When is a trap too obvious?

[DRD1812]

I've always thought of traps as a sort of reading comprehension challenge. Before the PCs can bring their mechanical resources to bear, the players have to first realize that there's a trap in the area. I think that's why the most successful traps I've implemented follow this sequence:

1. GM describes the area, providing a bit of trap foreshadowing.
2. The players listen attentively.
3. Either:

3a. PCs miss the clues in the room description and set off the trap.
3b. PCs realize something is amiss and respond dynamically to the situation (as opposed to rolling Spot/Perception/etc. checks at apparently empty squares).

For me, the mini-game of trap finding is all about players trying to outguess and outthink the GM. Case in point.

Does that sound like a familiar paradigm to you guys? What are the most successful (and by "successful" I mean "players had fun interacting with them") traps you've used?

[Actana]

To put things briefly:

Which is more important to you? How players find (or don't find) the trap, or how players deal with the trap?

Personally, I hate GM Guessing Games when it comes to traps (and most other things). It's so easy to make them look and feel like GM Gotcha Traps instead.

[Amphetryon]

I have always considered any Traps that are reliant on Player abilities, rather than Character abilities, to be poorly implemented in any RPG that also cares about (for instance) the Character's ability to cast Spells, rather than the Player's ability to cast Spells.

[Deophaun]

Case in point.

Yes. Case in point indeed:

hey should have seen the signs, they charged headlong anyway, and now they know that it’s going to hurt. Examples:
That “passageway” overhead is actually a vacuum tube. It’s going to suck one of the heroes through and into danger du jour.
The scout went into the hallway, the doors slammed, and now she’s disappeared. Teleportation? No! The floor slammed her into the camouflaged goo that makes up the ceiling. Good luck finding her before she drowns overhead.

My, look at how many signs there were! They had to ignore all the... and the... oh, and don't forget there was a... Well, I'm sure it was really, really obvious that the floor would stealthily slam at Mach 10 into the non-Newtonian fluid made to look like stone at the top (had to be really quick because no screaming). I mean, that just happens all the time.

It's fine, though. Their eagle-eyed scout will notice where the scout went. Oh...

There's nothing sporting here. This is just killing off the scout/rogue/skill monkey. The whole" "should have seen the signs" is the DM mistaking being a #$%^ with being clever. And then the group wonders why no one wants to play that role the next time.

[Trebloc]

I've always thought of traps as a sort of reading comprehension challenge. Before the PCs can bring their mechanical resources to bear, the players have to first realize that there's a trap in the area. I think that's why the most successful traps I've implemented follow this sequence:

1. GM describes the area, providing a bit of trap foreshadowing.
2. The players listen attentively.
3. Either:

3a. PCs miss the clues in the room description and set off the trap.
3b. PCs realize something is amiss and respond dynamically to the situation (as opposed to rolling Spot/Perception/etc. checks at apparently empty squares).

For me, the mini-game of trap finding is all about players trying to outguess and outthink the GM. Case in point.

Does that sound like a familiar paradigm to you guys? What are the most successful (and by "successful" I mean "players had fun interacting with them") traps you've used?

I totally dislike what you're describing.

For one thing, this promotes Player Knowledge vrs PC knowledge. No matter what kind of PC a Player uses, they all end up with the same "knowledge" to always watch out for empty squares or other "odd" descriptions that "god" is giving them. This also makes roleplaying nonexistent. A very smart person playing a stupid barbarian isn't actually stupid. Instead, they're trying to play out-of-game mindgames with the DM.

This also totally negates different skills, spells and abilities. Why bother taking these if they serve no purpose at all?

I also see this as taking forever. Now players will be focusing on whatever things are described. If "a bare wall" makes it into descriptions, it's always going to be a focus, instead of being, just a bare wall. Heck, everything in the room description will be a focus, since those can all potentially be GM-gotcha traps.

This really seems like you're aiming for a GM vrs Players situation, where if the players miss certain clues, then there are GM-gotcha's thrown about, simply because they were not as smart as the GM or thinking like the GM...etc. You have to remember, the PCs are likely more skilled than the Players are in certain areas. They can likely swing swords better. Cast spells better. Run faster. Know things the Players don't. AND find traps better. Because part of the PC's life has involved finding traps.

[Segev]

Traps have a similar problem to stealth. They're all-or-nothing; you find them or you don't. Sure, you can then have innovative solutiosn to try to get around them, but if they don't find it, they get caught.

Disable Device is similarly problematic. "Just roll your dice. Okay, you disarmed it/you failed."

I think traps only really work well when they're not a substitute for an encounter, but instead are part of one. Finding none of them isn't a fail condition by itself, and finding all of them isn't a win condition by itself, but does influence how hard the encounter is. Disabling one or more decreases the threat the encounter poses, increasing the area of control and safety the party has/decreasing the area denial/control the enemy has. But it can't be just traps, or it's a game of "did you roll high enough this time?" with little real choice other than "keep going and rolling, or give up and go back."

[Pelle]

I totally dislike what you're describing.

For one thing, this promotes Player Knowledge vrs PC knowledge. No matter what kind of PC a Player uses, they all end up with the same "knowledge" to always watch out for empty squares or other "odd" descriptions that "god" is giving them. This also makes roleplaying nonexistent. A very smart person playing a stupid barbarian isn't actually stupid. Instead, they're trying to play out-of-game mindgames with the DM.

This also totally negates different skills, spells and abilities. Why bother taking these if they serve no purpose at all?

I also see this as taking forever. Now players will be focusing on whatever things are described. If "a bare wall" makes it into descriptions, it's always going to be a focus, instead of being, just a bare wall. Heck, everything in the room description will be a focus, since those can all potentially be GM-gotcha traps.

This really seems like you're aiming for a GM vrs Players situation, where if the players miss certain clues, then there are GM-gotcha's thrown about, simply because they were not as smart as the GM or thinking like the GM...etc. You have to remember, the PCs are likely more skilled than the Players are in certain areas. They can likely swing swords better. Cast spells better. Run faster. Know things the Players don't. AND find traps better. Because part of the PC's life has involved finding traps.

I totally dislike what you're describing. To me that sounds like uninteresting rollplaying. If you are just handling everything with checks, you might as well not bother at all.

If I'm including a trap, I want to challenge my players by first giving them enough clues so that they figure out that there is a trap present. And then they can use their player skills to figure out which character abilities they can use to negate or avoid it.

So to the OP I would say that it is not a problem if it is obvious. Traps are the most interesting when they are known, but still a challenge. Make sure to give enough clues in step 1 that you most of the time end up in step 3b. If you end up in step 3a, but the players say "of course, we should have understood that!" that might also be sufficient, but try to avoid gotchas/screwjobs.

[Honest Tiefling]

I've always thought of traps as a sort of reading comprehension challenge. Before the PCs can bring their mechanical resources to bear, the players have to first realize that there's a trap in the area.

Why? Because you hate rogues? If the character has the mechanical ability, why is it impaired because of the player's ability to play word games? Does the character just not see things if the player misunderstands, misinterprets or mishears the DM? Are players expected to only play characters with similar abilities to their own? And as Trebloc said, it negates character abilities entirely.

In my personal opinion, if the DM plays word games with this, they can't really complain if the players do equally silly stuff such as refuse to move faster then 5 feet per minute to avoid traps or check the king for traps in the middle of a speech. The DM needs to communicate (clearly) information characters would know, or it breaks immersion and balance pretty fast.

As for traps, I think a simple spot/disarm can work...In moderation. If the group is coming across simple bear traps, that's not the time to make a huge challenge of it. But nastier traps can be an entire encounter on their own, with characters trying to break, sabotage, or dodge the trap, or outwit the creator.

[Segev]

I totally dislike what you're describing. To me that sounds like uninteresting rollplaying. If you are just handling everything with checks, you might as well not bother at all.

If I'm including a trap, I want to challenge my players by first giving them enough clues so that they figure out that there is a trap present. And then they can use their player skills to figure out which character abilities they can use to negate or avoid it.

So to the OP I would say that it is not a problem if it is obvious. Traps are the most interesting when they are known, but still a challenge. Make sure to give enough clues in step 1 that you most of the time end up in step 3b. If you end up in step 3a, but the players say "of course, we should have understood that!" that might also be sufficient, but try to avoid gotchas/screwjobs.

He does have a point of potentially invalidating PC abilities, though.

That said, again, this is a fault of how traps are usually used and the thought behind their design.

I still think you're best off having traps behave as the rules say, but having their disarmament not be a total obviation of the encounter, nor their triggering be a total loss of it. Multiple traps, which force interesting decisions if they're known and which increase the danger of the area and allow for modified tactics by the foes if they're not.

Imagine, for instance, attacking a rogue's lair. He has kobolds working for him. The place is filled with traps, but not usually of the "random tile on the floor" variety that's just waiting to go off as its own deterrent. No, instead, his people know where the traps are, and seek to use them to control battlefields. Seemingly-open rooms are actually mazes of invisible trap triggers or target locations. Levers for manually-activated traps can shove people into triggered traps. Kobolds can use whips for trip attempts that knock you prone in a zone with a trap. Chases might be across trap-laden halls, with the kobolds knowing where to step to avoid them.

They're not usually hard to disarm, but taking the time gives the foes more time to prepare elsewhere or to retreat...or attack at range. But by the same token, each one disarmed is one less trap that is resetting (did I mention they're resettable?) behind the party, and more open space they can safely maneuver in.

Now, spotting them is important to avoid harm. Disarming them is a tactically useful technique. But the encounter isn't over with two rolls, and failed utterly if either is failed. The traps have become components of a more complex encounter. The rogue is useful and has something interesting to do beyond just rolling dice, decisions to make about when and where to roll them and how to make use of them.

[mephnick]

Traps are best when they're easily spotted and still have to be dealt with.

Pretty easy to see a hallway filled with slits full of shiny blades...but how do you get through? Let the player's decisions dictate what rolls you make.

[Deophaun]

Imagine, for instance, attacking a rogue's lair. He has kobolds working for him. The place is filled with traps, but not usually of the "random tile on the floor" variety that's just waiting to go off as its own deterrent. No, instead, his people know where the traps are, and seek to use them to control battlefields. Seemingly-open rooms are actually mazes of invisible trap triggers or target locations. Levers for manually-activated traps can shove people into triggered traps. Kobolds can use whips for trip attempts that knock you prone in a zone with a trap. Chases might be across trap-laden halls, with the kobolds knowing where to step to avoid them.

Don't forget the "Days without incident" sign, written in Draconic. It says "3," but you cannot be sure if that's accurate; the mechanism to change the sign is obviously trapped and caught the kobold who was responsible for it.

[kyoryu]

Traps are best when they're easily spotted and still have to be dealt with.

Pretty easy to see a hallway filled with slits full of shiny blades...but how do you get through? Let the player's decisions dictate what rolls you make.

Exactly.

Finding the trap shouldn't be the end of the problem. Getting past the trap should be the interesting bit.

[Segev]

Exactly.

Finding the trap shouldn't be the end of the problem. Getting past the trap should be the interesting bit.

By the same token, FAILING to find the trap shouldn't be an auto-fail. Just a bad start, putting the party in a worse position to get past it than they otherwise would have been.

[LordEntrails]

Hack & Slash, The Angry GM, The Alexandrian, and DM Sage all have articles worth reading on this subject. I don't remember the details of who said what but they echo many of the ideas posted above. Also, their is a UA from WotC on traps that is pretty good too.

I suggest you read them if you want to use traps. They address the adversarial role that used to be D&D. And how to make traps more than just a series of roles.

Remember, in 5E RAW, finding a trap is not simple a perception check. That tells you something is amiss (you feel a breeze, the hair on the back of your neck stands up, you see a pattern in the flagstones, etc). And an investigation check has to be detailed and appropriate to give useful information ("I investigate the room", will not yield a false bottom drawer.) And there is no Disable Device skill. But the trap will say how it can be disarmed and what skills and/or tool proficiencies can be used by the players and in what way to defeat it (again, "I disable the poison needle" doesn't work, "I use my thieves tools to disarm the needle's mechanism", or "I place a piece of metal over the dart's tip" do work).

[Tinkerer]

Remember, in 5E RAW, finding a trap is not simple a perception check. That tells you something is amiss (you feel a breeze, the hair on the back of your neck stands up, you see a pattern in the flagstones, etc). And an investigation check has to be detailed and appropriate to give useful information ("I investigate the room", will not yield a false bottom drawer.) And there is no Disable Device skill. But the trap will say how it can be disarmed and what skills and/or tool proficiencies can be used by the players and in what way to defeat it (again, "I disable the poison needle" doesn't work, "I use my thieves tools to disarm the needle's mechanism", or "I place a piece of metal over the dart's tip" do work).

I really need to actually run a 5e game sometime soon. I have the books but honestly I haven't even bothered to read them yet (I got them at the same time as a bunch of other series which I was far more interested in). This sounds like RAW traps done right.

[DRD1812]

Hack & Slash, The Angry GM, The Alexandrian, and DM Sage all have articles worth reading on this subject. I don't remember the details of who said what but they echo many of the ideas posted above. Also, their is a UA from WotC on traps that is pretty good too.

I suggest you read them if you want to use traps. They address the adversarial role that used to be D&D. And how to make traps more than just a series of roles.

Any links to those articles? Sounds like good reading.

Remember, in 5E RAW, finding a trap is not simple a perception check. That tells you something is amiss (you feel a breeze, the hair on the back of your neck stands up, you see a pattern in the flagstones, etc). And an investigation check has to be detailed and appropriate to give useful information ("I investigate the room", will not yield a false bottom drawer.) And there is no Disable Device skill. But the trap will say how it can be disarmed and what skills and/or tool proficiencies can be used by the players and in what way to defeat it (again, "I disable the poison needle" doesn't work, "I use my thieves tools to disarm the needle's mechanism", or "I place a piece of metal over the dart's tip" do work).

That sounds like what I'm attempting to describe here. The player should realize something is wrong, then decide how to react mechanically. It's more dynamic than SPOT TRAP (Y/N) --> DISARM (Y/N) --> SAVING THROW (Y/N). I want my traps to be as descriptive and open to improvisation as every other part of the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I really need to actually run a 5e game sometime soon. I have the books but honestly I haven't even bothered to read them yet (I got them at the same time as a bunch of other series which I was far more interested in). This sounds like RAW traps done right.

Sadly even with this, people run 5e traps wrongly. Some habits are hard to break.

I'm going to be running a dungeon that's mostly traps soon, because the BBEG ate all the creatures (he's an incarnation of hunger). He was a gone in life and has had 200+ years to make good traps. I'm thinking mostly mechanical with quite a few gag traps thrown in for fun.

I think I'm going to go with obvious but not trivially disarmed for the ones with any serious punch.

[DRD1812]

I think I'm going to go with obvious but not trivially disarmed for the ones with any serious punch.

Could we get a step-by-step of what this kind of trap would look like in play? The players enter the area and then...? What? You describe and they investigate? What does your version of disarming look like?

[DuctTapeKatar]

Why not make the trap an encounter itself? I mean, if it is complicated, i.e. Indiana Jones style, where a lot of attention is given to how they work, it could let the players interact with it better than some magical thing they roll dice at.

For example, a trap that spews a chemical that ignites in contact with air from a small nozzle hidden between a pair of bricks in the wall. The trap is activated when a tile in front of the nozzle is pressed, but the tile is old, and tends to jam up for a couple seconds after being depressed and rises back into position, making it spew out more flame than really needed.

There are multiple ways of beating this trap:
1. Stick something in the nozzle.
2. Jam up the tile so that it can't be pressed down.
3. Activate the trap and jam the tile, and wait for the chemicals to run out.

Bam, the players now have options other than 'let rogue figure it out.'

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why not make the trap an encounter itself? I mean, if it is complicated, i.e. Indiana Jones style, where a lot of attention is given to how they work, it could let the players interact with it better than some magical thing they roll dice at.

For example, a trap that spews a chemical that ignites in contact with air from a small nozzle hidden between a pair of bricks in the wall. The trap is activated when a tile in front of the nozzle is pressed, but the tile is old, and tends to jam up for a couple seconds after being depressed and rises back into position, making it spew out more flame than really needed.

There are multiple ways of beating this trap:
1. Stick something in the nozzle.
2. Jam up the tile so that it can't be pressed down.
3. Activate the trap and jam the tile, and wait for the chemicals to run out.

Bam, the players now have options other than 'let rogue figure it out.'

Could we get a step-by-step of what this kind of trap would look like in play? The players enter the area and then...? What? You describe and they investigate? What does your version of disarming look like?

The first quote is a good example. For me in particular, I want the traps to let the party showcase their abilities. It's a high-level party (level 15, D&D 5e).

Spoiler: Party Composition

Show

* Warlock with the ability to read anything and a fondness for telekinesis. Has a cloak that lets him fly if it's dark but occupies his hands.
* Monk with the mobile feat--base speed 65 ft/round. Can run on walls due to 9th level monk ability.
* Druid (spell-casting focus). He's going to be the most challenging to challenge, but he had a significant story arc just before this, so I'm not too worried.
* Rogue (Arcane Trickster). He won't be there this time.
* Fighter Warforged NPC. She won't volunteer suggestions. Can transform into a floating drone-like body but that part's fragile.

One trap I have planned is a long (70-ft) narrow (5-foot wide) corridor with obvious pressure plates and nozzles for flame. There's a big red button at the other end. There's no way to avoid the flames if you just walk down the corridor. The warlock can use telekinesis (burning a spell slot that he doesn't have many of), the druid can transform into a bat and fly, the monk can parkour along the walls if she dashes, etc.

Other traps will be telegraphed by dead bodies (there was an NPC organization that sent slaves down here to plunder things before getting their souls consumed by the BBEG). Traps may include:

* A room filled with noxious-smelling gas and a dead, obviously acid-eaten body a few feet in near a lever. The door at the other side is closed. The gas itself only sickens the PCs--tripping the switch converts it to a spray of acid but clears the room for a short while. Turns out the door is self-closing but otherwise unlocked. Do they eat the damage and avoid the poison effect? Do they take the poison and just walk through the room? Do they trip the switch from a distance and dash across the room? Any reasonable suggestion will work. But it will take more than a bare skill check.

* A puzzle-trap room. They have to step on marked tiles in the right sequence or incorporeal undead come out and fight them (annoying, but not fatal). Or they can knock down the door and go through, but that a) arms other traps and b) doesn't give them treasure (which will be signaled by writing on the wall).

* A standard spiked pit trap. Pulling a nearby torch bracket drops the door across the pit. Other torch brackets cause traps to go off.

* A whole bunch of trapped chests--mostly with rotten pie traps set to go off if you open it conventionally, but a few will release shadows. The boss ate all the mimics.

Note that none of these are particularly lethal--they're designed to attrit the party's resources and let them show off en route to the boss (a modified demilich with some other special abilities and traps in its lair).

The goal is that there is no "check to pass this trap" available. They'll have to use their character resources to describe how they'll pass, and any reasonable suggestion will work but may have the logical consequences. I'm working hard to not railroad solutions here--they'll surely come up with solutions I never thought of. And if they make sense, they'll work.

[Vogie]

It also depends on the type of the trap. I'm not a huge fan of the save-or-suck traps, unless it's something light, like a pit trap or a simple spring-noose. Things like swinging blades or triggered crossbows or darts are more my cup of tea because I can treat it like a simple encounter with a really obvious beast. Rolling for initiative to see if you can react before the trap activates, then dealing with the traps as though it's an automaton creature of sorts.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It also depends on the type of the trap. I'm not a huge fan of the save-or-suck traps, unless it's something light, like a pit trap or a simple spring-noose. Things like swinging blades or triggered crossbows or darts are more my cup of tea because I can treat it like a simple encounter with a really obvious beast. Rolling for initiative to see if you can react before the trap activates, then dealing with the traps as though it's an automaton creature of sorts.

I like this idea.

Also, this may just be me, but I prefer to design traps knowing that the party should get through them. The fun part is how. This is different than trying to think like a paranoid dungeon builder who's trying to be as lethal as possible. That can be fun as well, but in a different way than I prefer.

For example, the BBEG I'm running could have collapsed the dungeon completely except for a tiny-sized hole to the surface. That'd be the safest way. But that's boring. Instead, I presume that the traps aren't going to stop the party and design them to maximize the interesting ways they can think of to get by them with minimal damage to themselves. More as physical puzzles with painful consequences for failure than as "kill the intruders" traps.

[Trebloc]

I totally dislike what you're describing. To me that sounds like uninteresting rollplaying. If you are just handling everything with checks, you might as well not bother at all.

If I'm including a trap, I want to challenge my players by first giving them enough clues so that they figure out that there is a trap present. And then they can use their player skills to figure out which character abilities they can use to negate or avoid it.

So to the OP I would say that it is not a problem if it is obvious. Traps are the most interesting when they are known, but still a challenge. Make sure to give enough clues in step 1 that you most of the time end up in step 3b. If you end up in step 3a, but the players say "of course, we should have understood that!" that might also be sufficient, but try to avoid gotchas/screwjobs.

Fair enough. What incentive is there for any Player to take a PC that, as part of the class, has some form of trap finding ability? Why play a Rogue or a Scout when a Barbarian or a Monk or a regular old level 0 pig farmer can find traps just as easily? Also, there certainly is roleplaying involved that goes hand-in-hand with the rollplaying, since having one does not mean you cannot do both. At the very basic level, the Barbarian should put his trust in the Rogue to find the traps, because the Barbarian knows that his eyes aren't as keen to be able to find many traps at all until it is too late.

What I am seeing is that you, as the DM, want the players to see what you see, which isn't fair to the players at all, is it? First I would say that if something looks suspicious, then that is probably a pretty bad trap. Isn't the whole point of a trap to be a surprise? Expecting players to search/interact with stuff that is only in the description is nice, but frankly good traps shouldn't even be noticed to the untrained eye at all, and likely be overlooked in a general description of an area. Hence, trap finding skills are used to find what the casual eye doesn't.

So, if your party is walking down a nondescript hallway. Basically the same kind of hallway that the past 100 hallways have been. How is this played out? Do the safe players have to describe once again how they are searching, probing, examining every single brick in the floor like they've done 100 times before this hallway? Because if they don't, there might be a trap there that the DM has in mind that they have no way of knowing about.

Also, "traps" that are obvious, aren't really traps, are they? More like obstacles at that point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fair enough. What incentive is there for any Player to take a PC that, as part of the class, has some form of trap finding ability? Why play a Rogue or a Scout when a Barbarian or a Monk or a regular old level 0 pig farmer can find traps just as easily? Also, there certainly is roleplaying involved that goes hand-in-hand with the rollplaying, since having one does not mean you cannot do both. At the very basic level, the Barbarian should put his trust in the Rogue to find the traps, because the Barbarian knows that his eyes aren't as keen to be able to find many traps at all until it is too late.

But this assumes the party has a rogue, and that that rogue has specialized in trap-finding. That's not an assumption that works in most modern games (or systems).

That's why I play systems without a specialized "trap-finding" skill. Wisdom (with a bonus if you're proficient in Perception) lets you sense that something's out of place. Intelligence (with a bonus if you're proficient in Investigation) lets you figure out from clues what's going on (what happens). 5e (for example) doesn't have Disable Device as a skill. Rogues are the only ones who can get double proficiency in thieves tools, so opening locks is kinda their bag, as is disabling traps that involve specialized tools (for example those built into locks). They can also get double proficiency in Investigation or Perception if they choose to spend the build resources. Everyone else can disable traps by finding creative ways of using their resources, items, and so forth.

What I am seeing is that you, as the DM, want the players to see what you see, which isn't fair to the players at all, is it? First I would say that if something looks suspicious, then that is probably a pretty bad trap. Isn't the whole point of a trap to be a surprise? Expecting players to search/interact with stuff that is only in the description is nice, but frankly good traps shouldn't even be noticed to the untrained eye at all, and likely be overlooked in a general description of an area. Hence, trap finding skills are used to find what the casual eye doesn't.

That's one of the things that Passive Perception (10 + Wisdom modifier + proficiency (if proficient in Perception)) is for (in 5e). The things the character notices while walking along normally (and not distracted by other tasks) fall into that bin. Also, having "unseeable" traps that require specific skills seems to be a rather un-fun way to play (at least to me). It smacks of "you must have a rogue to play" niche protection. What about the party of a Druid, a Wizard, and a Bard (one of my parties)? Or if (like will happen when I run my trap dungeon) the rogue is absent?

So, if your party is walking down a nondescript hallway. Basically the same kind of hallway that the past 100 hallways have been. How is this played out? Do the safe players have to describe once again how they are searching, probing, examining every single brick in the floor like they've done 100 times before this hallway? Because if they don't, there might be a trap there that the DM has in mind that they have no way of knowing about.

Also, "traps" that are obvious, aren't really traps, are they? More like obstacles at that point.

Passive perception lets you see things are out of place (unless you dumped wisdom hard and no one is proficient). Investigation lets you figure out how it works. Class resources, items, spells, and roleplay get you past the trap safely (or don't, depending on how well you did/rolled). Either way, traps as "keep the intruders out/dead" is only one way to use them, and a limiting one at that. It turns into a game of "I'm more paranoid than you are" which is not a way I enjoy playing.

[DRD1812]

Fair enough. What incentive is there for any Player to take a PC that, as part of the class, has some form of trap finding ability?

I think I see where I went wrong. In my OP, I'm not describing the entire interaction between PCs and trap. I'm trying to describe how the PCs know to bring their mechanical resources to bear. I dislike Pathfinder's trap spotter rogue talent for the same reason I dislike ruling that 5e's passive perception auto-finds the trap. If you're taking the time to give a room description, there's a meta-expectation that there's something worth interacting with in the room (barring truly old-school dungeon design with its love of empty rooms). Rather than "I look for traps in the room," I like for players to ask followup questions.

"What do you mean the curtain is moving? I investigate."

"An apparently empty hallway, eh? Any disturbed dust on the floor?"

"The ceiling recedes into darkness? I cast a light spell."

I think that these sorts of interactions make finding the trap part of the interactive challenge. I agree with much of what's been said before: "wandering damage" is no fun. I like those traps that go off, do some minor effect, and now become an obstacle to negotiate.

Take the narrow corridor and the big red button for example:

One trap I have planned is a long (70-ft) narrow (5-foot wide) corridor with obvious pressure plates and nozzles for flame. There's a big red button at the other end. There's no way to avoid the flames if you just walk down the corridor. The warlock can use telekinesis (burning a spell slot that he doesn't have many of), the druid can transform into a bat and fly, the monk can parkour along the walls if she dashes, etc.

Rather than assuming that the PCs spot the "obvious pressure Plates" automatically, I would describe the room along these lines: "You turn the corner and find yourself faced with a long, narrow corridor. Lining the walls are bas-reliefs: to the left, horned figures straight out of the Hells. To the right, mortal figures burning in pits of fire. The place looks old, the stones blackened with age. At the far end of the chamber, you can see a large red disc set into the wall. It's balanced atop a carved depiction of some arch fiend's throne, and seems to hold court over the spectacle of torment. What do you do?"

At this point I would expect that PCs actively investigate the room. If a scout wanders down the middle of the hall, they get burned. If they investigate the walls they may spot the fire nozzles hidden within the carving. If they investigate the stone floor they may be warned of the fire trap by the scorch marks. If they make history checks they may identify the horned figures as trickster demons, who take special delight in burning their victims.

In this way, finding the trap involves player initiative as well as mechanical skill. Circumventing the trap then becomes an exercise in creative problem solving.

Does that make sense?

[pwykersotz]

Traps can never be too obvious unless they exist to change the environment rather than hurt the players. If you set up a scenario where a hidden pressure plate fires a wave of poison darts, that's boring and badly designed from a game perspective. The players can either spend all their time searching every square they come across for a plate, or eventually succumb to the damage tax you set up. You can do your part to make it less boring by describing a skeleton clutching a map just a bit off to the side with ancient darts riddling him, but that telegraphs your trap, making it obvious. Which is the point.

Environmental traps that provide a new challenge are interesting. A room filling with water or sand, a boulder rolling after you, a descending ceiling, these traps can be sprung without obvious signs, and then they serve to let PC's do what they can to bypass them. The rogue can try to jam the mechanisms, and the rest of the party can search for a way out or try creative solutions to mitigate the trouble. It lets all the players, including the Rogue who specializes in finding and disarming traps, bring their abilities to bear.

Here are the links someone mentioned above:
http://theangrygm.com/traps-suck/
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/...-magical-traps
http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/...asic-trap.html
http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.ph...trap-syndrome/
http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.ph...ad-trap-blues/

[Pex]

But this assumes the party has a rogue, and that that rogue has specialized in trap-finding. That's not an assumption that works in most modern games (or systems).

That's why I play systems without a specialized "trap-finding" skill. Wisdom (with a bonus if you're proficient in Perception) lets you sense that something's out of place. Intelligence (with a bonus if you're proficient in Investigation) lets you figure out from clues what's going on (what happens). 5e (for example) doesn't have Disable Device as a skill. Rogues are the only ones who can get double proficiency in thieves tools, so opening locks is kinda their bag, as is disabling traps that involve specialized tools (for example those built into locks). They can also get double proficiency in Investigation or Perception if they choose to spend the build resources. Everyone else can disable traps by finding creative ways of using their resources, items, and so forth.

Technically anyone can find traps in 5E. It's a Perception or Investigation check anyone can make and anyone can be proficient in. Some DMs may even allow an Arcana check when dealing with magical traps such as Glyph Of Warding or Symbol. You don't even have to be a Rogue to be proficient with Thieves' Tools for traps where the tools can be used to disable. Rogues and Bards have potential to be really good at finding and disabling traps due to Expertise, but they aren't a party requirement anymore to have to deal with traps in the traditional way. 5E has done a good job with not having any one particular class be a must have in a party. It's noticeable in the more stereotypical roles of dealing with traps and healing.

Edit: Sorry, forgot I'm in the General Forum and not the 5E specific forum. For non-5E games of D&D, my point doesn't work.

[Trebloc]

I think I see where I went wrong. In my OP, I'm not describing the entire interaction between PCs and trap. I'm trying to describe how the PCs know to bring their mechanical resources to bear. I dislike Pathfinder's trap spotter rogue talent for the same reason I dislike ruling that 5e's passive perception auto-finds the trap. If you're taking the time to give a room description, there's a meta-expectation that there's something worth interacting with in the room (barring truly old-school dungeon design with its love of empty rooms). Rather than "I look for traps in the room," I like for players to ask followup questions.

"What do you mean the curtain is moving? I investigate."

"An apparently empty hallway, eh? Any disturbed dust on the floor?"

"The ceiling recedes into darkness? I cast a light spell."

I think the first problem is assuming that everything in the description is there for meta-expectations. It's a room description, nothing more or less. Sure, when you say there's a statue or a desk or shelves, the players may go investigate. But there shouldn't be an expectation that those items are somehow important in any way. In fact, I would expect the opposite to be true, where the vast majority of the descriptions are, for lack of a better way to say it, important.

While it does make sense, it still does not differentiate between different levels of PC experience and skill. What I am seeing is bringing the Player and OOG knowledge/suspicion into the picture -- the Player (not the PC) is gunning for what the DM specifically mentions. The the Player uses this knowledge to poke/prod/examine/whatever only things specifically described.

Also what I am seeing is that the level 0 pig farmer is equally adept at finding and disabling said traps as a level 1000 Rogue. Since finding and dealing with traps has nothing to do with what PC class is in play, or level of experience that class has.

Take the narrow corridor and the big red button for example:

Rather than assuming that the PCs spot the "obvious pressure Plates" automatically, I would describe the room along these lines: "You turn the corner and find yourself faced with a long, narrow corridor. Lining the walls are bas-reliefs: to the left, horned figures straight out of the Hells. To the right, mortal figures burning in pits of fire. The place looks old, the stones blackened with age. At the far end of the chamber, you can see a large red disc set into the wall. It's balanced atop a carved depiction of some arch fiend's throne, and seems to hold court over the spectacle of torment. What do you do?"

At this point I would expect that PCs actively investigate the room. If a scout wanders down the middle of the hall, they get burned. If they investigate the walls they may spot the fire nozzles hidden within the carving. If they investigate the stone floor they may be warned of the fire trap by the scorch marks. If they make history checks they may identify the horned figures as trickster demons, who take special delight in burning their victims.

In this way, finding the trap involves player initiative as well as mechanical skill. Circumventing the trap then becomes an exercise in creative problem solving.

Does that make sense?

Alright. I see that you appear to be fine with PCs making history rolls so their players know what their PCs know. But you're not ok with some form of Perception or Search roll so that players see what their PCs see? Lets be fair, they could easily investigate the walls and not notice the nozzles, or the scorch marks, or any other signs of traps.

Also, this could get rather silly. For instance, after having experienced this trap, nothing similar to it should ever work again. Why? Because the players have now added it to their Searching Standard Operating Procedures. Every new room, the players can just check off the list to ensure there are no pressure plates, flame throwers, trip wires, loose bricks...etc. And this works since there is no PC-related skills to find traps.

If someone is trying to sneak up on the PCs, do they get some form of Listen/Perception check? Or if the PC is trying to perform first aid? Perform? Lie? The list goes on for any type of skill used by systems that use skills. That is part of what makes up the PC. It is not entirely fair to deny use of one skill, but allow the others without penalty.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Technically anyone can find traps in 5E. It's a Perception or Investigation check anyone can make and anyone can be proficient in. Some DMs may even allow an Arcana check when dealing with magical traps such as Glyph Of Warding or Symbol. You don't even have to be a Rogue to be proficient with Thieves' Tools for traps where the tools can be used to disable. Rogues and Bards have potential to be really good at finding and disabling traps due to Expertise, but they aren't a party requirement anymore to have to deal with traps in the traditional way. 5E has done a good job with not having any one particular class be a must have in a party. It's noticeable in the more stereotypical roles of dealing with traps and healing.

Edit: Sorry, forgot I'm in the General Forum and not the 5E specific forum. For non-5E games of D&D, my point doesn't work.

That was kinda my point. I guess I wasn't very clear. Thanks for amplifying.

[Deophaun]

At this point I would expect that PCs actively investigate the room. If a scout wanders down the middle of the hall, they get burned. If they investigate the walls they may spot the fire nozzles hidden within the carving. If they investigate the stone floor they may be warned of the fire trap by the scorch marks. If they make history checks they may identify the horned figures as trickster demons, who take special delight in burning their victims.

In this way, finding the trap involves player initiative as well as mechanical skill. Circumventing the trap then becomes an exercise in creative problem solving.

Does that make sense?

This is really neat... the first couple times. Then it starts turning into a checklist. What you're describing is basically what we did back in AD&D and 2e. Eventually we just condensed it all into "I search for traps." Designers followed suit and a big tedious part of the game went out the window.