Standard trap DC of 15 is a moot point in my campaign...

[Vectros]

I'm looking to use traps a bit more to spice things up.

Looking at the DMG, 15 seems to be the standard for spotting a trap.

I have a Rogue with a passive perception of 17, so any standard hidden trap will be spotted without the party even trying, assuming they stay together. I could raise the DC to 20, but then I feel as though I'm being artificial about the difficulty; I'm countering the strength a player is supposed to have. But it feels as though my only other option is to...not do traps.

Is it wrong of me to set DC 20 for traps due to the Rogue's high perception? Or should I throw in traps DC 15 that I know won't get triggered (likely the local monsters are aware of the traps and won't trip them either if in combat).

[Boci]

Does the rogue have darkvision? Disadvantage lowers your PP by 5, and even with dark vision the rogue will have disadvantage on perception checks in darkness. They can counter this by carrying a light source, but that has other issues.

[Mikal]

Spotting a trap is only the first step.
You also have to figure out how it works, which can be either investigation and/arcana, followed by the thieves tool to disarm it.

Any of the last three can have a chance for failure. If all four skills are expertised and maximized, then the player obviously wants to be a master trap breaker.

So let them be one. They spent the resources on it, so let them spot most basic/regular traps. You can always have a few that are higher DC- where appropriate based on location and who set it and why.

But as basic traps are DC 15 (or less!) to spot, well... let them.

EDIT: also, some traps may not be able to be passively found. Only active searching (and skill check) are required to find them.

Mix it up, but let the player feel accomplished for having a good passive perception. They SHOULD be able to see things like this.

[MaxWilson]

I'm looking to use traps a bit more to spice things up.

Looking at the DMG, 15 seems to be the standard for spotting a trap.

I have a Rogue with a passive perception of 17, so any standard hidden trap will be spotted without the party even trying, assuming they stay together. I could raise the DC to 20, but then I feel as though I'm being artificial about the difficulty; I'm countering the strength a player is supposed to have. But it feels as though my only other option is to...not do traps.

Is it wrong of me to set DC 20 for traps due to the Rogue's high perception? Or should I throw in traps DC 15 that I know won't get triggered (likely the local monsters are aware of the traps and won't trip them either if in combat).

Traps have a perception component and a deduction component.

Perception: "Huh. There aren't any footprints on that brick."
Deduction: "Therefore, a poison arrow probably comes out of that hole when you step there."

There's nothing wrong with automatically giving the rogue the Perception component, and leaving the deduction up to the player. If he or she has a sufficiently high Investigation skill you can give them the deduction component too. "You enter the hall and immediately notice signs of a blowgun trap in front of one of the doors in the hall."

Even then, traps still aren't pointless because they are still dungeon features, e.g. the Rogue can potentially turn traps to his advantage by taunting monsters into them. Also, there will be some traps that can't be easily bypassed even if you know they are there (e.g. Glyph of Warding), and in those cases there's still a decision to make about whether or not to risk the trap in exchange for potential reward.

P.S. Additionally, I rather think passive Perception/Investigation is a bad match for traps because they do tend to make things static and boring: there shouldn't be THAT much difference between Perception 14 and Perception 15. Therefore I would recommend also allowing active Perception and Investigation rolls for anyone who is actively searching for signs of traps in a particular place, and if they ask for the specific thing ("are there any bricks without footprints?") I would give that fact to the player automatically without a roll.

In other words, the rather high DC 15 is just to notice signs of a trap automatically, without effort, as something you're always doing in the back of your brain. This justifies using even higher DCs for traps that are actually well-hidden and hard to spot even if you're looking for them, like noticing contact poison on a doorknob by the way it glistens (could easily be DC 25 = unnoticeable to a normal person without special training who isn't looking specifically for it).

[LudicSavant]

Is it wrong of me to set DC 20 for traps due to the Rogue's high perception?

I would definitely consider it a bad move to just arbitrarily inflate DCs when your PCs invest in skills, yes. The game doesn't break down if someone has a moderate Passive Perception. Like MaxWilson said, traps are more than just a Perception check.

[Dime]

You can always have a few that are higher DC- where appropriate based on location and who set it and why.
This sounds like a promising way to go. Plus, if you increase the difficulty then increase the reward.

[CapnWildefyr]

The previous posts have pretty much nailed it. However, you didn't say what levels. If you are talking high level characters then its fine, depending on whether the characters are facing tougher encounters and tougher foes, to be more devious. Dont just make "standard traps" harder to spot as-is. For example, the same trip wire is now Dc20. Have it be made out of phase spider silk so its invisible on the Prime. Put the super sneaky pressure plate on the far side of the Dc10 tripwire. But as the others have said, don't make it miserable just because the player has good stats and skills, not even the most devious trap makers have the time or money to lay a lot of special traps. The player should still gain benefits from good stats.

[Vectros]

Thanks everyone for the insight. I had previously thought detecting=knowing what it is...but knowing I can tell them something seems amiss and making them slow down will add more depth.

And for reference for those who asked, they are level 7.

[Lupine]

In my party, there’s a rogue with a 20 passive perception. The problem with inflating DCs is that makes it almost impossible for other PCs to participate in disarming or avoiding traps.

So, I do traps by allowing the perception to see things (“you see a hairline crack running along the floor” or “you see a small release mechanism on that chest”)

Then, others may make the perception check to see the thing, with advantage. For the trigger, it’s a medium DC. For the hairline crack, much higher. If they fail, they don’t get to see that thing (similar to how you can have someone point something out to you, but still not see it)

Then, I put out red herrings. Single stone raised higher? It could be a trap, but it could also be lazy workmanship. Small crack in the floor? Could be a trapdoor, yes, but this dungeon is very old and it could instead be just a crack.

See what I’m getting at? You throw these red herrings, and the player gets to think about whether its a trap or not. Eventually, they get careless. But you don’t stop. They start ignoring those clues. Then they get hit by the trap, and kick themselves for not paying attention. Then the cycle starts again.

So, you ask, if all perception means is that you notice abnormal things, how do players determine traps from the mundane?
Well, my friend, let me introduce you to your new friend, investigation. That wonderful, intelligence based skills. Now, more players get involved.

Cleric: Fighter, that hammer has a tiny string leading from it into the wall.
Fighter: Hmm. Good eyes. A trap, do you think? Wizard, what does
Wizard: I think that this is a trap. The string appears to lead to some mechanism. Its a complex thing that Sends a signal that—
Fighter: yes, yes, yes. It is a trap. Thank you, wizard. Rogue, do you think you can disarm the trap? I really want that hammer
Rogue: ...*sigh* I suppose I can put my life on the line for you, and give it a try.
Fighter: Oh don’t you worry! I’ll protect you from the trap.
Rogue: Fine. Let’s see what I can do.
Sound like more fun than cleric identifying the trap immediately, no?
Plus, it makes traps more risky. Instead of one perception check, to avoid something, it takes a perception and an investigation check. Every strange nonconformity becomes a risk.

It won’t fit every table, but it sure works in mine.

[Sorinth]

Basic traps should be left at DC 15 to spot, artificially putting it to 20 is simply punishing the Rogue for the character choices he made. For traps that aren't basic, where money and expertise was used to create the trap then it might makes sense to increase the DC.

So goblin's putting a trap in their lair, leave at 15. The traps protecting the crown jewels yeah the DC can be higher. But as other's have said detecting the trap is only 1 part of a 2 or three step process, and to be perfectly honest some traps can't be disarmed safely, you just have to trigger the trap from a safe distance away. And some traps when triggered could create a noise/alarm and bring their own set of problems.

[MaxWilson]

Also, some secret devices are traps, and others are secret doors leading to extra treasure. It takes deduction (Investigation or genuine deduction) to figure out which is which, and players which rely entirely on Perception to avoid everything fishy should miss out on some of the cool bonus loot (or shortcuts, or lore secrets) in the dungeons.

[OldTrees1]

1) Reward the observant Rogue. Keep the DC15 traps but skip the perception check. Just tell them about the trap they noticed. Then treat it as a puzzle instead of a monster. The party can logic out how to handle or even utilize the trap. There might even be cool moments when the party intentionally triggers a trap in combat rather than doing boring things.

2) Different traps have different perception DCs. Some might be DC 10, others DC 20. This can lead to a situation where:
A goblin tribe is camping inside the throne room of a dungeon.
DC15: After some casualties they have learned the blacked tiles in front of the throne cause burning hands to scorch the approach.
DC10: The goblins decided to rig up some rope snares at the entrance to the room.
DC20: In addition the throne itself is covering a secret passage if you know what to look for. But beware because uncovering the passage will trigger a cloudkill.

[Lunali]

Use passive perception when the party goes slowly to allow time to search, have them roll when they aren't actively searching.

Alternately, roll the DC of the trap as a skill check with a +4-5.

[Keravath]

Just for reference ...
A level 3 character - variant human - 1 rogue/2 warlock with the observant feat can have a passive perception or investigation as high as 22.

14 int and or 14 wis + expertise + observant gives 21 in both passive perception and investigation. Taking devils sight as an invocation lets them see perfectly in the dark and avoid disadvantage on checks without light.

To the OP, you don't want to arbitrarily increase DCs. A rogue focused in this area WILL be able to find and figure out almost any trap as they should since they are building a particular aspect of their character around it.

[Sigreid]

A previous poster had the right of it. Just increase the DC for some traps where it's logical. In addition to that you can design traps that can't just be negated with thieves tools and make the real challenge what you do when you know it is there.

[stoutstien]

I've always felt that good traps are easy to spot but harder to circumvent. The better traps are encounters. Think temple slowly filling with sand or snakes. The best traps are something the party can interact with multiple times and are combined with other elements. Runes that unleash Necrotic energy when stepped on that damage the party and some of the NPCs but heal other or the classic gelantinous cube the party can direct by providing a path of least resistance.

[Lupine]

I've always felt that good traps are easy to spot but harder to circumvent.

Totally this. Especially with simple traps. There's an angrygm article on traps, and how if they are just the DM saying "Nope, you take ____ amount of damage, and can't do anything about it," then they are the DM "cheating."

I don't know if I fully subscribe to that belief, but traps should at least be something the players have a chance to avoid, or problem solve around.

Take for example, the classic trap-door pitfall. Party spots it, but don't have a way to fly over. Now the players have to make some choices. Is there a ledge? Could we throw our dwarf over the pit and set up a rope bridge? etc.

Traps are only fun when the party is forced to decide how to circumvent them. Then, if they fail and take damage, they laugh, and have a story of how they rolled a one, and just hurled the dwarf directly onto the trapdoor.

Overall, what I am saying is that traps should be fun in a way not too different from combat, not just "oh the DM decided he needed to reduce our HP pools before the next fight."

[DrKerosene]

I would definitely consider it a bad move to just arbitrarily inflate DCs when your PCs invest in skills, yes. The game doesn't break down if someone has a moderate Passive Perception. Like MaxWilson said, traps are more than just a Perception check.

I believe there is precedence in an adventure or two of having a +5 difference to the DC for Passive Perception and active Perception.



Sometimes some Players invest in a skill to trivialize a part of the game they don’t enjoy, so skipping over traps might be what they want. Others invest in skills because they want to shine in that area and would like more of that thing.



Personally, just telling the Perceptive PC everything they see should be fine, I’ve not had any issues with that method as a DM. I just tell the other Players what their PCs should be ignorant of, unless the Perceptive PC specifically shares their knowledge.

Include some secondary traps that have higher DCs, and some traps with delayed timer based components, and/or traps that trigger something in a different area. That should be fine.

[Segev]

Does the DMG actually have a rule in it saying all traps are DC 15 to spot? :smallconfused:

[greenstone]

I have a Rogue with a passive perception of 17, so any standard hidden trap will be spotted …
This is not true, which I think is where you are getting tripped up.

A successful WIS (Perception) ability check does not spot traps; it only spots symptoms.

A WIS check doesn't tell you, "A trap is ahead"; it only tells you "one of the flagstones is a different colour to the others" or "there are scrapes in a circular pattern on the floor" or "there are regularly spaced holes in the wall that aren't filled with cobwebs."

The players now have to do some thinking and investigation (the rogue's player didn't dump INT, did they…) to find the actual trap and its operation, and then to avoid it.

This might be as simple as, "don't step on that flagstone." or it might be complicated.

[MaxWilson]

This is not true, which I think is where you are getting tripped up.

A successful WIS (Perception) ability check does not spot traps; it only spots symptoms.

A WIS check doesn't tell you, "A trap is ahead"; it only tells you "one of the flagstones is a different colour to the others" or "there are scrapes in a circular pattern on the floor" or "there are regularly spaced holes in the wall that aren't filled with cobwebs."

The players now have to do some thinking and investigation (the rogue's player didn't dump INT, did they…) to find the actual trap and its operation, and then to avoid it.

This might be as simple as, "don't step on that flagstone." or it might be complicated.

To be fair, WotC-authored traps are usually *terrible* and don't tell you any of this stuff like what the PC sees. It's something you have to learn from other DMs, blogs, or old TSR books, not from WotC books.

[Mr Adventurer]

This is not true, which I think is where you are getting tripped up.

A successful WIS (Perception) ability check does not spot traps; it only spots symptoms.

A WIS check doesn't tell you, "A trap is ahead"; it only tells you "one of the flagstones is a different colour to the others" or "there are scrapes in a circular pattern on the floor" or "there are regularly spaced holes in the wall that aren't filled with cobwebs."

The players now have to do some thinking and investigation (the rogue's player didn't dump INT, did they…) to find the actual trap and its operation, and then to avoid it.

This might be as simple as, "don't step on that flagstone." or it might be complicated.

I need to learn about this. Is this spelled out in the DMG?

[DarknessEternal]

If all four skills are expertised and maximized, then the player obviously wants to be a master trap breaker.

So let them be one. They spent the resources on it, so let them spot most basic/regular traps. You can always have a few that are higher DC- where appropriate based on location and who set it and why.

But as basic traps are DC 15 (or less!) to spot, well... let them.
.

This guy has all the answers.

It's not your job to fight against the players. It's your job to facilitate fun.

[LudicSavant]

I need to learn about this. Is this spelled out in the DMG?

Yes, it is spelled out in the DMG (as are a lot of the skill rules).

A lot of people have it in their heads from older editions that skill rules are supposed to be in the PHB and that the DMG is mostly just about flavor and table management and stuff, so they think they can just skip reading it. But in 5e, a lot of important rules are in there, like "Any character can attempt an Intelligence (Arcana) check to detect or disarm a magic trap."

[Contrast]

I find its also worth honestly thinking before throwing traps in anyway.

Who really traps their own home? Would a trap really be designed to try and kill someone or would it be set to make a noise or slow someone down?

My experience has been that most traps in D&D make absolutely no sense when you think about them and the ones that make more sense are generally of the sort that just noticing they are there will not resolve them.

[Maelynn]

I had a similar situation when I designed a Kobold gauntlet for a lvl 5 party and had to consider the Investigator Rogue with a PP of 17. I eventually went with a mix of various difficulties.

One example: a door ahead is barred with a large wooden beam. It seems that lifting the beam will allow the door to be opened on your side. Of course, it's strange to encounter a door that is barred from your side and not the other, but it seems okay. However. The beam is hollowed out and holds a diseased rat - by placing the beam in the holders, the open end is closed off by the door. When one of the characters lifted the beam, they didn't realise the rat's presence until it jumped out of the hollow and bit the one holding the beam. CON check please, thank you, didn't tell him about the Sewer Plague he contracted until the symptoms started showing.

Another: a classic trap, where a valuable item is a pressure weight. There's an inconspicuous bowl holding a large and heavy-looking gem. If the gem is removed, it reveals a tiny pressure plate that was hidden underneath it and which now triggered a trap. Which doesn't necessarily have to be a huge rolling boulder. But it could.

A last one: I had one of the Kobolds toss a vial at the party, which shattered at their feet*. Nothing happened, but I did ask for a CON check. That's it? Yup. Party moved on. Well, except that the vial contained an odourless delusional gas, and after about a minute those who failed the check started noticing weird things (a monster charging them, their skin growing scales, being covered in tiny spiders, etc). It was hilarious when the one seeing the monster got ready to attack, one of the others asking me if they had to roll initiative and I replied with a 'what for? you see no threat'.
* even better and sneakier would be to just have one corridor filled with the gas, but I wanted to give the Kobolds in my gauntlet a more active role

And of course, it would be an ideal place for a door mimic...

Also, very important and partly covered here: knowing a trap is there doesn't mean you successfully avoided it! You can play with a field of pressure plates and require the party to succesfully hop-skip-jump over them. You can have an obvious wall-to-wall spike pit with a small ledge on one side, but the wall on that side is riddled with suspicious looking holes. Poison darts? Probably.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm looking to use traps a bit more to spice things up.

Looking at the DMG, 15 seems to be the standard for spotting a trap.

I have a Rogue with a passive perception of 17, so any standard hidden trap will be spotted without the party even trying, assuming they stay together. I could raise the DC to 20, but then I feel as though I'm being artificial about the difficulty; I'm countering the strength a player is supposed to have. But it feels as though my only other option is to...not do traps.

Is it wrong of me to set DC 20 for traps due to the Rogue's high perception? Or should I throw in traps DC 15 that I know won't get triggered (likely the local monsters are aware of the traps and won't trip them either if in combat).
Suggestion: make it an Investigation check for some of the, rather than a Perception check. Problem half solved.
Also, Bocci made a good point about disadvantage in dim light or darkness, a point often forgetten.
And:

I've always felt that good traps are easy to spot but harder to circumvent. The better traps are encounters. Think temple slowly filling with sand or snakes. The best traps are something the party can interact with multiple times and are combined with other elements. Runes that unleash Necrotic energy when stepped on that damage the party and some of the NPCs but heal other or the classic gelantinous cube the party can direct by providing a path of least resistance. This also.

You find a trap, but how tough is it to disarm? Can it be disarmed? There's a first level adventure with some doors that need a DC 30 Athletics check to knock down (Sunless Citadel) but a key, or a knock spell, opens it with no problem.

[Lupine]

You find a trap, but how tough is it to disarm? Can it be disarmed? There's a first level adventure with some doors that need a DC 30 Athletics check to knock down (Sunless Citadel) but a key, or a knock spell, opens it with no problem.

That sounds really not fun for me. That is the adventure designers saying "NO. You MUST do this the way we want you to, or be a magical character willing to burn one of their few and magical resources for this."

D&D is about finding creative solutions to a problem, and the designers there have very clearly declined to allow such creative solutions. Bleh. Not for me.

[KorvinStarmast]

That sounds really not fun for me. That is the adventure designers saying "NO. You MUST do this the way we want you to, or be a magical character willing to burn one of their few and magical resources for this."

D&D is about finding creative solutions to a problem, and the designers there have very clearly declined to allow such creative solutions. Bleh. Not for me. We have a cleric and a bard in the party. The Barbarian has the feat Prodigy.(Human) Expertise in Athletics. (He is +7 at level 1, and they got to level two doing a precursor adventure). His possible rolls with both Bardic Inspiration and Guidance Range from +2 to +10, and his Expertise gives him +7. His d20 roll outcomes range from 10 to 37. He can do it. (I am the DM)

His first try, when they rolled, got a 28 total. They figured out that there's probably a key somewhere in the dungeon and they'll go find it (they are old hands at D&D) but he nearly broke it down. But if they find the scroll with knock that also will solve the problem.

So, three ways to solve that one, and there are four different paths into the dungeon. Also, the key can be had if you either work out a deal with the Kobold Queen, or, if you defeat the Kobold Queen and her clan of kobolds.

Not sure what your complaint is. Sunless Citadel is a pretty decent starter adventure.

[Tanarii]

Seeing possible signs of a trap (perception) or deducing that an innocuous seeming thing is a trap (investigation) is just the start of the fun.

I mean, for traps out of combat, players don't even need to rely on passive scores to detect signs of them. They can just take ten times as long to automatically succeed, as long as detecting them is possible. So designing traps to be "passive perception this high or gotcha" in non time sensitive situations is already pointless. I've found even with the threat of wandering monster checks based on time passing, players will still often choose to take this option once you point out it's a RAW option.

But once you find signs of a possible trap, they need to figure out how it is triggered and how it delivers the payload. Once they figure that out, they have to figure out how to disable it. Then they have to disable it.

And quite possibly they have to do all that while in combat or other time sensitive situation.

Now you can run that all as a series of checks. Then yeah, traps are kinda pointless. Anything is run that way. Or you can require the players tell you their intent and approach before determining if a check is needed. And if it needs mechanical resolution to determine outcomes and consequences.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Here’s how you can make traps deadlier without changing the traps.
You have the party dealing with traps at the same time they’re fighting foes.
The enemy in the back has good cover and the space between them and the party is littered with traps. This makes the traps much harder to deal with.
Unless the rogue spends all actions searching the field he won’t be able to find all the traps. And it’s easy to say disadvantage to looking for traps while you’re being shot at.

[Lupine]

Unless the rogue spends all actions searching the field he won’t be able to find all the traps. And it’s easy to say disadvantage to looking for traps while you’re being shot at.

With not offense meant, that sounds very... not fun. This player invested in being good at spotting things, so that he doesn't get caught by surprise. Making him have disadvantage doesn't make much sense at all. Why should he have disadvantage to spot things, when the monk doesn't have disadvantage on acrobatics, or the fighter with athletics?

One of the other posters here suggest dim light. To me, that's an acceptable choice, because the rogue could negate that environmental effect fairly easily, with a lantern, which forces him to make the choice between the additional stealth from a lightness entry, or a safe one.

[Lord Vukodlak]

With not offense meant, that sounds very... not fun. This player invested in being good at spotting things, so that he doesn't get caught by surprise. Making him have disadvantage doesn't make much sense at all. Why should he have disadvantage to spot things, when the monk doesn't have disadvantage on acrobatics, or the fighter with athletics?
He still gets to use the perception to avoid the ambush, he still has a better chance of spotting the traps then the rest of the party. Combat begins and the fighter charges forward in the direct path of the enemy whoops Pit Trap. Doesn't matter that the rogues PP is 17 or 30. He wasn't with the fighter when the fighter charged forward. And it seems to me that searching for traps while someone is shooting at you is kinda distracting, especially if you're trying to search the whole area instead of the immediate area you're going.
Usually you only find a trap moments before you walk into it.

[OldTrees1]

Here’s how you can make traps deadlier without changing the traps.
You have the party dealing with traps at the same time they’re fighting foes.
The enemy in the back has good cover and the space between them and the party is littered with traps. This makes the traps much harder to deal with.
Unless the rogue spends all actions searching the field he won’t be able to find all the traps. And it’s easy to say disadvantage to looking for traps while you’re being shot at.



With not offense meant, that sounds very... not fun. This player invested in being good at spotting things, so that he doesn't get caught by surprise. Making him have disadvantage doesn't make much sense at all. Why should he have disadvantage to spot things, when the monk doesn't have disadvantage on acrobatics, or the fighter with athletics?

One of the other posters here suggest dim light. To me, that's an acceptable choice, because the rogue could negate that environmental effect fairly easily, with a lantern, which forces him to make the choice between the additional stealth from a lightness entry, or a safe one.

This is definitely an ask the player time. I would love being relegated to trap duty during an encounter. Especially if I was allowed to turn the traps on the enemies. Oh, but the disadvantage would not be necessary. Give the enemies advantage on attacking me instead if you must.

[Xervous]

What even is the GM intent of an exploration phase trap the dedicated trap buster doesn’t notice by design? Either it’s the first such trap driving a change in atmosphere (after which they take their time) or it’s just an attrition method the players have to bumble blindly through.