, and even better they use up all of the dungeon's resources while they do it before they wander off to find greener pastures.

Flickerdart

2015-10-27, 04:20 PM

Why in the world would you prepare those spells? The party pitches in cash for a wand of CL2 SMI (1500gp) which is good for 100 rounds of suicidal badgers rocketing down the hallway at full throttle.

Solaris

2015-10-27, 04:25 PM

Why in the world would you prepare those spells? The party pitches in cash for a wand of CL2 SMI (1500gp) which is good for 100 rounds of suicidal badgers rocketing down the hallway at full throttle.

I still wanna know why they're wasting time with spells when they could just be taking prisoners instead.

Had a party who did that a lot. One kobold actually lived long enough to take actual levels of rogue and become a cohort.

Flickerdart

2015-10-27, 04:35 PM

I still wanna know why they're wasting time with spells when they could just be taking prisoners instead.
It didn't work super-well for Herr Walter Donovan.

awa

2015-10-27, 04:50 PM

Solaris

2015-10-27, 05:24 PM

spend 8 hours making a trap which leaves them with 0 completed traps on top of being up all the previous day. shure you can reset the traps but they know where those are now and they can be set off by throwing rocks at them.

he's using premade adventures I bet zero of them actually have enough ranks in craft trap to make any traps

of course you seem to be missing the point that the choices are step on the trap or solve it by casting a spell. as the only other choice allowed is play a class with trap sense

If you're going to stick with strict RAW on preparation, I'm going to need a citation for how making a Craft check can leave you fatigued. Don't give me the "they were up eight hours", either, because not only are there no rules for sleeping, you can explicitly work for eight hours without needing to check against fatigue.
I'm also going to need to see where it's written more than one hobgoblin can't participate in Crafting simple traps and siege engines (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Urban_Adventures#Siege_Engines) to speed things along. Remember, these hobgoblins have been under siege for about a month - so where in the rules does it say they need to sit in rules waiting to be slaughtered?

Yahzi

2015-10-28, 04:42 AM

They're sitting in a dungeon full of treasure and the party is taking a month ...
Why aren't the spending some of that treasure on Bigger Adventurers? :smallbiggrin:

Toilet Cobra

2015-10-28, 07:06 AM

It's probably been said already, but just jumping in here:

I'm a fan of non-lethal (or lethal, why not) traps that obstruct progress. Have them send in a summoned whatever to set off a pressure plate, and a huge stone slab falls down to block the corridor. It's a manual reset, so some monster or goblin or what have you will have to come take care of it. Including traps like this will of course slow your game even further, but I think it could force a rethink on your players' part of how they deal with trapfinding.

The normal traps sometimes don't feel like an honest attempt to stop entry- more like, hey! jump over this pit and you win all my treasures! I like a trap that's less spinning blades and more heavily locked door.

Beheld

2015-10-28, 07:17 AM

Why do they need to be new traps? They could just as easily be traps with manual resets, which is common on the cheaper variety. While the PCs sleep, the enemies can service every trap that the PCs or some other wandering creature tripped, making them fresh for reuse.

Yes, but there's also this on page 75:
A whole corridor (or even a whole dungeon) full of traps could be amalgamated into one "encounter".

I'm not a **** because I make my players fight 52 encounters in one day. I'm a **** because I make them fight a single EL 36 encounter at level 5 in a day. It's different.

Lvl 2 Expert

2015-10-28, 07:24 AM

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll258/oxybe/portablerogue_zps806a0dec.png

Booting the room, it works most of the time.

For my semi-serious reply I'm going with "the game should stay fun". The players have certain expectations of what they want their game to be like. You have a different expectation. I'd say that if you want to use lots of traps you could try to make traps that they have ways to deal with. When they've dealt with orcs suddenly jumping out of a wall a few times they'll try dispelling illusions or using true seeing more often. It's something the spellcasters can do, it's a good use for their powers. They'll probably enjoy that more than traps that are meant to be found by a rogue, and that they're not even going to try finding because they don't have the trap finding power nor a good search skill. And ones they're used to using true seeing on suspicious rooms get them with a different trick. It can be as simple as attacking from behind. Anyone can look back. Or they could cast alarm on certain points in the dungeon, or they could cast their own illusions of a juicy wizard hanging in the back of the party. Give them situations they can solve.

EDIT: Or to put it differently, if nobody in the party wanted to play a cleric or any kind of healer I wouldn't remove all things that can wear down their hit points, but I would give them easy access to potions and the like and try to hit them where they can repair it. Like say rend their weapons if they have an artificer, get the party split up, do stuff that's not all health damage.

Grod_The_Giant

2015-10-28, 12:04 PM

For my semi-serious reply I'm going with "the game should stay fun". The players have certain expectations of what they want their game to be like. You have a different expectation. I'd say that if you want to use lots of traps you could try to make traps that they have ways to deal with. When they've dealt with orcs suddenly jumping out of a wall a few times they'll try dispelling illusions or using true seeing more often. It's something the spellcasters can do, it's a good use for their powers. They'll probably enjoy that more than traps that are meant to be found by a rogue, and that they're not even going to try finding because they don't have the trap finding power nor a good search skill. And ones they're used to using true seeing on suspicious rooms get them with a different trick. It can be as simple as attacking from behind. Anyone can look back. Or they could cast alarm on certain points in the dungeon, or they could cast their own illusions of a juicy wizard hanging in the back of the party. Give them situations they can solve.

EDIT: Or to put it differently, if nobody in the party wanted to play a cleric or any kind of healer I wouldn't remove all things that can wear down their hit points, but I would give them easy access to potions and the like and try to hit them where they can repair it. Like say rend their weapons if they have an artificer, get the party split up, do stuff that's not all health damage.
Good advice here.

Yogibear41

2015-10-28, 12:17 PM

No one, I mean no one, plays rogue in my group. They're all some sort of tripped out spellcaster or gish variants, and the traps just slaughter all of them.

It's gotten to the point wherel they just cast summon monster I, let it lead the way, and once they're out of summon monster I's, they rest for the day.

They've been saying traps don't exist in real life dungeons so why would they in d&d? Who puts a swinging pendulum scythe trap in the middle of a corridor? Not a single medieval castle has that. The only time traps were used in real life were in gruella warfare and seeing how they're exploring ruins and dungeons, traps shouldn't exist.

Should I just remove all traps?

Real Life they say huh? How many real life people do you know that can cast spells? I say leave the traps in. They're tripped out spell-casters they can deal with it.

ryu

2015-10-28, 04:02 PM

Real Life they say huh? How many real life people do you know that can cast spells? I say leave the traps in. They're tripped out spell-casters they can deal with it.

Not every spellcaster is optimized. There best solution to traps is summon monster 1 and they apparently aren't even bothering with a wand of it despite how cheap that is and much it would expedite workflow.

Beheld

2015-10-28, 04:07 PM

Not every spellcaster is optimized. There best solution to traps is summon monster 1 and they apparently aren't even bothering with a wand of it despite how cheap that is and much it would expedite workflow.

It really isn't worth spending gold like that on a wand for a badger. I would rather risk occasionally triggering a trap than guaranteeing that my enemies always know I am coming and have time to set up an ambush.

ryu

2015-10-28, 04:10 PM

It really isn't worth spending gold like that on a wand for a badger. I would rather risk occasionally triggering a trap than guaranteeing that my enemies always know I am coming and have time to set up an ambush.

In comparison to what they're doing it's still superior. Large number of castings of a low level spell you don't want to prepare for low cost is what wands are literally for. I'm pretty sure even the inept game designers of the core system fully understood and intended that.

Beheld

2015-10-28, 05:27 PM

In comparison to what they're doing it's still superior. Large number of castings of a low level spell you don't want to prepare for low cost is what wands are literally for. I'm pretty sure even the inept game designers of the core system fully understood and intended that.

I don't think two round badgers are what they actually want or are using. I'm not sure what level they are, but if they are low level, that is a lot of money, and if they are high level, then they can set 8 level 1 slots on fire for 80 rounds per day of badger, which makes spending a permanent loss in character wealth for 100 seem pretty silly.

ryu

2015-10-28, 05:43 PM

I don't think two round badgers are what they actually want or are using. I'm not sure what level they are, but if they are low level, that is a lot of money, and if they are high level, then they can set 8 level 1 slots on fire for 80 rounds per day of badger, which makes spending a permanent loss in character wealth for 100 seem pretty silly.

It's no permanent loss. The random treasure generator actually gives more than is necessary to reach wealth by level specifically to account for consumable items. Second by that the level you're thinking of obtaining a wand of that sort is piddly expense regardless of how you go about it.

Beheld

2015-10-28, 06:34 PM

It's no permanent loss. The random treasure generator actually gives more than is necessary to reach wealth by level specifically to account for consumable items. Second by that the level you're thinking of obtaining a wand of that sort is piddly expense regardless of how you go about it.

1) Yes, you get more treasure by drops than WBL, which is a great reason to spend that money on permanent items or even useful ones instead of bad consumables in order to have more power than your level.

2) Well apparently people are thinking about getting the wand at level 1. By the level 10, when you might plausibly be able to call 1500gp piddly, each person could use two spell slots a day for the same effect as that entire wand.

Grod_The_Giant

2015-10-28, 06:50 PM

2) Well apparently people are thinking about getting the wand at level 1. By the level 10, when you might plausibly be able to call 1500gp piddly, each person could use two spell slots a day for the same effect as that entire wand.
You're correct in terms of total rounds, but that's not the main limiting factor here. Every time the badger hits a trap, it (almost certainly) dies. It's more like one casting per trap.

Beheld

2015-10-28, 07:19 PM

You're correct in terms of total rounds, but that's not the main limiting factor here. Every time the badger hits a trap, it (almost certainly) dies. It's more like one casting per trap.

You must have a lot more random hall traps than any game I've seen. Because for me rounds is definitely the limiting factor, since there are 7200 of them in an adventuring day, and probably not that many pointless hallway traps.

Of course, all this is pointless, because if you actually care enough to spend 1500gp, you should just take the summon elemental reserve feat.

ryu

2015-10-28, 08:01 PM

You must have a lot more random hall traps than any game I've seen. Because for me rounds is definitely the limiting factor, since there are 7200 of them in an adventuring day, and probably not that many pointless hallway traps.

Of course, all this is pointless, because if you actually care enough to spend 1500gp, you should just take the summon elemental reserve feat.

Feats are worth far FAR more than 1500 GP a pop. Literally the cheapest way of buying a feat slot without limited quantity or limitation after the act of purchase is 3000 GP and that requires you have access to wizard casting up to eighth level spells, and neutrally aligned during the acquisition. Also that's still a drastic undervaluing of feat slots.

Der_DWSage

2015-10-28, 08:36 PM

Why in the world would you prepare those spells? The party pitches in cash for a wand of CL2 SMI (1500gp) which is good for 100 rounds of suicidal badgers rocketing down the hallway at full throttle.

Honest question:Why a wand of SMI of caster level 2, when you can get two wands of Mount for the same price? (Especially when the Mount is more likely to set off traps)

ryu

2015-10-28, 08:41 PM

Honest question:Why a wand of SMI of caster level 2, when you can get two wands of Mount for the same price? (Especially when the Mount is more likely to set off traps)

Because we are arguing the immediate first logical step the party would likely come upon given time to think about it rather than one further down the list? One must learn to crawl before they walk, and walk before they run after all.

Beheld

2015-10-29, 12:32 AM

Feats are worth far FAR more than 1500 GP a pop. Literally the cheapest way of buying a feat slot without limited quantity or limitation after the act of purchase is 3000 GP and that requires you have access to wizard casting up to eighth level spells, and neutrally aligned during the acquisition. Also that's still a drastic undervaluing of feat slots.

You aren't buying a feat for 1500gp, you are buying less than a days worth of exploration.

As compared to the feat, which gives you infinite exploration for every day for the rest of your campaign, and let's you do it with earth elementals gliding under the ground so that you don't have to alert every single enemy in the entire complex that you would like them to please come ambush you.

ryu

2015-10-29, 08:52 AM

You aren't buying a feat for 1500gp, you are buying less than a days worth of exploration.

As compared to the feat, which gives you infinite exploration for every day for the rest of your campaign, and let's you do it with earth elementals gliding under the ground so that you don't have to alert every single enemy in the entire complex that you would like them to please come ambush you.

Less than a day? Really? You're that slow to walk around a dungeon? That will actually last through multiple levels of use to the point where you have obviously superior solutions to this problem. Four equal CR encounters a day with roughly 13 or so of those equaling a level.

Flickerdart

2015-10-29, 09:45 AM

Honest question:Why a wand of SMI of caster level 2, when you can get two wands of Mount for the same price? (Especially when the Mount is more likely to set off traps)
Celestial/fiendish animals speak a language and have some intelligence (so you can order them around and request complex tasks), whereas without Handle Animal ranks, you're not going to be able to get the horse to do anything at all.

Beheld

2015-10-29, 10:08 AM

Less than a day? Really? You're that slow to walk around a dungeon? That will actually last through multiple levels of use to the point where you have obviously superior solutions to this problem. Four equal CR encounters a day with roughly 13 or so of those equaling a level.

Dungeons are not small and packed to the brim with encounters and traps. If you summon a badger, then it runs for two rounds, then you have cleared an extremely small section of a dungeon, and probably encountered zero traps and zero encounters. Then you face the next hallway where you have not looked for traps. What happens then? Do you just walk down a hallway that you haven't checked? Great, then why have the wand at all? Or do you use another charge, and another, and another, if there is 15 minutes of walking before the first encounter, then that is 4500ft, or, assuming your badger is capable of running at all times, 37 and a half rounds of badger use. And that might just be before the first encounter, some group of demons who wait in ambush since they just saw a celestial badger careening down the hallway.

And while not all maps look like: http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/mapofweek/June2007/03_June2007_72_3dhe_ppi.jpg even a relatively small map, that might feature only a single encounter such as this: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mapofweek/Dungeon4_76hs_150.jpg still requires seven rounds worth of badger just to charge down hallways alerting any enemies, without even considering if doors or rooms are trapped. You would need to use up at least another 10 charges to check those rooms for traps, to say nothing of how not thorough you would be searching the main chapel area.

Flickerdart

2015-10-29, 10:22 AM

Dungeons are not small and packed to the brim with encounters and traps.
No. No, no, no. This is wrong both from a metagame and in-universe standpoint.

From the metagame standpoint, an adventuring day is 4 encounters. Anything "chock full" of encounters will result in the adventuring day being over after walking about 90 feet.

From the in-universe standpoint, dungeons are not apartment buildings. There's not a monster in every room. No ecosystem works that way, and if the dungeon is manned by a garrison of defenders, why are they engaging the PCs as encounters and not mounting a proper defense?

ryu

2015-10-29, 10:44 AM

Dungeons are not small and packed to the brim with encounters and traps. If you summon a badger, then it runs for two rounds, then you have cleared an extremely small section of a dungeon, and probably encountered zero traps and zero encounters. Then you face the next hallway where you have not looked for traps. What happens then? Do you just walk down a hallway that you haven't checked? Great, then why have the wand at all? Or do you use another charge, and another, and another, if there is 15 minutes of walking before the first encounter, then that is 4500ft, or, assuming your badger is capable of running at all times, 37 and a half rounds of badger use. And that might just be before the first encounter, some group of demons who wait in ambush since they just saw a celestial badger careening down the hallway.

And while not all maps look like: http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/images/mapofweek/June2007/03_June2007_72_3dhe_ppi.jpg even a relatively small map, that might feature only a single encounter such as this: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/mapofweek/Dungeon4_76hs_150.jpg still requires seven rounds worth of badger just to charge down hallways alerting any enemies, without even considering if doors or rooms are trapped. You would need to use up at least another 10 charges to check those rooms for traps, to say nothing of how not thorough you would be searching the main chapel area.

In addition to flicker's points. Dungeons built by a competent person are small. Do you know why? Larger areas with large amounts of space to hide effectively are perfect for any of several methods to hide while resting. If you can't reliably search the entirety of your territory with efficiency and thorough care you get wizards with rope trick laughing in your face. This is before we even get into the gross waste of space shown on both of those maps making the areas themselves impractical as well as harder to defend properly.

Beheld

2015-10-29, 11:02 AM

No. No, no, no. This is wrong both from a metagame and in-universe standpoint.

From the metagame standpoint, an adventuring day is 4 encounters. Anything "chock full" of encounters will result in the adventuring day being over after walking about 90 feet.

From the in-universe standpoint, dungeons are not apartment buildings. There's not a monster in every room. No ecosystem works that way, and if the dungeon is manned by a garrison of defenders, why are they engaging the PCs as encounters and not mounting a proper defense?

Perhaps you missed the key word "not"?

I don't disagree that there will be many empty rooms, in fact I specifically gave as an example a temple complex with 13 rooms, and said that it might have only a single encounter in it. My entire point is that large areas of empty spaces in dungeons mean that you will blow through a wand of Summon Monster I very fast, possibly even in a single day inside a large complex, but more likely over the course of a couple days in smaller complexes.

I've never been so violently and confrontationally agreed with before.

In addition to flicker's points. Dungeons built by a competent person are small. Do you know why? Larger areas with large amounts of space to hide effectively are perfect for any of several methods to hide while resting. If you can't reliably search the entirety of your territory with efficiency and thorough care you get wizards with rope trick laughing in your face. This is before we even get into the gross waste of space shown on both of those maps making the areas themselves impractical as well as harder to defend properly.

Aside from the fact that you are arguing the exact opposite of what Flicker was, I would question why worrying about someone resting in some location inside your dungeon is more important than using the location for whatever you actually want to use it for. Even if you are one Cleric of Vecna with 5 minor cultists, I'm not going to complain that it takes me a long time to search my 13 room temple when compared with the fact that most of the time I want to use the temple for something, and have it be comfortable for that use.

Flickerdart

2015-10-29, 11:03 AM

Perhaps you missed the key word "not"?

I don't disagree that there will be many empty rooms, in fact I specifically gave as an example a temple complex with 13 rooms, and said that it might have only a single encounter in it. My entire point is that large areas of empty spaces in dungeons mean that you will blow through a wand of Summon Monster I very fast, possibly even in a single day inside a large complex, but more likely over the course of a couple days in smaller complexes.

I've never been so violently and confrontationally agreed with before.
Anybody searching for traps outside of key points is wasting their time, as is anybody planting traps there.

Beheld

2015-10-29, 11:09 AM

Anybody searching for traps outside of key points is wasting their time, as is anybody planting traps there.

So... you just blithely walk down all the halls in the example chapel complex, blithely examine all the rooms with no concern for traps, but then... use a wand of summon monster I to summon a badger to scout out the chapel while being attacked by the cultists?

I already linked to an treatise on how traps should actually be designed and placed in dungeons, and unsurprisingly it described a state of affairs that would not be improved by sending badgers running down hallways, but if your contention is they should just wander around never searching for traps at all I'm not sure why spending real character wealth on a wand is an improvement.

ryu

2015-10-29, 11:10 AM

Aside from the fact that you are arguing the exact opposite of what Flicker was, I would question why worrying about someone resting in some location inside your dungeon is more important than using the location for whatever you actually want to use it for. Even if you are one Cleric of Vecna with 5 minor cultists, I'm not going to complain that it takes me a long time to search my 13 room temple when compared with the fact that most of the time I want to use the temple for something, and have it be comfortable for that use.

There's either a genuine desire to see the place effectively defended from standard dangers or there isn't. By all means offer the groups of adventurers who want to raid your structure, kill everything inside, and take anything valuable an easier time of it. There's comfort and there's continuing to be alive. The latter is the primary concern when constructing anything likely to be stormed by adventurers.

Beheld

2015-10-29, 11:19 AM

There's either a genuine desire to see the place effectively defended from standard dangers or there isn't. By all means offer the groups of adventurers who want to raid your structure, kill everything inside, and take anything valuable an easier time of it. There's comfort and there's continuing to be alive. The latter is the primary concern when constructing anything likely to be stormed by adventurers.

So you are saying the only appropriate dungeon is all the enemies in a single room waiting to murder anyone who walks in the door? Because after all separating yourself any amount at all such as into 4 encounters spaced out will result in your death. So better to spend every second of the next 5 years inside your secret base in the same room with everyone else in waiting for the inevitable invasion right?

TheCrowing1432

2015-10-29, 11:27 AM

I like basic traps like something like a bucket filled with caltrops perched on top of a door, the pc's open the door and the caltrops fall down and now they have to deal with that.

Not the mighty feats of engineering that require chains, counterweights, clockwork gears and so on that apparently f***ing kobolds are supposed to be building everywhere.

Flickerdart

2015-10-29, 11:34 AM

Beheld

2015-10-29, 12:03 PM

I'm honestly not sure how you got this out of anything I said, and if this is going to be your attitude in this conversation going forward, then I see no benefit to continuing it.

You specifically state that you just don't look for traps outside of "key areas" at which point, I wonder why you think a wand of Summon Monster I is even remotely worth defending as a trapfinding tool.

ryu

2015-10-29, 12:17 PM

So you are saying the only appropriate dungeon is all the enemies in a single room waiting to murder anyone who walks in the door? Because after all separating yourself any amount at all such as into 4 encounters spaced out will result in your death. So better to spend every second of the next 5 years inside your secret base in the same room with everyone else in waiting for the inevitable invasion right?

If I'm constructing something with intention to defend against a moderately low level party that is exactly the kind of murderhole an optimizer would make. Of course there are concessions such as beings with sleep schedules and rotations to mitigate that weakness, and similar things for smaller issues like the bathroom and eating. These are concessions to necessity rather than ideal design situations incidentally. This is why I said small rather than single well defended room. Size is a weakness, and an expense. Why willingly open yourself to such at low level? At high level invaders are unlikely to need rest and recovery, but more locations with landmarks in your dungeon to teleport to and more area to guard is still a real consideration.

Curmudgeon

2015-10-29, 12:28 PM

Anybody searching for traps outside of key points is wasting their time, as is anybody planting traps there.
How are the PCs supposed to know what the "key points" are until afterward?

Also, the ideal place for a trap doesn't have to be a "key point". For example, it could be in a tunnel between two such locations, taking advantage of a natural sinkhole to create a pit trap.

Flickerdart

2015-10-29, 01:34 PM

How are the PCs supposed to know what the "key points" are until afterward?

Also, the ideal place for a trap doesn't have to be a "key point". For example, it could be in a tunnel between two such locations, taking advantage of a natural sinkhole to create a pit trap.

A chokepoint between important areas is an excellent example of a key point where you'd want traps and/or guards.

atemu1234

2015-10-29, 02:11 PM

[snippity snap]

This amused me to no end. I applaud you.

I'm sort of surprised with how much I see GITP complaining about overbearing DMs at the number of people nodding in agreement when someone says "No one wants to play a rogue? WELL THEN THEY DESERVE TO DIE."

I mean if I threw a shadow at a group of low level fighters and rogues and then told them all they should have been wizards when they died I'm pretty sure you'd all call me a terrible DM.

This. Why the hell is this the player's fault? As a DM, you do need to build the encounter to suit the party. Now, granted, traps can be fun, but if the party isn't having fun, at least cut down the number of traps severely.

You know, you guys are both correct. Finding the balance is the hard part.

Always. Everyone needs to have fun. That doesn't mean you should have yours at the expense of others'.

As a player, you want to use your build. It's your fantasy too. But the challenge is to overcome novel challenges, some of which target your weaknesses.

I agree with this too.

As a DM, it's your world, it's your systems, and you are an arbiter of communal fantasy space. This requires that all parties compromise, including players.

Again, agreeing.

As a DM, you have to be both firm and pliable in equal measure. Find the preferred style of play for the entire group, lock in, and you are the only game entity that can do the heavy lifting in this regard. Players can help tremendously, but overall, it's on you.

I don't think I agree with this 'on you' mentality. The DM is only responsible for your enjoyment to a reasonable degree. Don't like it, you can usually form your own group. There's a limit to this. Case in point - if you don't like my storytelling elements, if they're too dark for you at times, then I will try and cut down on it. But I can't promise to eliminate it.

As a DM
If the campaign stinks, it's your fault.
If a player is out of line and you don't address it, it's your fault.
If you over employ favorite schticks, It's your fault.
If you don't challenge the PCs enough, it's your fault.

I disagree with the first two. The campaign can be messed up by players, and then it's the players' job to fix it, with your help. Especially if someone is disruptive to gameplay - it's the group's decision to kick them out, not the DM's. I am not the de facto leader of a dictatorship. The game is for everyone. The group is important to these decisions.

So, it is abundantly obvious that this is a middle of the road type situation. PCs should have to find a way to cover their shortcomings. That is expected. Equally, DM shouldn't try to overexploit PC weaknesses. Conversely, PCs have a right to request a game that fits what they imagine. Equally, the DM needs to put challenges in the way of success, so that there is a genuine sense of accomplishment.

Overexploiting a weakness is a bad thing, but pointing it out is good. Case in point, I once threw two rogues in the shadows at one of my players. I optimized their sneak attack, and they managed to deal more than one hundred damage within a surprise round and the start of the next round. He shouldn't have been leading the group if he wasn't prepared to soak damage; he stormed off at first, but then came back and agreed with me. They had a bad habit of running into rooms without there being traps or hidden enemies.

Later he wound up abandoning that character (Sorcadin, build I designed, because I help my Players optimize their characters), and playing an StP Erudite. In a party with a couple theurges, who he convinced to take a couple dragon magazine feats... he's been unwittingly playing the most powerful character at the table for a few sessions now, with access to the entirety of the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard spell lists. It's been fun. Sorry, tangent.

Great, just as well Grod said "Everyone" then.

If characters aren't having fun wading through tons of traps, then find something else for them to do that's fun for you and them.

This. So much this. The DM shouldn't have fun at the expense of everyone else. If you only play to be a jerk to your players, you don't deserve to have players.

Deophaun

2015-10-29, 02:33 PM

A chokepoint between important areas is an excellent example of a key point where you'd want traps and/or guards.
The problem is, the PCs don't know they're between important areas until after the fact, and every corridor is a choke point.

Jack_Simth

2015-10-29, 05:03 PM

So... you just blithely walk down all the halls in the example chapel complex, blithely examine all the rooms with no concern for traps, but then... use a wand of summon monster I to summon a badger to scout out the chapel while being attacked by the cultists?In my case, it would depend on the chapel complex. In a complex where you're regularly expecting people walking through (such as, say, a known chapel inside a city, where there will regularly be nonevil people walking in to hire spellcasting services)? Traps to the main areas (which will usually include everything from the main entry to the main chapel room, plus offices and such) would be illogical - they'll kill customers, which means customers will stop coming. A hidden chapel or secured/hidden areas in a known chapel? I'm going to be expecting traps based on Detect [Alignment], Symbol spells, (Un)Hallow, Forbiddance, and other effects that natively sort between the wanted and unwanted guests, or traps to which the wanted guests are immune (negative energy based traps in a temple where the worshippers are all expected to be undead, fire traps in a Fire Giant's temple, cold traps in an Ice Giant's temple, et cetera).

Trap placement should be based on expected denizens and use for the area.
The problem is, the PCs don't know they're between important areas until after the fact, and every corridor is a choke point.In some instances, you'll logically be able to obtain maps before ever going into the area with a little bit of prep work (catch and interrogate a cultist, customer, one of the original laborers that built the place, et cetera), but in general, this is going to be correct.