D&D General Want to use traps? Make them obvious

overgeeked

B/X Known World
Here’s the first image that showed up when I Googled “hex map.” When hex maps are done even halfway decently, they are riddled with point-of-interest markers, as this one is here. No, they’re not glowing diamonds floating in the air nor neon arrows. But the art is showing you the point of interest in the hex.

41E204F5-EA88-4219-A3B6-557A31278D99.jpeg
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Hexploration doesn't have PoI markers. That's the whole pointm
I mean, it doesn’t have PoI markers as such, but searching a hex for PoIs is typically an activity you can perform while traveling. This is imitated in the open world video game formula by the way you often have to get within a certain proximity of a PoI in order for a marker for it to appear on your map. Video games also have the luxury of being able to convey information non-diegetically, which is one of those strength and limitation things I mentioned. But, the hex-crawl and the open world video game are both trying to create similar gameplay patterns using different design tools.
 


James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
I'll see this and challenge a little. And it may be you are perfectly aware of all this, and are just working within the confines of existing 5e because it's the big gorilla and such - in which case just laugh at my soapbox?

🌶🌶🌶

In my humble opinion, the way D&D5e uses Perception and traps sucks – it boils down to the de facto "gotta have someone high in passive Perception" has become de rigueur for play – because it is has no context to the type of trap / game use of the trap.

For example, big obstacle obvious puzzle-traps should not involve Perception at all. The GM just needs to say what they need to say.

But there are less obvious situations where this is equally true, for example if it's a trap that might be detected a certain way but is otherwise completely undetectable otherwise – and there is a clear game precedent in 5e monsters with False Appearance traits (at least the original pre-MMotM version) requiring things like detect thoughts or interaction to detect – the GM move should be to foreshadow, not fall back on Perception. Example from game: I put a warding glyph that was under a rug. The spell describes Investigation detecting it, and that felt stupid. Instead my narrative foreshadowed that these glyphs glowed in pitch darkness, so there was a gameplay element of "do we risk snuffing our torches/extinguishing our magical light when searching for glyphs?"

I have a bone to pick with the Perception skill more broadly, it's true, I am biased. However, I'm limiting my disagreement here specifically in the way in which Perception interacts with traps as a "one size fits all super-duper detector."

The counter-argument I typically hear at this point is: "Well, Quickleaf, you don't say there's a trap if their passive Perception is high enough, you describe context clues." To which I have 3 responses:
1. Actually, the adventures and DMG itself give advice & examples that aer contrary to this. So it may be best practice, but it's not what the 5e game books currently demonstrate.
2. At that point, what purpose did the roll / maths check serve? Couldn't you have delivered the context clues from the get-go? Did you really gain that much from the Perception ordeal?
3. Without well-written clues, it's not obvious to all GMs how to deliver good context clues. It's a skill GMs develop through lots and lots of experience – old hands like me don't need to be told this because we are already doing it and have been for a while.

There are certain traps – typically the "gotcha" that is prevalent – where the whole Perception ordeal becomes necessary for fair play. But that's far from the only way to skin the cat...

For example, I house ruled 5e Perception – it's now explicitly Danger Awareness and functions more like a saving throw when the PCs are ambushed or trigger a trap. Are your surprised? Perception roll vs. the enemy's Stealth. Are you caught off guard by the trap? Perception roll vs. its DC, and if you succeed you can take a quick reaction (like diving 5 feet, dropping prone, dropping an item, shouting, using a reaction ability, raising a backpack in front of your face, etc) in response to the GM's description of the trigger going off. I've only tested a little, and struggling to get players to remember the house rule, but it has done wonders for cutting down on the lazy: "I search the room for stuff like traps or anything interesting. My Perception check is 17." No, no, no. Instead, if they want to learn about the room they've got to use their heads and their mouth-boxes and start interacting with stuff. Unless they have X-Ray Vision, they do not get x-ray vision.

To which iserith arrives and says: "That's not the 5e rule. The GM calls for the check!"

And my response will continue to be: "Yeah man tell me about. Players with habits are so hard to break. But I'm optimistic that my Perception house rule will help with that...or flat out deter habituated lazy players."

🌶🌶🌶
This raises another issue, and I've heard it both ways, and seen it both ways in written adventures: Perception or Investigation to find traps?
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Doesn't a glyph vanish after being triggered? If yes, then for all your party knows there used to be tons of glyphs here, they're just finding the few that are still left. :)
Well that's another problem, but I think the point still stands. You have these magical death traps and it's almost always written that in adventures, the PC's are the first ones ever to come upon these perfectly functional devices. Them being magical helps only somewhat.

But I guess griping about this also leads into wondering why the monsters are always at full power, waiting for the party to drop by, lol.
 

I like to premise of the OP. Finding traps, IMO, is less interesting than figuring out how to avoid and/or disable them, IMO.

At our table, I prefer to telegraph the presence of traps in my DM description of a scene. The players may or may not pick up on the clues that a trap is present. In the case where a PC fails to notice - which may involve a failed Wis(Perception) ability check - and then subsequently triggers a trap, I will often have said trap engaged but not fully activated (e.g. a pressure plate clicks or a tripwire tugs but the bad-thing doesn't happen until the PC pulls away). This gives a chance for the PC to interact with part two of a trap encounter: an attempt to disable it or otherwise mitigate said bad-thing. Depending on the situation, this might be harder than if the PC hadn't triggered it in the first place. The PC might be granted a chance to make an Int(Investigation) ability check to glean how the trap works and then it might be a Dex(Thieves' Tools) ability check to disable it. A failure to understand the mechanism of the trap might make the disabling of it an auto-fail or perhaps just a much higher DC. A failure to disable the trap may then involve a saving throw to mitigate the consequences to some extent.
 

el-remmen

Moderator Emeritus
This raises another issue, and I've heard it both ways, and seen it both ways in written adventures: Perception or Investigation to find traps?
The way I run it is Perception when only using sight (or perhaps hearing and smell as well) but investigation when touching, probing in addition to sight. With different traps having different DCs based on the approach to finding it. The again, I ask players to describe how they are looking and that also might effect the outcome.
 

Quickleaf

Legend
This raises another issue, and I've heard it both ways, and seen it both ways in written adventures: Perception or Investigation to find traps?
I’m spicy, but I think it’s the wrong question because it’s assuming skill rolls (or passive number comparison) universally are The Way to discover traps. And I think that premise should be very critically challenged.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
This raises another issue, and I've heard it both ways, and seen it both ways in written adventures: Perception or Investigation to find traps?
Are you glancing around the room or did you just walk in? Perception.

Are you actively searching the room for traps? Investigation.
I’m spicy, but I think it’s the wrong question because it’s assuming skill rolls (or passive number comparison) universally are The Way to discover traps. And I think that premise should be very critically challenged.
It’s a really bad way to run games, in my opinion. It turns everything into a button and lets the players turn off their brains. I’m more a fan of the old-school way of actively engaging with the environment. Not to the point of tedious pixel hunting, but I’d rather actively engage with the fiction instead of smash buttons.
 

bloodtide

Legend
But I guess griping about this also leads into wondering why the monsters are always at full power, waiting for the party to drop by, lol.
Modern D&D has "everything always ready all the time" to have the perfectly balanced game set up.

Old School D&D did have a Trap Malfunction table. And you could check for some monsters being asleep and not ready. The more Story based adventures would have foes that are not full power.
 

Remove ads

Top