New UA: Traps Revisited
dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/tra...Posted Feb 27, 2017, 6:02 PM UTC
4919
dnd.wizards.com
Remember to answer the survey guys and let people know what you think about last week's Unearthed Arcana
6
Working, ATM, but I'll read it when I get home.
Find it oddly funny I was reading over the traps section of the 3.5 DMG Saturday night... now, boom! UA for traps. Maybe I'll read an old psionics handbook for you mental fiends.
Or buy a lottery ticket. Yeah, probably the ticket.
6
I was also hoping for the mystic, but this is a really cool article in my opinion. As a DM I struggle with coming up with interesting traps, or even really utilizing traps at all beyond the staples of pit trap and poison needle lock, but this article really get the ideas flowing.
It's nice for them to have the section on simple traps with lots of examples, but the really cool part is the complex traps. I don't know if that is something that has been used in prior editions of D&D (I've only been a DM in 5e), but the traps acting on specific initiative counts, and the progressive effects, are something I would never have thought of in such a neat and structured way.
I'm definitely going to try and incorporate some cool traps in my next few sessions. (Also gives my player with theives' tools something fun to do other than open the odd door now and then)
5
The complex traps section gives a lot of good food for thought at least, but is there really a significant difference between the simple traps provided here and the traps listed in the DMG?
1
Boooo....
Was really hoping for feats or finishing up the Mystic. I feel like this was a good UA for DM's that struggle with trap making, but I'm not sure most experienced DM's have that problem...
Also, it's really not all that inspiring in the first place, especially for simple traps. It's all just a bunch of thieve's tools checks.
-10
One simple trap example, the fiery trap, requires a successful Religion check to disable. That's an interesting variation from the usual routine.
1
not worth the read really, as a dm myself i can tell you fellow dm's not to waste you time. really the tl:dr is they are suggesting just removing traps from the game. for balance reasons. just remove all traps. i'm a dm myself not a player.
-37
really the tl:dr is they are suggesting just removing traps from the game. for balance reasons. just remove all traps.
What? How do you get that from the article giving detailed guidelines for creating traps, separating them into simple and complex, and providing several examples of each?
14
It's sarcasm
-2
It's bad sarcasm, and doesn't really contribute to anyone looking for a quick perspective on the new article.
9
Oh I don't disagree
6
quiet you!, my interpretation of this article is very substantial, and will not be questioned.
-17
Ok I get now that you were trying to be funny, but it's not really a very helpful comment, nor one that spurs discussion.
9
if they wanted to remove all traps, wouldn't they say that instead of writing a 13 page article about how to use them in your games?
13
Is anyone else getting tired of people complaining about not getting Mystic?
Only when they trash the current UA just because they're upset. This was a very helpful article for DMs who implement traps into their games.
Yeah I've been wanting the mystic each week, but I'm loving what this article has. The mass combat rules, not as much because I don't see me using those any time soon. But traps? Who can complain about traps?
The rogue who failed his con save
Ha! True enough.