Well, Mike Mearls got promoted. Any hope for 5e?

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:37 am

I'm fond of obvious traps. Though that probably falls into the realm of dangerous terrain.

Noone likes a rigged shotgun behind a door. I've had some fun with a gauntlet style corridors and arenas though.

K · Post by K » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:30 am

Swordslinger wrote:
hogarth wrote: It's interesting that you started off with a true premise (saying "I search for traps" x50 is boring) and then came up with a screwy conclusion (saying "I search for traps" x50 is interesting if it means you suffer some sort of penalty x50).
You have two choices. Either don't use traps at all and don't worry about it. Or you create a reason why you don't just search everything to make searching an actual choice and not just something you have to constantly remember to do.

Much like texting while driving, searching for traps in a dungeon means you lower your awareness to more distant threats to get a good look at nearby floor tiles and ceilings.

Unlike driving a car, searching for traps means that the party moves at whatever pace they please. This means they can just stop and look for traps, move and look for monsters, then stop again when the area they have not looked for traps comes close. They can even split the work where some people are always looking for monsters because the traps are never going to go anywhere.

And that's how DnD handles trapfinding. No one is running down a corridor and looking for traps at the same time so that a monster has a better chance of surprising them.

The issue remains that it's not fun. The very act of making traps discoverable by active searching means that people are going to be setting the pace of the adventure so that they are actively searching all the time.

I mean, as a longtime DnD player, would you ever walk out onto a giant chessboard-like open floor and not expect a trap? Would you ever just open a strange chest or sarcophagus without checking?

Since the answer is most likely "of course I check because I'm not a moron," we are left with a situation where 100 rolls a session are going to happen whether there are traps or not. Since that's boring as shit, we are left looking for an alternate system that is fun.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:42 am

Only occasion I remember moving without trapchecking first in a dungeon was when one was either chasing or fleeing from some monster.

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:45 am

K wrote: Unlike driving a car, searching for traps means that the party moves at whatever pace they please. This means they can just stop and look for traps, move and look for monsters, then stop again when the area they have not looked for traps comes close. They can even split the work where some people are always looking for monsters because the traps are never going to go anywhere.

Sure, but see... this is only an issue if you have monsters never be proactive. Here's how this might work.

Lets say you have the rogue walking down the hallway in trapsearch mode, while the rest are in standard adventuring mode. If there's traps in the hallway, the rogue can find them. However, if a monster attacks while he's in search mode, the rogue is surprised, losing his first round of combat to a surprise round.

Obviously PCs that are not in trapsearch mode are not surprised, but anyone going in trapsearch mode would be, regardless of what the other PCs are doing.

Want to be in trapsearch mode as you approach that door? If the door suddenly bursts open and there's an angry hill giant behind it, guess who gets surprised?

The issue remains that it's not fun. The very act of making traps discoverable by active searching means that people are going to be setting the pace of the adventure so that they are actively searching all the time.

With my system you can't, not unless you want to constantly give up your first turn of combat every battle. If you decide that searching for traps is that important, then sure, go ahead and do that. But it's your decision to make.

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:13 pm

I don't understand. Adventurers are taking care to look for signs of danger, but they have to specify the type of unknown threat they are preparing for?

How do golems and animated objects fit into this system of yours? What about stationary critters like plants and mimics?

Sounds rather contrived to me. Perhaps a more thorough explaination is required, as I'm obviously missing something.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:35 pm

It's the "too busy looking up to look up" bit again.

Seriously, though, Team Monster uses traps to soften up an adventuring party and then immediately sends the actual monsters of Team Monster to finish the party off. Like the pit trap with the Kobolds.

icyshadowlord · Post by **icyshadowlord** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:53 pm

For some reason my group usually doesn't go through the procedure of looking through the entire rooms for traps despite me throwing traps at them because they didn't bother searching for them. I guess they are aware of the fact that always looking is just as bad as never looking.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:01 pm

A better way to make a trade-off would be, "if you take 20 searching, the monsters have more time to get prepared; if you don't, you get hit by some traps; if your entire party is sneaky enough, you can avoid both."

echoVanguard · Post by **echoVanguard** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:11 pm

hogarth wrote:It's interesting that you started off with a true premise (saying "I search for traps" x50 is boring) and then came up with a screwy conclusion (saying "I search for traps" x50 is interesting if it means you suffer some sort of penalty x50).

It might seem counterintuitive, but the logic is pretty sound. If your character can't lose hit points, then combat is boring and useless, since you might as well fast-forward to when you have inevitably won the fight. This is the same principle.

Also, for the sake of completeness, you should expand your logical exploration.

1. Searching for traps x50 is boring because X.
2. X is not fun, because Y.
3. Therefore, searching for traps could be made fun if Y'.

In this case, Swordslinger is making the case that X is 'because it is not an interesting tactical decision', and that Y is 'because there is no risk to one decision path and lots of risk to the other'. In turn, Y' becomes 'there is risk for both options'.

echo

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:11 pm

icyshadowlord wrote:For some reason my group usually doesn't go through the procedure of looking through the entire rooms for traps despite me throwing traps at them because they didn't bother searching for them. I guess they are aware of the fact that always looking is just as bad as never looking.

or maybe that SOP trap searching doesnt work because it jsut means might as well remove the traps and/or announce they are there all the time, neither of which is fun.

they probably rely on location, and DM descriptions to determine IF a trap might be there and then search for it, at the most logical place to put a trap, rather than being paranoid and thinking there is a trap everywhere.

DM: you open the door and see what appears to be a bedroom that looks as though it hasnt been used for years.
Player: we search for anything of value

sure the desk drawer could be trapped, but you have to have a reason to think it is unless you really are that paranoid... lets say it is...

DM: you find nothing much but a few candle holders and some combs, the desk drawer however cannot be opened.

now the players have a reason to think the drawer MIGHT be trapped, locked, or just stuck...or all three.

Thief: i check for traps before opening the lock
DM: you noticed a small hole going into the drawer that looks to precise to be a knot or wormhole.

people just going around with an SOP to search everywhere for traps are as bad as the ones declaring it every 10 feet. you should have a reason to think there are traps there, or be playing the character just as paranoid about everything, unles EVERY thief character in the games played have a paranoia solely about traps....

echoVanguard · Post by **echoVanguard** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:12 pm

Winnah wrote:I don't understand. Adventurers are taking care to look for signs of danger, but they have to specify the type of unknown threat they are preparing for?

This is extremely relevant.

echo

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 4:38 pm

Winnah wrote:I don't understand. Adventurers are taking care to look for signs of danger, but they have to specify the type of unknown threat they are preparing for?

Yes. Are you studying the floor, ceiling and walls for holes, secret doors, pressure plates and hidden glyphs or are you standing at ready for monsters to come at you.

Search mode examines minute details of nearby objects. It's all about missing the forest by focusing too much on the trees.

How do golems and animated objects fit into this system of yours? What about stationary critters like plants and mimics?

If initiative is rolled the moment the monster sees you, then you're better not being in search mode.

If the monster stands still and pretends to be something else while waiting for you to get close enough, then search mode is advantageous to detect it for what it really is, because you'd need to see minor details to discern its true nature. If it's just a golem coming crashing through a passageway because it heard the PCs coming, then you're best off not using search mode.

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:08 pm

Swordslinger wrote:
Winnah wrote:I don't understand. Adventurers are taking care to look for signs of danger, but they have to specify the type of unknown threat they are preparing for?
Yes. Are you studying the floor, ceiling and walls for holes, secret doors, pressure plates and hidden glyphs or are you standing at ready for monsters to come at you.

Search mode examines minute details of nearby objects. It's all about missing the forest by focusing too much on the trees.

That still makes no sense to me. If a character focuses on being perceptive, penalising them for looking at the floor (traps) when they should have been looking at the door (monster entering room) is excessively pedantic.

It becomes asinine in circumstances where the difference between a trap and a monster is not so readily apparent.

I prefer using a passive perception mode in games I run. Players can still have their characters actively look around and shit, that just gives them a bonus. The basic assumption in play is that when armed and experienced individuals enter hostile territory, they expect trouble.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:09 pm

Logically speaking, transitioning from "looking for traps" to "killing the monster" should take you about half-a-second, because that's exactly the kind of transition that actual human hunters had to make all the time and we've gotten pretty good at doing it really fast as a species. Only people unfamiliar with dangerous situations would take longer than a split-second, and those people are, by definition, not adventurers (unless they spend all their time looting the Tomb of Jet-Skis and Handjobs). So, if I'm in trap search mode and a monster comes barreling down the hallway ahead of me, transitioning to monster-killing mode means standing up and taking a stance, which will take about one second. Unless the monster is actually going to attack me in that one second window, it shouldn't really get a surprise round. And if the monster is going to attack me in that one second window, that's an ambush and the only way I could've spotted it is if I was in trap search mode.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:47 pm

Winnah wrote:That still makes no sense to me. If a character focuses on being perceptive, penalising them for looking at the floor (traps) when they should have been looking at the door (monster entering room) is excessively pedantic.

It becomes asinine in circumstances where the difference between a trap and a monster is not so readily apparent.

sometimes it can be a simple case of looking left, when you should have been looking right.

if everyone is searching a wall for a secret door, then the orcs* slowly walk up to them with a quizzical expression and tap a PC on the shoulder with a sword, and POOF surprise, PCs lose first round of initiative and orcs get the free attack.....

*orcs or whatever wandering monster that area has.

so when you focus on the fine details, you can easily miss the obvious.

i recall some sort of test like this where the instructor said to read the instructions in the booklet first before going ahead. the instructions stated to just write your name on the booklet and do nothing else. as it was one of those timed tests, many people jumped right in filling in circles rather than turning to the back to read the instructions. they were interested in answering as many questions as posible than following the directions, so they missed the obvious while focusing on the minutia.

Falgund · Post by **Falgund** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:49 pm

Swordslinger wrote:If initiative is rolled the moment the monster sees you, then you're better not being in search mode.

If the monster stands still and pretends to be something else while waiting for you to get close enough, then search mode is advantageous to detect it for what it really is, because you'd need to see minor details to discern its true nature. If it's just a golem coming crashing through a passageway because it heard the PCs coming, then you're best off not using search mode.

Why do you assume the golem (Hide: -1, Mode Silently -1) will come "crashing through a passageway" without been detected before ?
Even if you assume searching for traps means you are distracted (+5 to Listen/Spot DC), which is debatable, the Listen DC to hear the golem moving at slow pace 40ft away (ie it can't attack next round) is 18 for the one searching and 13 for the others, and (except for the one distracted) they can take 10 and succeed automatically if they have Listen +3 or more. And they can usually detect it far before.

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:51 pm

Winnah wrote: That still makes no sense to me. If a character focuses on being perceptive, penalising them for looking at the floor (traps) when they should have been looking at the door (monster entering room) is excessively pedantic.

Dude, it's pretty much the same as texting while driving. You're concerned over a small detail like reading the text on your cell phone while losing track of what's going on on the road in front of you.

Searching for traps is a very technical process. It's not just randomly glancing over and getting a full picture of the environment, you're studying for minute cracks and small clues. And that means you're less likely to see stuff coming at you from another direction since your attention is focused elsewhere. If you want an example, seriously, try any technical activity, whether it's reading a book, preparing a meal or even just watching TV. When your attention is focused on that, you're more likely to have someone sneak up on you and you're way more likely to be surprised if a SWAT team kicks down the door, as opposed to say if you were standing up in the middle of the room, your eyes darting from entrance to entrance and listening for any approaching threats, all the while in a ready stance to react.

Now I'm not saying that you actually have to declare your exact facing all the time, it's abstracted to either being in search mode (focusing on small details) or being in adventure mode (looking for creatures). And yes, that's an abstraction, but there's only rare cases where it'd ever have a problem. Even in the case where you're searching a door that kicked down, if you're sitting there looking at the base of the door or carefully studying the lock and suddenly the door is forcibly kicked into your face, you're going to be a bit dazed and surprised by that anyway, as opposed to the guys who are standing at a safer distance, ready for that sort of ambush.

K · Post by K » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:09 pm

Falgund wrote:
Swordslinger wrote:If initiative is rolled the moment the monster sees you, then you're better not being in search mode.

If the monster stands still and pretends to be something else while waiting for you to get close enough, then search mode is advantageous to detect it for what it really is, because you'd need to see minor details to discern its true nature. If it's just a golem coming crashing through a passageway because it heard the PCs coming, then you're best off not using search mode.
Why do you assume the golem (Hide: -1, Mode Silently -1) will come "crashing through a passageway" without been detected before ?
Even if you assume searching for traps means you are distracted (+5 to Listen/Spot DC), which is debatable, the Listen DC to hear the golem moving at slow pace 40ft away (ie it can't attack next round) is 18 for the one searching and 13 for the others, and (except for the one distracted) they can take 10 and succeed automatically if they have Listen +3 or more. And they can usually detect it far before.

Yes, Swordslinger wants people to be deaf and nearsighted and have tunnel-vision and be pathologically incapable of perceiving living things while actively trying to perceive their surroundings.

Not only does it make no sense, it doesn't matter. Even if it means the rogue always loses his turn every combat, parties are going to do it every time because it's the rogue's job!

No one cares about one person losing one action if it means no traps for the party, just like no one cares if the cleric doesn't want to just cast healing spells. You're in a party and you do your job.

There is no trade-off or tactical depth here. There is one character losing his actions as a tax and the rest of the partying getting bored as 100 rolls per session are being done to find 0-10 traps.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:11 pm

K wrote:
tzor wrote:
K wrote:I'm not really sure how making a trap minigame improves the game. It just seems like a unneeded tax.
Well I'm not really sure how making a combat minigame improves the game either. It seems like an unneeded tax.
If you think they add something to the game, I'm all ears.

Traps are a lot like monsters; both present challenges to overcome. All of the arguments that one can apply to monsters can and should be applied to traps, becasue they are more similiar than they are different.

No one likes "random monsters" (that are truely ... how the hell is that here random) and no one likes "random traps."

Sometimes a monster is hidden until you least expect it. If a monster is hidden in every corner it just slows the game to a crwal, so the idea is to use them only sparingly ... just when they think it's safe. The same applies to traps.

Some monsters are better avoided ... the same is true for traps.

Likewise the mechanics for traps (the minigame) needs to be just like the mechanics for combat (the minigame). Being able to solve the whole problem with two rolls is like having a combat resolved in two rolls. It's obviously BORING. But the problem is in the mechanics, not the idea itself.

Because Indiana Jhones without traps is BORING!

Swordslinger · Post by **Swordslinger** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:27 pm

K wrote: Not only does it make no sense, it doesn't matter. Even if it means the rogue always loses his turn every combat, parties are going to do it every time because it's the rogue's job!

No one cares about one person losing one action if it means no traps for the party, just like no one cares if the cleric doesn't want to just cast healing spells. You're in a party and you do your job.

Uh the rogue cares he's losing the action. This is the guy who can win initiative and get a free sneak attack on people. I'm guessing the rogue player won't be too eager to constantly cripple his own combat performance all the time because you happen to be paranoid of traps. And if you were playing the rogue, you'd say fuck that shit, the same as if someone told your battle cleric he had to prepare all heal spells because "that's your job".

While some groups may go with total trap paranoia strategy, it's not the optimal strategy by no means because there will be many instances where you are hurting your combat ability. Is it worth losing the rogue in every single combat so you can find that one or two traps in the adventure? Maybe you'd say yes. I would certainly say no. But that's good, because it's not a no-brainer. In the tomb of horrors your system would inevitably be worth it, but in an adventure with no traps at all and difficult combats, it wouldn't be.

In either case, the correct way of doing things is less obvious and that's a good thing.

K · Post by K » Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:56 pm

Swordslinger wrote:
K wrote: Not only does it make no sense, it doesn't matter. Even if it means the rogue always loses his turn every combat, parties are going to do it every time because it's the rogue's job!

No one cares about one person losing one action if it means no traps for the party, just like no one cares if the cleric doesn't want to just cast healing spells. You're in a party and you do your job.
Uh the rogue cares he's losing the action. This is the guy who can win initiative and get a free sneak attack on people. I'm guessing the rogue player won't be too eager to constantly cripple his own combat performance all the time because you happen to be paranoid of traps. And if you were playing the rogue, you'd say fuck that shit, the same as if someone told your battle cleric he had to prepare all heal spells because "that's your job".

When making yourself slightly better makes the entire party worse, the party had a right to tell you to shut the fuck up and do your job. People who don't do their job can just go play DnD with another group of people or not play the rogue.

Second, no one knows that there are no traps in the adventure, so the "correct" assumption is to always look for traps. It's not even a decision considering the damage even one trap can do vs the contribution of a rogue on a surprise round.

On the flipside, people might never look for traps because they've decided the 100 rolls a session are boring as shit and they have generally good defenses anyway.

Like I said before, there is no tactical depth here because there is clearly only one right choice for your party: if you can stand the 100 rolls a session, you look for traps.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:09 pm

K wrote:shut the fuck up and do your job

... and thus the cleric as a walking med-kit was born....

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:28 pm

shadzar wrote:... and thus the cleric as a walking med-kit was born....

If having a walking med-kit is by far the mechanically superior choice, then yes, you bring along someone to be that.

K · Post by K » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:30 pm

shadzar wrote:
K wrote:shut the fuck up and do your job
... and thus the cleric as a walking med-kit was born....

The system creates the role. The only question is whether you are too selfish to conform to the role.

I mean, if someone said "I want to be Conan and he never wore armor so my fighter is not going to wear armor of any kind and just have a really bad AC" then the proper response is "GTFO or play the class the right way."

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:37 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:
shadzar wrote:... and thus the cleric as a walking med-kit was born....
If having a walking med-kit is by far the mechanically superior choice, then yes, you bring along someone to be that.

no, the problem with D&D in current years is it is trying to become too mechanical, ergo player vs character.

likewise skills in general, needing some number to crunch to get the better of the system.

i find it funny in MOST of Mearls articles on "legends and lore" he neglects something that has always been neglected.

4th is a new game and stand alone.. good or bad is beside the point...

3.x built upon the foundation and things present in 2nd.

2nd built upon the foundation and things present in 1st.

1st built upon the understanding you had played D&D and knew things from there.

ERGO: 3.x assume you have played D&D (1970's version, rules cyclopedia) and understand things from it, but fails to present those things from the 30 year old outmoded product.

the incessant need for mechanical number crunching is because a lack of understanding the game.

sadly many people STILL do not understand what D&D is, from where it came.

a miniature game where you are an armchair general for ONE rather than many, and you make decisions for that one based on your OWN intellect, rather than some prescribed doctrine of common assumed behavior.

people are just too impressed with themselves number crunching to see the game and want more and more mechanics, or fault the game for their own bad DM, rather than acknowledge they chose to play in a game with a bad DM.

people with 3.x and all the number crunching to be "mechanically" better at this or that, are then trying to run, before they even learned how to walk.

but some blame lies with each edition for taking things granted, and NEVER publishing them past the initial game.