>Party is exploring a place.
>Player who happens to enter a room either is not explicitly paying attention or fails a Perception roll.
>They fall into a trap and take some damage
>Whole group groans as if the DM has just tread some taboo ground or they just can't be bothered with this shit.
Why do you people even play? What compels you to show up at all if the concept of playing a game physically upsets you?
The way you deal with that is just check for traps incessantly, context be damned.
>giving them excuses and assuming on their behalf.
Maybe they're groaning because that dumb cunt want paying attention? Or because now they'll have to carry his ass about while he heals up or something? All I'm saying is massive you're wrong?
>>44046926
OP, post pictures of your players' character sheets.
Oh, you can't? You say there's no way to prove that you actually have a group?
How fortunate for you.
>>44046926
Because Perception rolls to spot traps is pretty much the GM just deciding to deal you damage out of nowhere, and you don't even see the roll for it (as the GM is supposed to make it).
It's taboo ground because alot of GMs do this shit just to keep the party at whatever health level he thinks is appropriate for them, regardless of their actual skills or how they choose to play. It's also kind of a bitch needing Perception on every character ever because of the existence of traps. Yeah, you can send the Rogue ahead to scout, but if he gets a shitty roll and you don't have Perception for yourself, you're kinda fucked, so everyone ends up taking it whether it makes sense for the character or not.
>>44047138
>Because Perception rolls to spot traps is pretty much the GM just deciding to deal you damage out of nowhere
...the dude rolled a fucking 1.
>and you don't even see the roll for it (as the GM is supposed to make it).
Players should never see their Perception rolls at all.
And you're just making excuses. So you decide yourself that traps are just "the DM keeping the party at whatever health he wants", and that "Perception is a shit skill that should never mean anything", what exactly DO you consider an adequate mechanic for keeping a party challenged? Obviously your issue is with your character taking any damage, so why play?
>>44047201
So you basically asked for an answer why players hate a thing you did, get an answer, then decide to bitch and moan about that answer?
I think this topic is done. Just close it and go back to class now.
>>44047232
I'm asking why there's entire sections of game mechanics that you dumb fucks called players consider "off limits" because they hurt your feel-feels when your character gets a scuff mark on his shiny boots.
If you have a problem with the game, why are you playing it?
>>44047264
Because it's a mechanic alot of GMs abuse to unfairly dish out damage whenever they feel like it and the players can't even see the rolls. I get why it's set up the way it is, but from a gameplay perspective it's just the GM telling everyone they got hurt with no input or choices from the player.
Also some GMs think the existence of traps means "PUT THEM ABSOLUTELY FUCKING EVERYWHERE, EVEN IN THE HOUSES OF PEASANT FARMERS BECAUSE I CAN!"
Itr's not a problem with the game. It's a problem with the GM. Take a look at yourself before instantly blaming your players. From what's obvious in this topic, you're one of those GMs who rather fight your players than let them have fun with their session.
>>44047323
>it's a mechanic alot of GMs abuse to unfairly dish out damage whenever they feel like it
I'm sorry, I thought that's the GM's job.
My bad, I forgot it's the players who decide when and how they take damage and penalties.
>rather fight your players than let them have fun with their session.
If the player's idea of fun is never being in danger, shouldn't they be watching cartoons instead of playing a game?
>>44047363
>Missing the point this hard.
Someone else can explain this. I'm done.
4/10 if deliberate troll, got way more replies out of me than you should have.
>>44047385
No, I get what you're saying: "Some DMs do things I don't like, so if a DM ever does it I will act like it's the worst thing ever, regardless of the fact that it's the first time it's ever happened in the campaign".
That's what you're saying.
>>44047201
>1 out of every 20 rooms the group takes damage just because
This is ok to you?
>>44047434
...whut
>>44046926
ITT: DMs who make you go full "I disbelieve the air"
>>44047416
>>44046926
At first level is not ok, traps have relatively high as fuck DCs to be spotted and disabled at low levels
Also SoD is not ok at any level
>>44047442
You gonna roll a nat1 every 20 rolls on average, that means on every 20 rooms you're going to fuck up on one and take damage or die because "traps!"
>>44047487
>traps have relatively high as fuck DCs to be spotted and disabled at low levels
What if they don't? If you fall into a trap, are you going to assume it was because the DC was impossible for you to pass, or just because you rolled low?
>>44047504
You're literally trying to explain things to a retard who covers his ears and screams "NO!NO!NO!YOU'REWRONGI'MRIGHT!"
You're aware of that, right?
>>44047504
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Is your problem with the concept of rolling a 1? Or are you assuming there is clearly a trap in every room? If so, why make that assumption?
>>44046926
Had a party who never ate, drank, slept, bathed, or used the toilet. After I explicitly said I wasn't going to automate minor actions so as to provide more realism. They kept wondering why I kept noting people eating and drinking as the first things they see in a town, how people avoid them and pinch their noses as they pass, why they kept getting negatives to rolls. The party warrior was the first to starve to death, then went the mage and the ranger, then the cleric examines the body, I said they died of dehydration/starvation, he immediately realized what was up and ate and drank. The party felt like dumbasses, the ranger gave me the stink eye, and then they made new characters. After that it was a fun campaign.
>>44047504
Unless there isn't a trap in that room?
>>44047508
Impossible to pass to be honest, the DC is 20+ to be spotted on 99% of traps, same to be disabled.
You'll need to roll 15+ to spott and disable that shit, that's pretty fucking unfair.
>>44047546
I have to ask, why?
>>44047535
>>44047548
Man, your GMs must be cuddling you or something, there should be a trap every 10ft
>>44047571
They begged me for a super realistic campaign. I have it to them. The said " We want something like real life but in a fantasy world"
>>44047571
>>44047598
I should elaborate more, they were hungry and thirsty, they were tired from never sleeping eating or drinking, they were becoming septic from never taking a shit, and they were developing sores and open wounds from never bathing.
>>44047598
I would never go that far, but I have had players ask for things like that.
I once had a player ask me to hold them to an ammo system, and then proceed to complain about the fact that if they threw their magical dagger at an enemy and missed and their dagger flew off the side of a boat or something, they would lose it.
I had one player work with me to come up with a system where they would have to spend in-game time and effort seeking out recipes and spells rather than just leveling up and knowing all of them. They got mad when they tried to ready some esoteric spell and I told them they had no idea how to cast it, threw a fit, and left the game.
>>44047581
I don't really see why. People don't generally live in areas with traps every 10ft. Unless you're going in a place that is specifically a trap dungeons. And if you are you should be prepared with the easy ways to handle traps.
>>44047598
Yeah, you obviously try to construe it to screw them over. Realistic doesn't mean bookkeeping. Though you said you warned them in advance, so it is there faults.
>>44046926
Because traps are SoD or SoS, nobody likes that shit.
>>44047631
You never told them "You're thirsty" or "You're hungry". Because it's not as if they're the characters and can feel it. It seems really stupid unless you're reminding them, because your body reminds you to do those things.
Having no urges to input to get you to do things seems silly when you're supposed to be "realistic".
>>44047649
What? Most traps are save against damage, not save or die. Unless they're magic traps like enervation rays.
>>44047649
Well, being hit by a spell often has no save at all. No one likes that either, I assume.
>>44047546
>You forgot to breath, you die
>You forgot to open you eyes, you get impaled by that tree
>Your forgot to think, your neurons die
You sound like fun
>>44047323
> unfairly dish out damage whenever they feel like it
Objectively false.
You roll Perception. You roll Dex/Con/what save because you triggered the trap.
It's fair as fair can be.
>>44047633
They asked for a game that was basically real life but with magic and forgot to take care of basic human needs.
>>44047639
I was told that was what they wanted.
>>44047667
I told one of my players that his leg hurts too much to walk on because of a bear trap, and my group got pissy saying I can't determine how their characters feel. This is the same group.
>>44047706
>forget to breathe, die
Of course. If you stop breathing you'll pass out, it's the equivalent of holding your breath, I never had them do that though.
>forget to open your eyes, get impaled
No shit, it's called moving dumbass.
>forget to think, neurons die
No you just lose your train of thought mid action and forget what you were doing. But also something I never had them do.
>>44047825
That's exactly what I'm saying though. I don't know where this "Omg unfair DM!" shit comes from.
>>44047892
Oh. Right.
My bad.
>>44046926
>Party is exploring a place.
>Player who happens to enter a room either is not explicity playing attention of fails Perception roll.
>Ninjas jump from the ceiling and stab all of you for some damage and status effect.
>Whole group groans as if the DM has just tread some taboo ground or they just can't be bothered with this shit.
Why do you people even play? What compels you to show up at all if the concept of playing a game physically upsets you?
>>44047904
I'm not the guy you responded to. I agree that his post makes no sense.
>>44047892
>>44047904
>Poster count doesn't go up.
>OP is literally samefagging to make it look like his opposition now agrees with him.
Please lurk more.
>>44047937
ok kid
>>44047937
Really? That's where you're going? Your points are retarded, so you just yell "samefag"?
>>44047201
>...the dude rolled a fucking 1.
Yeah. You're shit.
>>44046926
Traps that can be spotted with perception checks I don't mind.
Its the ones that can't be that piss me off. Was doing a dungeon exploration to clear out some drow and purify this ancient temple to whatever God.
Being the Rogue I scouted ahead, rolled fairly well for perception, like a 15 or so. Thought it was clear so I went to unlock the door. Had to make a reflex save, which I failed, fucking door was actually made of swords set on a mechanism to kebab people who try to unlock it.
A full half of my health gone right there. Poof. Like nothing. Thought that was bullshit, so I said something. GM said that these murder-doors aren't seen with perception.
Bit my tongue after that. But it got progressively less and less fun as I had to basically waste the CMW rod I had on myself to prevent myself from dying.
>>44048650
>You can't perceive this with Perception.
>You can't perceive this mechanism with the skill to perceive physical things.
If it's like a fucking rune that makes fire happen, it's like alright, whatever, thought it was just another Alien Egyptian hyeroglyph in the area, but come the fuck on.
Blatant bait, stop biting you morons
>>44046926
I have this really strange feeling.
I don't know why, but I feel like I've seen this exact thread before. But it's just a feeling.
What do you call deja vu when you get it over the internet, exactly?
>>44053605The pleasure of being cummed inside
>>44053614
That doesn't even make any sense. That's not even clever or funny.
So I know this thread was shitposting from the beginning, but I have a question. What are -good- traps? In my mind, traps suck because they're often a "roll to see if you get hurt" with 0 input from the players. It's just as bad if it's just a perception roll to see if they find the trap or not.
Are traps better if it's something the party can react to? Like, you see a clearly dangerous door, and how you try to open it determines whether or not you have to make a save or be hurt? Or you trigger a trap, causing the exits to seal and snakes to pour out of the walls?
>>44053805
Traps that complicate a combat-in-progress and can potentially be turned against their users are fun.
>>44053805
So you want a trap that is literally not a trap at all, but a situation where you tell the players they see exactly what they're dealing with, and they have to choose to touch it and maybe if they choose to, take a little bit of damage?
Like, why exactly do you have an issue with hidden traps? Don't they make sense in the world? Why would anyone make a non-hidden trap? Why would the players always, in every situation, find the "trap" but on;y have it activate if they choose to interact with it? Why wouldn't they just learn that it's always a better option to just ignore it?
>Or you trigger a trap, causing the exits to seal and snakes to pour out of the walls?
That's...not a trap. That's an encounter. I mean, what do the snakes do? Are they actual things with stats? A swarm-type enemy? Do they just do straight poison damage to people in the room over time? Why would you make the trigger for this something that the players have to CHOOSE to activate? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be hidden?
>>44046926
There's really only one way to do traps well, and that is to not fall into the HP tax trap
Literally whatever the fucking fuck you do, however much foreshadowing or perception traps or whatever the fuck you think is how you're supposed to do traps, the worst mistake is to just make them an HP tax. You have to use them to present an interesting situation.
http://www.toon.is/dexters-laboratory-2x03-d-dd-hamhocks-and-armlocks-video_cd749df57.html
Like, seriously, I can't believe I'm pointing to an episode of Dexter's Lab on how to do a p&p session, but it is literally a fantastic example of what you should be shooting for in a d&d session, barring the obvious end bit where mage dude comes to rape the PCs.
Traps are used as obstacles, not HP taxes, and that's what makes them interesting. "You lose some HP because you failed a random check" isn't really interesting.
Use traps to get PCs into complicated situations. If used, they basically need to be a miniature encounter in their own right, or an obvious facet of the terrain which can either help or harm them.
>>44053947
>Literally whatever the fucking fuck you do, however much foreshadowing or perception CHECKS or whatever the fuck you think is how you're supposed to do traps, the worst mistake is to just make them an HP tax. You have to use them to present an interesting situation.
fixt
>>44053947
>and that is to not fall into the HP tax trap
But why? Why is a player losing HP to a Goblin hitting him, and a player losing HP to him failing a Perception check to notice a pit trap and a Reflex save to break the fall two different things?
You're not explaining why a spike pit is a crime against humanity. You're just saying it is because you feel like it's unfair when you roll badly.
>>44053897
>why exactly do you have an issue with hidden traps?
because the kind described in the OP, and the kind most people seem to think of don't serve to improve the game at all. "Your character stepped on a thing and took some damage" ok, great, but what was the point of that? I could also have them roll a check when they walk down a flight of stairs and if they roll a 1, their ankle breaks. It happens, right? it makes sense to randomly snap an ankle with a bunch of heavy armor on while you're looking around for monsters - but why
>>44053992
>"Your character stepped on a thing and took some damage" ok, great, but what was the point of that? I could also have them roll a check when they walk down a flight of stairs and if they roll a 1, their ankle breaks. It happens, right?
Those aren't remotely the same things.
If a player is in a place that some person or creature is trying to defend by hiding a pit trap in the floor and concealing it, and the player falls in because they didn't notice it due to their miserable Perception roll, how is that remotely the same in your mind as you making them roll to descend the stairs because "lol it happens sometimes!"?
You're just being disingenuous here.
And you still haven't answered the question. You said you have an issue with hidden traps because "there's no point", and then you describe a ridiculous scenario that makes no sense.
>>44053984
I'm saying it's boring, you're boring, and your player is reacting to how boring you are by sighing.
Please continue thinking you're right and everyone else is wrong though, you clearly came to /tg/ for validation, not discussion.
>>44054026
Ok. You can continue arguing with people about whatever you're trying to prove. I was hoping to get some decent trap ideas, because anyone can make some shitty pit trap.
>>44053838
>Traps that complicate a combat-in-progress and can potentially be turned against their users are fun.
I've heard this idea a lot but never see an example given. I like it a lot, can you give an example or two?
>>44053984
IN A "GENERIC TRADITIONAL" D&D RPG
>trap encounter
>involves 1 player, the one who triggers it
>two rolls involved, perception, and (if successful) disable device
>if it fails, lots of damage is done
>encounter over
Meanwhile
>goblin encounter
>involves all the players, everyone can fight back against goblins
>more rolls involved
>tactical options available to mitigate ongoing damage after the initial sneak attack
>everyone gets to have fun and there's an illusion of choice
Gee, I wonder why players like fighting goblins more than basic traps that do just HP damage.
>>44046926
This doesn't apply to every group, but some people play ttrpgs to kill shit and take it's loot. They just want a fun time where they don't have to think all that much and/or just want to get to the combat.
Putting in traps means that they then have to spend OOC time looking for and dealing with traps, and since that's not at all what they're looking for it means that the DM is basically just wasting everybody's time.
That said, I typically enjoy traps and other non-combat obstacles to overcome, so it really depends on the people involved.
>>44054141
>if it fails, lots of damage is done
>encounter over
But you haven't explained why this is inherently a negative. You have to actually make a case as to why every single thing that you challenge players with has to last a significant amount of time and allow input from all players before you're allowed to inconvenience the party with damage, a status effect, or something else.
There's a reason that dungeons are divided into ENCOUNTERS and DANGERS. Tomb of Horrors would very much like a word with you.
Wait, no, you wouldn't ever play that because "Omg I failed a perception roll and fell into a spike pit fuck this game"
>>44054138
I'll admit I haven't had much practice doing it, but it worked out okay when part of the floor drop down into a shallow pool of acid during an otherwise standard kobold fight. To be brief, the monk that stepped on it failed to end up in the drink but one of the kobolds managed it in their stead.
>>44054214
Tomb of horrors is designed for a beer and pretzels "fuck you guys, bring lots of character sheets". Fine if you're up for that sort of thing.
>But you haven't explained why this is inherently a negative
Because traps only involves one player, and in the majority of poorly done cases there's little to no player agency (how many points did you put in perception and reflex? Ok, that's all the input you have), there's little to no roleplaying (you encounter a trap. What do you do? Disable it? Ok, you succeed/fail, you fall in a pit or avoid the pit) and all it has done is wasted 5 minutes of time and resources of your party.
While a goblin encounter often can be a bit more inventive; players have more ways to interact with the attackers, everyone gets involved, and you can do things like shout at goblins or diplomacy or do any sort of thing that you can't do with a normal sort of trap.
tl;dr
>player agency is good
>greater scope of actions is good
>>44054472
>Tomb of horrors is designed for a beer and pretzels "fuck you guys, bring lots of character sheets"
Says who? More often than not, it's played completely straight, for the challenge and brain-straining puzzles and obstacles involved. Are you going to cite some source that tells us what it was "really" designed for?
>Because traps only involves one player,
CAMOUFLAGED PIT TRAP CR 3
Type mechanical; Perception DC 25; Disable Device DC 20
EFFECTS
Trigger location; Reset manual
Effect 30-ft.-deep pit (3d6 falling damage); DC 20 Reflex avoids;
multiple targets (all targets in a 10-ft.-square area)
Operative word here: ALL TARGETS IN A 10-FT AREA
This is pretty damned common for like, every trap ever written. I can find you hundreds of examples of non-single-target traps right now.
>and in the majority of poorly done cases there's little to no player agency
There's no player agency involved in the player getting hit by an attack, ambushed and sneak-attacked, targeted by a spell, or anything else that happens to them.
>how many points did you put in perception and reflex? Ok, that's all the input you have
This is LITERALLY WHY STATS ARE IN THE GAME WHAT THE FUCK
>you encounter a trap. What do you do? Disable it? Ok, you succeed/fail, you fall in a pit or avoid the pit
That's...not how an encounter with a trap goes...
> and all it has done is wasted 5 minutes of time and resources of your party.
And here is the crux of the matter; You consider everything that isn't written specifically to make your character feel awesome at all times as "wasted time". So my question is, why exactly are you playing?
>>44054525
>ALL TARGETS IN A 10-FT AREA
That's not particularly better. That means everyone's just rolling perception and then either everyone flubs because only the wizard and the rogue had sufficient skillpoints to put points in perception, and then everyone just takes 3d6 damage or avoids it.
And then if the guy notices it, then only one person's equipped to disable the trap via stats, the rogue. Or the wizard, but hey, they break everything anyway. Basically, only one person is EQUIPPED to properly deal with it. And that's bad game design, because it's not engaging everyone else and they could all be doing fuckall in the meantime.
>There's no player agency involved in the player getting hit by an attack, ambushed and sneak-attacked, targeted by a spell, or anything else that happens to them.
After the initial sneak attack, of which was mentioned in >>44054141
>tactical options available to mitigate ongoing damage after the initial sneak attack
you can make choices to avoid things that you can see. You can move away from goblins so they can't stab you. You can dive for cover if they're archers. You can cast a spell to make them go blind or hide yourself. You can stab them in the face.
All of that prevents a player being hit by an attack, and that's all player interaction.
You can do all that stuff against people casting spells at you, too.
>That's...not how an encounter with a trap goes...
Really now. I'm talking about the OP scenario
>Player who happens to enter a room either is not explicitly paying attention or fails a Perception roll.
>They fall into a trap and take some damage
This is EXACTLY how OP phrased it. So fuck you too for trying to change the scenario suddenly.
>So my question is, why exactly are you playing?
I am playing a GAME, which implies I have some OPTIONS to change how things go. If I wanted to play a dice rolling simulator I'd have just thrown my dice against a wall repeatedly until I lose them.
>>44054624
>You can move away from goblins so they can't stab you.
You're comparing two different things, though. Your attempt to move away from getting hit in combat is not equivalent to your potential for not being affected by a trap out of combat. In combat, you have one thing: Either the enemy hits your AC, or it misses. In the case of a spell, either you make your Will/Fort/Reflex save, or you don't and it hits you. There is nothing else you can input there. You can't "roleplay" your way out of being hit.
It's literally exactly the same as not noticing a trap due to a low Perception check followed by a failed Reflex save to take damage. Both situations have exactly the same level of "player agency".
So your problem is with rolls in general.
With a trap you can: Detect magic, prod with your 10' pole to trigger things at a distance, cast Fly on yourself, teleport away, send a pet ahead to trip things for you, etc. If you can consider "stabbing the monster in the face" as some sort of player agency when it comes to avoiding being hit by an attack, then how can you not see that there are equal amounts of options you can take to not be affected by a trap?
Shouldn't you always Take 10 on perception checks out of combat?
And roll it for all members of the party?
>>44054662
>Both situations have exactly the same level of "player agency".
if anything I'd say the trap has slightly MORE player agency since most of the time at least they, the player, get to roll the reflex save. It's not much of course, but when the goblin attacks the DM rolls a die against their static AC number, the player has no part in it what so ever.
>>44054840
It's just baffling to me because apparently he's counting everything the player is allowed to do leading up to the actual roll against them as "agency", but then somehow forgetting that nothing stops someone from doing all of those things in a dungeon hallway if they think there might be a trap.
If the player chooses to do nothing, it's fairly safe to assume they think it is not likely that there is a trap to be encountered, otherwise they'd be taking precautions.
>>44054855
>>44054840
Not the guy who was posting.
In my personal, anecdotal experience people I game with enjoy combat encounters and do not enjoy hidden traps because, regardless of the reality of the situation, the former at least has the illusion of increased player agency.
Perhaps it's because combat can be reactive, whereas traps (at least spike pits and the like) have to be mitigated beforehand when there might not even be a trap or not interacted with at all. Perhaps the vast majority of the people I game with are idiots.
Either way, because of this I understand exactly why the situation OP presents warranted a groan from his players. They didn't feel like they had any control, doesn't matter whether they actually did or not. Putting players in a position where they feel this way is, to me, bad DMing, and I would recommend OP either better acquaint himself with what his players actually want or find a different group.
>>44054662
>You're comparing two different things, though.
Yes, I am.
I'm comparing a fight over a NUMBER of rolls, which has SEVERAL ACTIONS that can be taken between each roll, depending on the outcome of the previous roll, to decide on what to do next - a combat with goblins -
Over two rolls made in detecting a trap and taking damage.
>With a trap you can: Detect magic, prod with your 10' pole to trigger things at a distance, cast Fly on yourself, teleport away, send a pet ahead to trip things for you, etc. If you can consider "stabbing the monster in the face" as some sort of player agency when it comes to avoiding being hit by an attack, then how can you not see that there are equal amounts of options you can take to not be affected by a trap?
You can do none of these options if you fail to detect the trap to begin with, and have no reason to suspect a trap is present.
If traps ARE likely to be present, that means you just start going "I detect traps. I look at the wall. I press the flagstone with a ten foot pole."
For every 5 foot move.
For every spot on the wall.
Forever.
Do you know how boring that is? How mind-tediously inane? Few people will want to have to go through with that bullshit.
PROTIP: it's generally also considered bad GMing if a goblin sneaks into your camp and slits everyone's throats in their sleep. I won't say why, though, I'll let you figure it out.
>>44054945
>it's generally also considered bad GMing if a goblin sneaks into your camp and slits everyone's throats in their sleep. I won't say why, though, I'll let you figure it out.
But you can make a perception check to hear the goblin and wake up, so it's perfectly fair!:')
>>44055003
It's mechanically identical, too!
OP wouldn't mind if that happened to his character and it wouldn't be bullshit at all.:^)
Normal traps are boring though. Think about it like this; If you don't see a trap, you walk into it and damage happens. If you do see it, you can avoid it. There is no gain from the trap being there. It isn't a lose-win scenario, merely a lose-not quite lose scenario. In combat, if you win, you get to then loot the corpses for useful tools, or use them for whatever nefarious purposes you have them for. It is a win-lose scenario.
The secret to making useful traps, or fun traps, is to give them a purpose other than to damage your players. Make a "trap" with fire protection on it hidden in a corner then walk across the bridge barely over the lava without taking damage, or use the trap to send the group into a humiliating pile of tar and feathers, which will make them take more damage from fire based attacks but if they succeed they then have access to tar and feathers, or even make traps that activate anti-magic throughout the dungeon for a few hours, which would disable magic traps but also wreck casters. Hell, even a simple siren to alert the dungeon's denizens to rush to the location which can be used to call out guys a few at a time to then beat them, loot them and move on.
Make the traps interactive, and your players will thank you for it. Making the standard "now you take damage" trap is the same as making a fighter who's backstory is "I used to hit shit. Now I hit shit better." It's boring. Nobody wants to see that generic fighter. People want a fun character. Just like people wanting fun traps.
>>44054214
Nobody likes Save or Die spells, do you think they're going to like Save or Die traps? it's cheap.
It's just tossing a coin and decide if your character dies or not over that coin, combats due depending on more rolls is less about luck and more about your tactics/resources/etc.
>>44054525
>CR3
>DC 25 to spot
>DC 20 do disable
Jesus fuck, you'll need to be the luckiest motherfucker around to not be utterly fucked by that at 3rd level
>Party is exploring a place.
>As soon as a PC enters a room DM tosses a coin.
>They fall into a trap and take damage
>Whole group groans as if the DM has just tread some taboo ground or they just can't be bothered with this shit.
Why do you people even play? What compels you to show up at all if the concept of playing a game physically upsets you?
>>44055003
>>44055024
>>44054945
You can set guards, alarm spell and other ways that don't even involve rolls to avoid this.
One roll in perception is the only way to spot a trap and one roll in disable device the only way to disable it.
>>44055566
>He can't roll reliabily 15+
>>44055585
To be fair you can do other things to safeguard against traps; but it tends to be boring. If you're in a dungeon hunting mood where your GM will let you hammer spikes into rope to get past a spiked pit traps and summons to scout out oil smells and poisons, it can be OK.
But a trap reduced to "roll, take damage or don't" isn't playing a role, it's not even a game, and I for one will not be wanting to play it.
>this entire thread
Pussies, all of you. What, do you need padding on the end of every spike trap? Instead of poison gas, a trap just throws green goo on you?
>>44046926
Stop playing DnD. That will solve your problem immediately.
>>44046926
Context people.
>Raid a wizard's dungeon vault for magic items.
> fail perception roll and spring giant scything blade trap.
> thisispodracing.jpg
> sneak into potato farmer's mud hut to steal his copper pieces.
> fail perception roll and spring giant scything blade trap.
The player should have a reasonable expectation of what sort of locals would have magical death traps or giant mechanical marvels made to kill. Even a 30 ft pit doesn't make sense in very many locations.
>>44056143
>sneak into potato farmer's mud hut to steal his copper pieces
>mud hut collapses because the farmer is bad at building huts
Shit dms the thread
>>44055976
>I haet game
This hurr-durr-stop-playing-game stupidity just shows that you're an ignorant twit that doesn't actually play any games at all since it can happen in any game ever.
Yeah, we get that you hate a specific game. That doesn't stop retarded players from existing.
>>44046926
It appears reason, or much more likely sleep or similar distractions, has quieted the obtuse OP.
If he returns I would be interested to see if he was capable of listening to the answer or merely wished to rage and wail.
I would add to the other intelligent points made in this thread.
>>44054214
>But you haven't explained why this is inherently a negative.
This is a good jumping point for what I have to say.
The experience of encountering a trap can only ever be negative.
Disabled/Avoided or Triggered.
Those are the only outcomes.
There is no positive result to a trap. Either it is triggered with a negative result or it is avoided with a neutral result.
There is no "win" or "positive" result.
Technically, if playing with a system that rewards xp for disabling a trap, there is that.
But even that is, as others have pointed out, boring xp.
Success is no action, no event, nothing interesting happening.
Success is maintaining the status quo.
Success should ideally be more than "not losing."
Now, if the traps are dynamic, challenging, and interesting to solve, then they are engaging and not as boring as one PC rolling one skill.
More importantly, the difference of those traps are irrelevant if the PCs don't spot the trap, as in OP's example.
Obviously there are different ways of playing and none is more superior than another, this is just to help explain why many players dislike these sorts of traps.
Using these traps can be as unnecessary and unfun as a unladen climb check on a well secured ladder.
>>44047416
He's another dwfag, anon, ignore him.
>>44054945
>>44055585
How about this?
What about a danger pendant? A little trinket that tells you there IS a trap, but not WHERE nor WHAT.
Then you roll perception with varying degrees of success. Worst outcome is a general layout of the room: whether it's flagstones or wooden planks or whatever.
A success would be finding either the trigger mechanism or the trap output or both, while a crit is figuring out what it is.
The party effort is figuring out how to get past it. Disarming is prohibitively difficult and dangerous for non-portable traps, basically anything bigger than a chest. Time sensitive tasks like poking a 10 foot pole on every surface wears on party stamina and causes stacking exhaustion if they're out of supplies. You are encouraged to find a method that suits each party member. Fighter can just jump while the mage might be light enough to not trigger the trap, etc.
