A Walk in the Dark A look in to the mind of an RPG designer

      

16Nov/13Off

Class Acts

Who knew that designing an RPG was HARD?!?

In the past few days I've stepped away from documenting mutations, augments and other weird stuff and tried to decide exactly what classes were going to be in this thing.

This is, this is not a magical world, or at least not in the way you're familiar with. But I would like some sort of arcane-like option, so I've come up with a class I called a "channeler" which - through technology or innate power unlocked by mutation - can manipulate elemental forces. Apparently bright minds think alike because, without me knowing, that name is used in several other post-apocalyptic RPGs... So the name might change just so I don't look like I copied it. Who knows?

I also wanted something similar to a psion, who gains his power from technology's ability to increase the power of the mind. This power is mostly manifested in psychic attacks but can also affect the environment in such ways. This could open up the possibilities of things like telekinesis, clairvoyance, domination and fun things like that. For now he's called a "controller" but that will most definitely change.

That being said, these are the classes I'm currently planning:

  • Berserker: The stereotypical wasteland marauder, like all those guys in Mad Max. Right now it's functionally identical to the 13th Age barbarian.
  • Channeler: Able to manipulate elemental energy and bend the laws of physics around him. As close to a mage as you can get (probably closer to the 13th Age sorcerer than wizard).
  • Controller: Able to attack and control the minds of others, and also has some other options such as telekinesis. Basically a psion, although I have no intention of implementing power points or any complex stuff like that. My only problem with this class is that it becomes effectively useless against things without a brain, like robots. Logically that makes sense but mechanically it's no fun to be in an encounter and not able to participate in any way, so I need to come up with something they can do when they're fighting robots.
  • Engineer: The "tech savvy" class. I'm modeling this around a ranger but giving them a few tech options. For example, instead of an animal companion they can get either an autonomous robotic companion or a drone (which is the equivalent of a wizard's familiar). They aren't so hot in hand-to-hand combat, but they have a lot of tech support to back them up in a fight.
  • Scout: Like the veteran (see below), but much lighter and not so much a weapons expert. This would be somewhat of a hybrid between ranger and rogue.
  • Veteran: The "warrior" of the game, a mix of the paladin (without the religious aspects) and fighter. You've been around, and you've seen it all. A true weapon and combat expert.

I'm also debating a rogue-like "scoundrel" class, but that's still up in the air.

Professions

My intention with these classes is to make them basic and, especially in the case of the veteran, fairly generic. If you want to specialize your character, you can choose a Profession (which takes up a feat slot); for example, here are some of the Professions I have in mind:

  • Gladiator: The kind of guy you'd see in Thunderdome. Proficiency with melee weapons.
  • Soldier: Proficiency with guns (except sniper rifles)
  • Sniper: Proficiency with sniper rifles
  • Hacker: Able to infiltrate computer systems and robotics using a handheld "deck". This is the rogue of the tech world.
  • Wheelman: Expert driver. You even get your own car!
  • Field Medic: The closest thing to being a cleric. Basically the party healer.

These professions can be used in conjunction with any class. So, since there is no class that is the equivalent of a cleric, any character can take the Field Medic profession and become one. And if you want a channeler that can use a gun, you can choose the Weapons Expert profession and there you go.

More Than Rewording

Right now my primary issue is that things feel far too similar to 13th Age, but I'm not exactly sure if that's a good or a bad thing. For example, my implementation of the berserker is almost identical to the 13th Age barbarian. And the spells my channeler has are very similar to wizard or sorcerer spells, with some names changed... and some not (how many ways can you describe "fireball" anyway?).

Part of the benefit of using what's already given and re-fluffing it is that what's already in 13th Age has been tested for balance and playability. I don't have to reinvent the wheel and hold it's load bearing.

My hope is that the basics of the game remain the same, using the same mechanic that everyone is already familiar with, and adding more diversity through Professions and Mutations.Because of how many options there are going to be I'm debating increasing the number of feats you get at 1st level by one, but I'm not exactly sure what that's going to do to balance.

I also intend to have races have more of an impact than they do in 13th Age.

Lepus Sapiens

In the end, anyone can be anything they want. You pick the class and profession that's functionally what you want to be, then layer on mutations (small ones or big, feat-using ones) to make you appear like what you want to be.

For example, you want to be a giant rabbit with a gun?

  • Race: Humanoid. Get one extra feat and the Ready for Action ability (roll two d20s for initiative).
  • Class: Veteran. I haven't decided on the Class Talents yet, but you get three of them.
  • Profession (Feat): Soldier, which gives you the weapon of your choice that is considered your "signature weapon". You choose an assault rifle, like an M4. You get a +1 to attack rolls with your signature weapon and you also get the Quick Reload feat (reload as a quick action instead of a move action) for free.
  • Feat (2nd feat granted by race):  Nervous System I augment, which grants +2 to Dex skill checks and +1 to initiative. After all, you're supposed to be quick... You are a rabbit!

The fact that you're a rabbit is flavor text; it has no mechanical impact. Now, if you want to have a complex mutation just for being a rabbit, like being able to jump really far, you would replace the augment with it and come to a mutual understanding with your GM as to how and when that can be used. It doesn't have to be a highly detailed mechanic... If you're in combat and say "I want to jump", let the GM decide how to handle it right then and there.

Anyway, all this still requires a crapton of work and still may change drastically by the time I'm done. And I haven't even started to think about the 800 pound gorilla in the room: creating a crapton of monsters that won't get me sued.

12Nov/13Off

One Unique Mutant

So in light of my last post regarding mutations, I've been doing some thinking.

A Step Back

Before I proceed with the full on development of this project, I had to stop and think of what exactly my goals are. I have a general vision, and I have the game mechanics to do it, but what exactly is the expectation? This whole idea popped in to my head because I was denied creating content for the-system-that-shall-remain-nameless... but is that really what I want? Is that really what everyone wants?

The thing with all the other systems is that they are significantly more complex mechanically than 13th Age was designed to be. Like I mentioned in the past post, I don't want to create a game based on the Archmage Engine that includes a new "feature" that consists of several dozen rather large tables, because that defeats the purpose and turns the system in to something it was never meant to be.

But I want what the-system-that-shall-remain-nameless brought to the table: diversity. You can be anything you wanted to be, and you can either play it serious or be as off-the-wall zany as you want to be. Want to play the hardened veteran driving his Interceptor, dog at his hide, down a barren road to nowhere? Yes, you can absolutely do that. Want to be a mutated chicken with an Uzi and a jetpack? A sentient gorilla that throws explosive coconuts and can call lightning? A giant tulip with a broadsword that can breathe fire? Maybe we can do that too.

So my goal is simple: I want to create a system that provides all these options, but doesn't overburden the game with thousands of new rules and tables in order to do so.

Balance

In doing my research of other post-apocalyptic systems, and reading through the lists of 100+ mutations some of them provide, I came to realize something: they are imbalanced as hell. While some mutations might be mundane or mechanically insignificant, others have paragraphs of mechanics and could end up being far too powerful. Skewing the balance too far in either direction makes it really difficult for the DM, mainly because every encounter and event is more or less balanced and based on the fact that each and every PC is more or less the same.

Let's take an example from D&D 4th Edition: horns. Tieflings and minotaurs both have horns, but while the tiefling's horns are just cosmetic the minotaur's horns are significantly beefier. Therefore, they have mechanics defined for them: all minotaurs have a gore attack as a racial power. But in order to be able to use those horns for a mechanic effect they have to give something up, so the gore attack is all they get at the race level. Tieflings have a different, not-horn-based racial power they can use, but giving a minotaur a gore attack and something else will suddenly unbalance the system.

Levels of Mutation

So before we decide what cost a powerful mutation will have, we have to define what they are.

For further discussion, let's use an example...

Example: Tom, a player, decides his PC is going to have a mutation that gives him wings because he wants to everyone to think he's some sort of demon and he wants to be an all around badass.

The way I see it, there are three possibilities:

Cosmetic

A cosmetic mutation has zero mechanical effect. It has no impact on the game mechanic at all. Players and PCs alike may choose to use it like they would a background or a "unique thing", but it should be under very specific circumstances and not all that often.

Example: Tom's PC has thin, frail wings that are incapable of flight. He uses them only to make everyone think he's a demon, but he's not very good at it. While having social interactions with NPCs he may try to use them to appear intimidating, but the wings are frail enough that he's not all that convincing.

For things of this nature, there really isn't a need to take anything away. As far as I care, so long as you don't abuse them functionally you can have as many cosmetic mutations as you like (within the limits of how many mutations you can physically have; we'll get to that some other time). So if you want to be a six foot tall rabbit with wings, a forked tongue, a unicorn horn and a tail... so long as none of those has a mechanical impact and are "for presentation purposes only", by all means knock yourself out.

Low Impact

The mutation has a modest mechanical effect, but it is only applicable in very specific circumstances and even then is not all that dramatic.

Example: Tom's PC has wings that he still can't use to fly, but they are beefy enough that he can use them to appear intimidating and be convincing. He can also use them to make a controlled landing when he falls from high altitude, similar to a wizard's feather fall spell, but doing so can be somewhat painful as it puts a lot of stress on his wings.

This category is the hardest to manage, at least in terms of a DM. It crosses a fairly thin line between "insignificant" and "major", and would be up to both PC and DM to decide how the mechanics are going to play out. This type of mutation should only have one, maybe two, special cases in which it can be used; any more and it stops being "low impact" and graduates to being "high impact."

I don't think this merits taking anything away from the PC besides limiting how often they can use the ability. For example, the ability for the wings to arrest a fall should be limited to once a day because of the stress it places on the wings. As a DM, I'd be very careful that something initially defined as "low impact" starts getting abused. Worst case, it gets promoted to "high impact" and has an associated cost.

High Impact

The mutation has a major impact on everything the player does, and pretty much has to be taken in to consideration regardless of what they may be doing.

Example: Tom's PC has wings that would make dragons jealous. He wants to be able to fly at altitude, use them to block incoming attacks, use them to make attacks and be an overall demonic badass that makes everyone cower in fear.

I sometimes hate players like this, but that's a separate topic.

Being able to fly, especially at altitude, is what many will call a "game changer". It significantly alters the tactics of any fight, and could be abused more than you can imagine. D&D 4th Edition restricts flight significantly for that very reason; pixies, human-shaped insects that should be able to fly wherever the hell they want, are denied high altitude flight for that reason. Letting them continually get out of range and fly circles around their opponents grossly tilts the balance scale in their favor.

This is the sort of thing that either has to be documented fairly rigidly or agreed upon in full by the DM and players, and a mutual agreement has to be made to ensure that the rules are not only worth the cost (we'll get to that later) but don't break everything the DM has planned.

For example, some of the possibilities on how wings of this nature can be used and how they may translate to mechanics:

  • Tom's PC can look intimidating as all hell when he spreads his massive wings. This can provide a bonus to skill checks in social interactions, similar to backgrounds.
  • Tom's PC can wrap the wings around his body forming a shield. This would require a standard action and would grant him a +1 bonus to AC and PD until the start of his next turn.
  • Tom's PC can fly, but he will get fatigued easily. If he takes off and ends his turn at altitude, he is weakened (save ends). If he is at high altitude or been aloft for long, it becomes a hard save (16+). If he fails a save, he falls.
  • Tom's PC can use his wings to perform a wing beat attack (Target: all engaged opponents, Attack: Highest attribute + level vs AC, Hit: Level x d6 + Strength mod damage, Miss: Level damage). He can only do this once per battle.

Needless to say, these are some serious mechanical advantages. But, after mutual discussion, they actually sound cool when you think about it! And I'm always an advocate of doing cool stuff at the table, so it wouldn't take much to convince me to use these rules... but there has to be a cost. So to get all of that, or maybe part of it, it'll cost you a feat. And the advanced abilities of the wings (such as flight or wing beat) may cost you a second feat at Champion Tier.

Conclusion

Given all that, here's what I'm thinking.

  • You can have as many cosmetic mutations as your body will bear, without any cost besides physical and biological stress (we'll cover that another time). I will probably document some examples, but I don't know if I will document 100+ possible mutations. Maybe in a supplement...
  • Several "high impact" mutations, at least the most common ones that I can think of (wings, cybernetic limbs, tough skin, etc...) will be documented. Some of those mutations will also have secondary and tertiary feats associated with them, all with a mechanical effect. A PC can take one of these mutations in place of a feat, and the mutation will have a mechanical effect more or less parallel to what a feat of the same tier would.
  • Provide guidelines on how PCs and DMs can work together to flesh some of these ideas out, specifically the "low impact" options that tread the middle ground. I might provide some basic examples of "low impact" options as well, but won't spend too much time on them.

So do you have any ideas?

10Nov/13Off

A Mutant’s Life

In case you haven't heard, I'm working on a new project. I'm bringing the apocalypse to the Archmage Engine!

Although I have a mental image for what I want this project to be, I've been curious as to what everyone else wants it to be. So I've been doing some research, acquiring rulebooks and reference materials for every other post-apocalyptic game system I can find. And, I must say, it's been somewhat interesting.

Mutations

One thing I've seen addressed time and time again is the concept of mutations. In a post-apocalyptic world, where you have to watch your step or you might fall in to a crater of radioactive sludge, everyone has a mutation of some sort. Some might be cosmetic, while others might be unbelievable. But almost all post-apocalyptic systems seen to expect mutations to be present, and actually they are expected to be quite common.

Tables of Tables

Most game systems I've seen provide massive tables and pages upon pages of information regarding mutations, and how they function both stylistically and mechanically. For example, the one system I currently have open next to me has over 120 possible mutations and spends close to 20 pages of fine print detailing them.

Although I understand that that's what people might want, the ability to customize their character with that level of detail, that kind of goes contrary to the principles of 13th Age and the Archmage Engine. 13th Age has been designed to be simple, providing only the rules that are necessary, and leaving everything else to be nothing more than a mutual understanding between player and GM.

Nowhere in the 13th Age book is there a d100 table that spans two pages, and I think that's by design. Providing something like that, with hundreds of possible mutations, goes contrary to everything the system was meant to be.

A Different Apocalypse

As I mentioned, most of these game systems also go with the assumption that mutations are common in the apocalypse because it was inevitably brought on by nuclear holocaust. Humans were stupid... they couldn't resist pushing the big red button... and here we are.

Does that have to be the case? An apocalypse can happen for a variety of reasons - nuclear war, meteor strike, zombie plague, aliens... - only a handful of which would have genetic mutation as a side effect.

My plan was actually to either make the apocalypse a result of various events, all occurring almost simultaneously, and their collective chaos causing the downfall of humanity. Either that or simply not define what caused the apocalypse at all, leaving it up to the DM to decide what caused the world to be how it is now.

Regardless of which approach is taken, mutations do not seem to be a requirement. At least to me, that is.

Limiting Options

All that being said, I'm considering not providing mutations in the same manner, or at least not providing mutations that are based on radioactive exposure.

What I'm envisioning is that a player can customize their character using a specific set of possibilities:

  • Cybernetic implants, upgrades or other technology brought on by advanced science. Anything from bionic arms to electronic eyes.
  • Biologic augmentation, brought on by advances in biology and genetic alterations. Not exactly mutations since that word does have negative connotations. This covers things from having an improved muscular and nervous system to having wings. It can also include cosmetic things like a forked tongue, but I'd like to keep those as options the player has chosen through science rather than a side effect of radiation exposure.

If you want to have a character that has some sort of genetic mutation, you're welcome to do so. But, unless you come to a mutual agreement with your GM, it will not have any mechanical impact. Only the above, which will be a somewhat limited set, will have a documented impact. Everything else is fair game but up to mutual acceptance.

Diversity of Races

Then the question comes up: what races should the game have? I wanted to have the two basic types: human (organic) and android/robotic (inorganic), but what to do beyond that? Given sufficient customization using the above I imagine that those two options would get the most play, but I still wanted to provide other options for diversity. But those options can't be something that could also be brought on by mutation or they would be redundant... I originally thought of a race that would have wings, but in thinking about it that's not much different than a human who has chosen to grow wings and darker skin. The races need to stand out.

That being said, I am choosing to create races based on animal and plant life, not direct descendants of human. Currently that includes sentient plants, insects and reptiles. All three of these currently have corresponding icons in the game world, so it kind of fits.

Furthermore, I am considering the possibility of providing a tight framework by which you can define your own class. Want to be a sentient rabbit with a gun? OK... Here's a list of racial attributes and powers you can choose from... Pick two or three. That covers the mechanics, which don't care whether you're a six foot tall rabbit with a gun or not; anything else is flavor text and up to you and the DM.

Feedback Requested

So I have to ask the question: for those of you that have expressed interest in a post-apocalyptic game setting... What are you looking for in terms of mutations? Do you want a 20-page long list of possibilities? Do you want the option of mutations at all, at least in the same form that's common amongst other post-apocalyptic game systems?

8Nov/13Off

The Archmage Beckons

A long time ago I did some content for a certain game system who, for reasons you may already know, will remain nameless. I was rather enthusiastic about that game system/campaign setting, but I was denied the option of using it to publish content.

But I really liked what that game system brought to the table, and ever since then I've been thinking about what it would take to publish a full, standalone RPG based on some of those concepts.

For months, maybe years, I've looked for a system by which to make it a reality... and I think I've found it.

Recently, Pelgrane Press and Fire Opal Media released the Archmage Engine SRD, which is the driving force behind 13th Age. And it is everything that I wanted it to be!

So this is a formal announcement of sorts... I have begun development of an RPG, using the existing Archmage Engine framework but all new content. A "total conversion", if you will. The premise? A post-apocalyptic society where the stupid decisions of man compounded with nature's urge to make our lives miserable has led to a changed, unforgiving world filled with destruction and chaos. It is inspired by the-system-that-shall-remain-nameless, by lesser known systems such as the now defunct Alpha Omega by Mind Storm Labs (which is a beautiful book and has a brilliant back story, but the game mechanic is one of the worst I've ever seen), and by movies and other pop culture (from Mad Max to Oblivion).

The RPG will be centered upon a dramatically changed United States, mainly because I don't want to have to worry about long distance or overseas travel. The way I see it, the U.S. is not much larger than the Dragon Empire is in 13th Age, so it kinda works.

I have a personal dilemma, though: the-system-that-shall-remain-nameless has a reputation for being, short of a better word, zany. It's one thing to have genetic mutation, and it's another to have those genetic mutations create some of the most cooky, off-beat, "you're kidding, right?" type of monsters the mind can imagine. And there are games like Numerena that contain similar aspects but try to maintain a level of seriousness and are not rife with over the top absurdity.

My hope is to do both. I'm keeping the icons and classes as serious as possible given the circumstances, but the monsters are going to be somewhat of a mixed bag. It will be up to DM's discretion on how to use them.

Right now, if you're curious, I have planned:

  • 10 brand new icons, from massive self-aware supercomputers to sentient plants
  • 6 "races", and I use that term loosely because I'm not sure if to consider a robot a "race".
  • 8 classes, from the battle tested veterans to wasteland berserkers to "channelers" that can bend the fundamental laws of physics ("Laws of Thermodynamics are more of a suggestion than a rule" sort of thing).
  • New rules for augments (socketable items that can increase performance like magic items), mutations and other forms of genetic modification.
  • Basic vehicle and mount rules.
  • Expanding a little on traps and hazards, based somewhat on what I've already talked about on this blog.
  • Monsters, lots of them.

My intention with all this is, once I have enough written, to launch a Kickstarter to fund the project in full and get the thing published. But that won't happen until I have a comfortable amount written, and there's still a long way to go.

And, once this hits Kickstarter, the two projects I've had shelved for far too long - The Fortress of Dr. Neb and When Worlds Collide - will no doubt be stretch goals (after some obvious changes, of course).

So there you have it... my crazy dream. Hopefully I can make it a reality sooner than later, and if I decide to go the distance on this I hope some of you will be willing to back me up on it.

Stay tuned to this blog for more news on this project.

-=O=-

In the meantime, as yet another form of practice, I decided to make the vector Archmage Engine SRD logo I made available for everyone to use! That is, at least until the 13th Age guys create one for real.

Archmage Engine SRD logo (1.51Mb)

The above link contains the logo in multiple formats: Fireworks, Illustrator 10, Illustrator CS6 and flat JPEG.

 

This website uses trademarks and/or copyrights owned by Fire Opal Media, which are used under the Fire Opal Media, 13th Age Community Use Policy. We are expressly prohibited from charging you to use or access this content. This website is not published, endorsed, or specifically approved by Fire Opal Media. For more information about Fire Opal Media's 13th Age Community Use Policy, please visit www.fireopalmedia.com/communityuse. For more information about Fire Opal Media and 13th Age products, please visit www.fireopalmedia.com and www.pelgranepress.com

28Sep/13Off

Traps in 13th Age

As I think I've mentioned before, I've fallen in love with 13th Age... so much so that I have decided to convert my uber-campaign The Coming Dark entirely from Pathfinder to 13th Age. It's somewhat of a daunting task; in retrospect, I probably should just have written it from scratch, simply because that several design philosophies differ between the system.

In working with 13th Age, I noticed that there are several aspects that are lacking from the core ruleset: curses, diseases, poisons, detailed trap/hazard implementation, etc... All of which I need, at least if I choose to stick with the module as it has been designed for Pathfinder.

The following is my attempt to explain how I am going to implement some of these things in 13th Age. Let's start with the most commonly used...

Traps

The 13th Age book does not give a whole lot of emphasis on traps. To be specific, they're really only talked on one page (page 185) and are referred to as going "out of style". Frankly, I disagree with that; I think traps are somewhat of a necessity, especially if you consider the term "trap" abstract. Every trap isn't an acid jet or a 10' pit, after all... and there are several things that fall under the trap rules that just can't be lumped in to what the text describes as a "trap".

In addition to that, the text provides the "impromptu damage" table that doesn't scale with the party. A "normal adventurer" trap is much easier to a 3rd level party because the +5 attack roll is theoretically unchanged. And the second you take a step in to Champion levels that attack roll rockets up to +10.

What I have chosen to do in some cases is to treat some aspects of the trap as it is a monster. This includes handling attack rolls, initaitive, damage, and even hit points (when applicable) so that they do in fact level with the party.

Here's the guidelines I am using... In my initial example, for argument's sake, I'm going to design a trap that causes a cave-in.

Type of trap: First off, there are two types of traps: "mechanical" and "magical". "Mechanical" traps involve some physical aspect that isn't powered by raw magic - be it a pit, a large stone block, an acid jet, etc... - and as such require physical interaction to disarm them since they have no magic to be disspelled. "Magic" traps are created with raw, arcane power and as such are more likely to be disspelled with a counterspell than to be manually manipulated. A rogue trying to use thieves' tools on a magical trap is probably in for a nasty surprise since the trap isn't designed for that to be effective.

There are also other types of traps or hazards, such as "obstacle" or "terrain", which would inherently define how the trap is dealt with. We'll get to tat later.

Example: Our cave-in is clearly mechanical; no magic involved.

Trap Level: This is in parallel to what 4th Edition does. The trap's level defines its difficulty, its attack roll, its damage, etc... Traps can also be large, double-strength or triple-strength depending on their complexity and how threatening they are.

This also factors in to encounter balance; if the trap is active while an encounter is taking place around it, in terms of encounter balance the trap is treated as a monster of equal level and difficulty.

Example: Our cave-in trap is designed for low level but it's big and menacing, so we'll keep it simple and define it as a "Triple-strength 1st level trap [MECHANICAL]"

Initiative: If the trap requires some sort of initiative, such as traps that remain active and repeatedly attack the party, you can use the same guidelines as monsters, which is "initiative adjustment + level".

For mechanical traps, generally the initiative adjustment should be low, like +0 to +2. Magical traps, by nature, should have notably higher initiative counts since their reaction is driven by arcane magic, so I'd say put these at +2 to +4 if not more.

Example: Our cave-in is a one shot - it happens and that's the end of it - so no initiative applies.

Detect DCs: You can use the same guidelines as normal DCs in the game; DC 15/20/25 for Adventurer level depending on whether the trap is easy, normal, or hard to detect.

If the players fail to detect a trap that has an initiative count, the trap should either get a surprise round or its initiative count should end up being higher. One easy solution is to "take 20" for the trap's initiative roll.

As far as who can detect what kind of trap, preference should be given to the right classes. Rogues excel at detecting mechanical traps, so you may want to consider giving them a small bonus (as if it was a background, say +3) to the detect roll. If the trap is magical, arcane spellcasters should get a like bonus. You can even go as far as to give rangers a bonus to detecting terrain hazards. Use your discretion; if the PCs give a convincing argument, give them the benefit of a doubt.

Disarm DC: Same guidelines as above, but how the trap is actually disarmed is up to your interpretation. Rogues excel at dealing which mechanical traps, while spellcasters can channel arcane energy to dispel or neutralize magical traps. Some traps or hazards, like terrain hazards, can't simply be disarmed and have to be dealt with via conventional means.

In some cases it may be possible to simply circumvent a trap without actually "disarming" it. If players detect and trigger a 10' deep pit to open up in front of them without falling in, finding a way over it now that they know it's there may not require a skill check at all.

If the player fails the check to disarm the trap, you can either explicitly specify what will happen or you can use your judgment. You can also give the players a cushion for failure; for example, if the DC is 20, if the player rolls a 19 he might be able to get away with not triggering the trap. In these cases, you can specify a triggering threshold, such as "<15 triggers", so only if they fail to meet a DC 15 will the trap actually spring.

Note that if the player fails the check but doesn't spring the trap, he can try again, at least until he succeeds or the trap is sprung.

Traps that are "obstacles" or "terrain" may not have a means by which they can be disarmed; they're just there, a permanent fixture that can't be gotten rid of.

Example: Our cave-in should be fairly difficult to detect by the average PC, so let's leave it at a DC 20. As a DM, I would consider giving bonuses to dwarves or anyone that can detect irregularities in the stone work, assuming of course the PCs provide a convincing argument for such a bonus.

To disarm the cave-in is another matter entirely. First of all, if the hazard is detected the party can simply step around it or go another way, neither option of which would require a skill check. If the players choose to do something about it, such as brace it or prevent the trigger from being set off, it may require a roll if you so desire; in this case I'd set it at a DC 15 or DC 20. I would also grant the same bonuses I did in the detect above, such as giving dwarves a +3. Let's go with a DC 20 for argument's sake.

If the PC rolls a 15 or lower on the check, the cave-in should begin.

So our block reads "Detect: DC 20" and "Disarm: DC 20, <16 triggers".

Trigger: Most traps aren't active all the time; something sets them off. When the trigger condition happens, the trap will either enter the initiative order (if it has initiative) or simply attack.

Example: Our trap should trigger when the party proceeds down the cave tunnel. So, put simply, the block should read "Trigger: walking down the tunnel" and leave the rest to DM discretion.

Hit Points and Defenses: If the trap is a physical entity - a dragon's head that spits fire, a sharp blade on a swinging pendulum, a barrier of arcane force, etc... - it should have some degree of hit points. For this I would use the guidelines set forth in the "DIY monsters" section of the core manual, possibly choosing double or triple-strength characters.

In non-combat situations, it may not be necessary to track hit points at all. If the fire-breathing dragon's head is not threatening the party and the party is trying to damage it from a safe distance away, you can safely assume that the party will eventually cause enough damage to destroy it. Only when the party is in imminent danger, and they are under a clock to stop the trap before things get much worse, should you even bother with tracking HP. The same goes for the trap's defenses: if the party is out of range and unthreatened, unless there is a possible risk to the party there isn't a need to make an attack roll every time a PC takes a shot at it. Just assume that, eventually, they'll hit it enough to break it.

If you determine you need hit points, you will probably need defenses. Except for the really unusual 1% (such as traps that have a spiritual presence), traps do not have a Mental Defense and are immune to any sort of psychic attack. Most traps, specifically mechanical traps that are immobile, should have a relatively low AC compared to their PD, so much so that as a DM you might even consider attacks that target AC to always hit.

Example: The cave-in doesn't need any hit points to speak of. You can assume that if it gets attacked once it will trigger but that's not something that needs documenting, much less an attack roll.

Attack Type: One way or another, the trap's going to attack. It may attack once, it may attack repeatedly, and it may even have multiple forms of attack, but it's gotta do something.

As a basis I'm using the standard guidelines for monsters: Level+5 for the attack roll. Depending on the nature of the trap it will attack AC, Physical Defense or Mental Defense.

Depending on the nature of the attack you also have to decide:

  • Whether it's a melee, ranged or "close" attack.
  • How many targets it can affect, and whether those targets are "nearby" or "far".

Example: Our cave-in, being level 1, gets a +6 vs PD close attack that targets all nearby creatures.

Attack Damage: This is where it gets tricky... If the trap is in an area where there is an active encounter, its damage should be on par with a monster of equal level. In that case you can choose to use the static "strike damage" value in te DIY tables as a basis.

If the trap is outside of an encounter, and especially if it's a single use trap (like our cave-in), the damage should be considerably higher. This could arguably be covered by using the double-strength or triple-strength numbers. But even then, static numbers are averages by definition, so you might want to roll actual dice. In this case, use the table's "strike damage" as the average die roll and base your die pool on that.

The trap, like monsters, could also have secondary effects and attacks for special rolls, such as effects that trigger on "natural 20", "natural even hit/miss", etc... If you're doing something Fourthcore-like, you may even consider something like "Natural 20: Death".

Magical traps could be significantly more complex, similar in what they can do to wizard or sorcerer spells. Be as creative as you want; magical traps are magnificently lethal by design, and they should be extremely complex-looking and dramatic.

Example: Our cave-in is a pile of really big rocks crashing down on the party, so it's gonna hurt. That being said, I consider it a triple-strength monster, so the strike damage is 15, which is actually the average of 4d6 s0 let's go with that for our damage.

If the trap misses, it still might hurt a bit so let's add an additional condition: "Natural even miss: Half damage".

Additional effects: Traps may have additional effects, "nastier specials" or other features just like monsters do. If you want the trap to be either persistently annoying or downright lethal if a PC blunders in to it, you can choose to add a lot more complexity to it for dramatic effect.

Example: Rocks fall. There really isn't much room for creativity in this one.

Given all that, we now have our stat block...

Untitled-3

That about covers traps, I think. I'm sure I'm missing something, but it'll come to me some other day. Maybe soon I can provide some more examples from The Coming Dark.