The cute new "perception-proof" traps.

45 posts / 0 new
Last post
So, have we all seen this new cute little growing trend? If you have, you know what I'm talking about. Without giving any spoilers, they go something like this:

Pit Trap
Level 3 Hazard
The player takes 2d10 points of damage:
Detection:
There is no perception check required to notice that there is a floor.

It's really funny, the game goes something like this:

You walk into the room, there's some torches on the walls providing dim illumination, and there's a floor.
Ok, passive perception of 22, do I notice anything unusual?
Nope.
Ok, I walk into the room then.
You told me there was nothing unusual! I have a passive perception of 22, I should have noticed a simple pit trap!
Hey now, I *did* tell you there was a floor!

Oh well, thank you LFR for at giving me DM's privilege to adjust encounters as I see fit so I can simply choose not to include any hazard that the module author cannot write an acceptable perception DC to notice that something is amiss.

I'd suggest the module approval committees pay a little more attention to this before traps and hazards simply become undetectable.

Show
You could start by taking a look at LURU1-1's "silver pools" for an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about
Above all else, the most dangerous thing that can ever be said during any sort of testing scenario is "It's just the test." Assumption that an issue, no matter how glaring, will be fixed in the final product is the most devastating assumption that any tester can make, and the most disastrous of excuses for any flaw.
A bit of hyperbole there, eh?
Going the other extreme, you would get:

DM: you see an unusual feature.
Player: I ignore it and walk into it.
DM: The unusual feature does unusual things. Oops. They are harmful.
Player: That is SO unfair! You only said it was unusual! What are you expecting me to do? Use common sense?
DM: Doh!

Spoiler for LURU1:
Show

At least, I cannot see how, when you get a description of a floor with two pools of a silvery liquid, you can *not* get suspicious. *Of course* it's a trap. If it wasn't, it sure should be! It's the only weird thing in the room - even if you count the rest of the floor making up a huge map.
well, thank you LFR for at giving me DM's privilege to adjust encounters as I see fit so I can simply choose not to include any hazard that the module author cannot write an acceptable perception DC to notice that something is amiss.

And if I had a DM who was intentionally not describing something in a room which was obvious, then that I would not use that DM in the future.

Note: PCs who have a readied action to bolt into a room when a door is opened, might have to leap over the pit or try the fall down to save yourself mechanic to avoid falling in the obvious pit (after the door is opened). If they just describe their action as moving into the room, I would let them simply stop.

Keith
Keith Hoffman LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
There have been other traps or encounters in mods that have not had proper perception or arcana checks to identify as something dangerous. This is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.
And if I had a DM who was intentionally not describing something in a room which was obvious, then that I would not use that DM in the future.

Note: PCs who have a readied action to bolt into a room when a door is opened, might have to leap over the pit or try the fall down to save yourself mechanic to avoid falling in the obvious pit (after the door is opened). If they just describe their action as moving into the room, I would let them simply stop.

Keith

Oh, I'm not talking about not including "hazard". They just don't *do* anything, since the PCs have absolutely no chance to identify that there is anything amiss. The pit trap example would not go off, since it's chance to be detected is absolutely comical. Would any mod with a pit trap like the one above get approved? God I hope not. Yet you replace the word "pit trap" with
Show
silver pools
and it's acceptable?

Based on your example, I don't think that we're connecting Keith, I'm talking about module authors intentionally obfuscating their Perception or Arcana Checks to notice traps or hazards in such a way that there is absolutely no way the PCs can detect anything is wrong in the area. Instead of things like "DC 25 Arcana: The player notices one of the runes is an explosive rune" or "DC25 Perception: You notice the rug appears to sag a bit at the center", we are getting crap like "DC5 Arcana: You notice runes on the wall." and "DC5 Perception: The room has a floor and is furnished". And those are the ONLY thing we can tell

Honestly, if this isn't dealt with early on, then it's going to reach the point where module authors are going to cheese trap detection to the point where they might as well just include box text that kills PCs. It's unacceptable, and it needs to be made clear to mod authors that their traps and hazards need appropriate detection mechanisms.

Spoiler:
Show
OF COURSE everyone was suspicious about the silver pools! But with no acceptable detection mechanism to detect anything was wrong with them, what were we supposed to do? Just curl up in the fetal position and hope the trap wasn't "that bad"?
Above all else, the most dangerous thing that can ever be said during any sort of testing scenario is "It's just the test." Assumption that an issue, no matter how glaring, will be fixed in the final product is the most devastating assumption that any tester can make, and the most disastrous of excuses for any flaw.
Yeah, the LURU adventure was bad. Just about every detail of room description was a trap or encounter of some sort. It did nothing but make my players paranoid and slow down the adventure as they spend minutes and minutes checking and double checking everything. And I couldn't even give them my usual OOC nod that they should move on because as soon as they did something was scripted to jump out at them.
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign. The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic. Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
Don't get me wrong, just because I'm wailing on the LURU as an example doesn't mean I think it was badly written, overall I thought it was a nice pleasant departure from the usual "go fight goblins a bunch of times, remember to kill the ones with rods first, those are the goblin hexers and everyone tends to include them because they're a complete pain in the ass to level 1 and 2 pcs until you kill them."

I am using it as an example mostly because it's the freshest in my mind, probably cause it was the first "undetectable trap" I encountered.
Above all else, the most dangerous thing that can ever be said during any sort of testing scenario is "It's just the test." Assumption that an issue, no matter how glaring, will be fixed in the final product is the most devastating assumption that any tester can make, and the most disastrous of excuses for any flaw.
There have been other traps or encounters in mods that have not had proper perception or arcana checks to identify as something dangerous. This is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.

Issues with adventures should be returned as feedback to the regional administrators. Generic hyperbole though doesn't really help much, as you trisk to ridicule the argument.
It is best to be specific, and send the comments to the PoC of the region (or the writing Director). I.e. Dalelands adventure comments should be sent to me (since our PoC resigned).

Show

As a sidenote, I can see what issue people would have with LURU-1's traps, but it would be more on the level of 'how do we turn it off' than on noticing it.
And I can imagine some people didn't like how the traps were mostly unavoidable. That shouldn't happen too often, but it didn't really bother me.


Gomez,
who, btw, also accepts positive feedback on adventures ;)
You've got a point, but people have to remember that players have more then perception as a way to detect or explore traps. Arcana works well against a lot of things.

I don't know though, it seems like most mods are just "Go here, fight these goblin hexers and then these crossbow turrents will shoot at you" kind of mods.

Should I have put that in a spoiler block?
I have yet to see a goblin hexer.
Did see my share of turrets though. But that's what cloud of daggers is for ;)
The Original Poster in this thread was complaining that the DM was "empowered" to not reveal any hazard, if the author did not include a perception check to notice something unusual. I was responding to that in my example.


Based on your example, I don't think that we're connecting Keith, I'm talking about module authors intentionally obfuscating their Perception or Arcana Checks to notice traps or hazards in such a way that there is absolutely no way the PCs can detect anything is wrong in the area. Instead of things like "DC 25 Arcana: The player notices one of the runes is an explosive rune" or "DC25 Perception: You notice the rug appears to sag a bit at the center", we are getting crap like "DC5 Arcana: You notice runes on the wall." and "DC5 Perception: The room has a floor and is furnished". And those are the ONLY thing we can tell

Your charge is a different issue, albeit just as serious. However, I wonder how typical or accurate it is. I just checked LURU1-1 and (see spoiler)

Show
For encounter seven, the silver tendrils/pools room, it says in the stat block: Perception ✦ No check is necessary to notice the silver liquid. So to me, that means it is automatic the PCs see weird silver pools, and it is in the box text. Do you want the author to ask for an insight check this is unusual? In encounter five, for the archer trap, it says: Perception
✦ DC 20: The character notices the statue glow briefly each time the archers fire. ✦ DC 25: The character notices the carved archers. The latter DC is well hidden according to the PH, page 187, which fits the situation. I might have made the DC for seeing the glow a bit lower (like DC 15), but opinions will vary. Normally a group of PCs will have someone who has a passive perception between 15 and 20, if not better, at 1st level.



If you have complaints (or compliments) about a specific adventure, I recommend you send them to the respective regional Writing Director and the respective Global Admin.

Keith
Keith Hoffman LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
I am using it as an example mostly because it's the freshest in my mind, probably cause it was the first "undetectable trap" I encountered.

Really weird. I played this and ran it and in both cases all the players instantly thought the effect you were talking about was a trap. On one tble they went to extremes in avoiding it.

It seems very strange to me that somewhat might depend on an arcana or perception check saying "this is a trap" to make a trap "detectable". In LURU it seemed completely obvious that the strangeness encountered was not going to be happy friendly fun. I would actually worry about any player who didn't think so.
I wonder if the wording wasn't supposed to read, "there is no perception required to notice [that there is a pit in] the floor."

Really, does it make any sense to mention that there is a floor in the section about the perception check to notice the trap/hazard? That's a bit like going to the grocery store to get some milk, asking how much a gallon costs and being told, "I can get you a great deal on some mutual funds." That's nice and all, but as a DM, I was looking for information on how to know if players detect the trap/hazard not how to know if they detect the floor.
I believe the OP gave a made-up example to avoid spoilers, which unfortunately (in my impression) resulted in some hyperbole that really doesn't do justice to the argument.
The specific example he gave is definitely not of the 'you see a floor' kind.
The proper example would be more like:

Roaring Bonfire
Deals 2d6 fire damage to anyone who enters or starts in its area.
Detection: There is no Perception check necessary to notice the roaring bonfire.

No one is surprised when they're burnt.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
The Original Poster in this thread was complaining that the DM was "empowered" to not reveal any hazard, if the author did not include a perception check to notice something unusual. I was responding to that in my example.




Your charge is a different issue, albeit just as serious. However, I wonder how typical or accurate it is. I just checked LURU1-1 and (see spoiler)

Show
For encounter seven, the silver tendrils/pools room, it says in the stat block: Perception ✦ No check is necessary to notice the silver liquid. So to me, that means it is automatic the PCs see weird silver pools, and it is in the box text. Do you want the author to ask for an insight check this is unusual? In encounter five, for the archer trap, it says: Perception
✦ DC 20: The character notices the statue glow briefly each time the archers fire. ✦ DC 25: The character notices the carved archers. The latter DC is well hidden according to the PH, page 187, which fits the situation. I might have made the DC for seeing the glow a bit lower (like DC 15), but opinions will vary. Normally a group of PCs will have someone who has a passive perception between 15 and 20, if not better, at 1st level.



If you have complaints (or compliments) about a specific adventure, I recommend you send them to the respective regional Writing Director and the respective Global Admin.

Keith

We figured out how to beat the Final Encounter trap within seconds of walking in the room and only faced two creatures which were quickly dispatched. Yes the ceiling trap was annoying it was actually harder to beat the trap then fighting the creatures in the room.
A bit of hyperbole there, eh?
Going the other extreme, you would get:

DM: you see an unusual feature.
Player: I ignore it and walk into it.
DM: The unusual feature does unusual things. Oops. They are harmful.
Player: That is SO unfair! You only said it was unusual! What are you expecting me to do? Use common sense?
DM: Doh!

Spoiler for LURU1:
Show

At least, I cannot see how, when you get a description of a floor with two pools of a silvery liquid, you can *not* get suspicious. *Of course* it's a trap. If it wasn't, it sure should be! It's the only weird thing in the room - even if you count the rest of the floor making up a huge map.

Spoiler for LURU1:
Show

I think I threw my DM for a loop when I went for a swim in the silvery pool. Hey my wizard thought that it would let him absorb the magics of the place.
If what we're actually talking about here is Luruar...
LURU1-1 Spoilers
I've only played this mod, I haven't run it and so haven't read it either, but when we played it, we were pretty suspicious of the silver pools from the start. I don't see how you wouldn't be suspicious of that room. Maybe you don't know for certain that it's a trap and you don't know exactly what's going to happen, but in my opinion it's not reasonable or realistic to expect to be able to know *exactly* what's going to happen and *exactly* how it can be disabled by walking into a room and looking into a couple of pools of silver liquid (or any out-of-the-ordinary trap, for that matter), no matter how high your skill checks are. (Perception, Arcana, whatever.) We figured out in pretty short order how we might be able to contain the pools, and as far as I'm concerned it was a pretty original trap design and I rather enjoyed it.

If we're talking about something else (like actual pit traps), then I haven't encountered any such trap yet. I haven't been through all of the 1-4 mods yet, but between playing and DMing I've been through at least half of them, so I'm having trouble seeing any kind of "trend" here.
*Of course* it's a trap. If it wasn't, it sure should be! It's the only weird thing in the room

The idea that everything unusual in a module needs to be harmful is an unfortunate one. It leaves very little room for wonder and fantastic descriptions that engage the players and enliven the game. That rooms full of imposable sights and strange constructions can exist for their own sake is an important factor maintaining the fantastic feel of the setting.
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign. The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic. Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
Sure, but we are not talking about just an unusual feature in a nice and hospitable place, but of an unusual feature isn a place that we know is primed to keep out (or destroy) intruders.
Though, I guess it would have been refreshing to see the unusual features be just that, and he trap the really mundane features that you tend to overlook.
But I guess then we would have had complaints about *that*...

Gomez
The LURU things in question didn't appear* to have any way to IDENTIFY them or disarm them other than to set them off. That annoyed me but the encounter wasn't particularly tough. I think describing it as a trap is misleading.

The way you can disable them, i discovered entirely by accident and would never have thought to try as it simply doesn't seem plausible to me from teh description we got (10' wide circle of indeterminate depth with a low rim...)


EDIT: oh yeah.. and doors that are rigged to shut are traps and should be detectable as such!!! (we had this issue in LG CGR modules too)


* I haven't read it yet but my Wizard got nothing from knowledge checks
I'd agree on doors that slam shut. Though then they'll just have barriers of energy form in the way. ;)
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
That's ok I'll spot the runes and sense the wavy distortions in reality caused by the barrier-magic.
The Original Poster in this thread was complaining that the DM was "empowered" to not reveal any hazard, if the author did not include a perception check to notice something unusual. I was responding to that in my example.




Your charge is a different issue, albeit just as serious. However, I wonder how typical or accurate it is. I just checked LURU1-1 and (see spoiler)

Show
For encounter seven, the silver tendrils/pools room, it says in the stat block: Perception ✦ No check is necessary to notice the silver liquid. So to me, that means it is automatic the PCs see weird silver pools, and it is in the box text. Do you want the author to ask for an insight check this is unusual? In encounter five, for the archer trap, it says: Perception
✦ DC 20: The character notices the statue glow briefly each time the archers fire. ✦ DC 25: The character notices the carved archers. The latter DC is well hidden according to the PH, page 187, which fits the situation. I might have made the DC for seeing the glow a bit lower (like DC 15), but opinions will vary. Normally a group of PCs will have someone who has a passive perception between 15 and 20, if not better, at 1st level.



If you have complaints (or compliments) about a specific adventure, I recommend you send them to the respective regional Writing Director and the respective Global Admin.

Keith

Ok, with the archers. You notice their eyes when they fire. You're not walking into a room where they're already firing. The statues don't start to fire until after you approach them.

For the Silvery Pools. Hey look, silvery pools, that's odd but there's obviously nothing to worry about. The group I ran had a perception of 20, when the player decided to roll for it as well he got a 30 and since the description didn't change they were surpised by the "trap".

I have yet to play or run a Waterdeep mod but I'm hoping that there aren't any "traps" of this nature in those mods.
The problem that I had with the silver pools was that there was no indication, no hint, as to how to deal with them.

Show

We had no way of knowing that they could be disabled using a thievery check. There was no reason for our PC's to attack the edge of the pool.

It's also unclear in the mod whether or not the doors unlock if you kill the guardians but do not "disable" the pool. In addition is each "tendril" a monster or is the pool the "monster" for purposes of OA's? Does a person walking through the room take an OA per square or 1 per pool?


Because of this, we were effectively stuck in a room with what we thought was an unkillable monster with no way out. There should have been some kind of check or work-around.

The DM eventually just told us what to do ... the only other option I could think of was to start tunneling.

Allen.
There didn't seam to be a lot of direction on the part of the mod on how to handel the silvery pools. As a DM you really just have to wing it and hope you don't tpk the party.

The other thing I was a little put off by was that there was no way to actually rate this mod. There were no questions of any kind like in the other LFR mods I've run.

This mod is a perfect example of why the two questions: How do the players rate this mod? and How do you as a GM rate this mod? should be included in EVERY LFR mod that is written.
Actually, it doesn't. A bad number doesn't say 'anything* about what is wrong in an adventure. If people rate Dale1-1 sub-par, then that tells me absolutely nothing. They may rate it because they don't like the style, because the party was TPKed, because the adventure was a cakewalk, because of a DM that sucked, etc. etc.
In fact, I think that it is best to NOT include these questions, and instead include the Writing Director's email address for feedback.
So far, I have not had feedback except what I gleaned from generic comment on the boards and a DM's weblog, so I feel we might need to encourage DMs to send feedback.
I probably should send my LURU1 feedback (as a player) at some point... Until then:

Show

We did not actually deal with the pools. When we knocked down the last silvery warder we just opened the door (with a Thievery check iirc) and continued on. We talked to the lady then and she neutralized the pool for us before we went back.
Thievery to deal with the ponds is not a great leap, even though it is not intuitive. But you have to get next to the pool and thus take damage to do that. I think a Dungeoneering check might have been appropriate for realizing you can cave in the pools - we didn't think of that possibility either (though IIRC I did attack the pool itself once with no effect).


Gomez
The other thing I was a little put off by was that there was no way to actually rate this mod. There were no questions of any kind like in the other LFR mods I've run.

This mod is a perfect example of why the two questions: How do the players rate this mod? and How do you as a GM rate this mod? should be included in EVERY LFR mod that is written.

I have not seen any LFR adventure yet that asks what the DM thought of the adventure (but I have not seen all). I agree with Gomez that such questions are relatively meaningless. The success of an adventure depends on so much more then the adventure, and while many people can seperate these factors, many more cannot. Besides, if we know you liked or did not like an adventure we still do not know why, and that is the information we need to improve the adventures. A discussion like this is much more helpful in this regard.

The goal of those questions is to know the outcome of a particular adventure for the setting. I don't need a questionairre to know the outcome of the majority of tables for LURU1-1. It was a relatively streightforward standard adventure, but that is what we were asked to write. As for the traps, part of the problems rise due to unfamiliarity with the system (both from the players, DMs and the authors) and part is a generic known problem with traps that R&D is working on. The prevelance of x-bow traps and the issues that arose because of them certainly taught us some things about what does and what does not work in 4E.

Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR Global Administrator
I heartily agree that every module should have an e-mail address for feedback. Personally I'd like to see it put on the Story Awards ...a single central address for feedback wouldn't hurt (if people were told to make the module code the Subject line it would be pretty simple to have that forward the vast majority of messages to the relevant WDs)

Show
I hit the pool wtih my Thunderwave in round 1 which is how we discovered they could be smashed.
I have not seen any LFR adventure yet that asks what the DM thought of the adventure (but I have not seen all).

AGLA1-1, EAST1-1, and CORE1-3 all ask both the DM and the players to rate the adventure on a scale of 1-5. (There's two adventure questions for this purpose, one for the DM and one for the players.) There's likely more, but that's all I've run into as yet.

At any rate, I also think it's a good idea to have e-mail contact addresses printed in the adventure. The only e-mail addresses I've been able to find online are the addresses for the regional POCs, on the LFR Community page - and not everyone knows how to find that page. I don't see contact addresses for the globals (useful in the case of core/spec/adap/quest mods), the writing directors (though I suppose we could just contact them through the POCs), and certainly nothing for the authors (the adventure questions in the above three mods ask that feedback be e-mailed to the author and/or the campaign staff). I happen to know how to contact my own region's writing director (one of the two, anyway) and all of the globals because they're all pretty active on the boards, but I only know that because *I'm* active on the boards and have had discussions with all four of these people. There's no big flashing sign pointing to any of the boards-active campaign staff - someone just signing onto the boards to look for someone would have a good degree of difficulty, I think.
AGLA1-1, EAST1-1, and CORE1-3 all ask both the DM and the players to rate the adventure on a scale of 1-5. (There's two adventure questions for this purpose, one for the DM and one for the players.) There's likely more, but that's all I've run into as yet.

At any rate, I also think it's a good idea to have e-mail contact addresses printed in the adventure. The only e-mail addresses I've been able to find online are the addresses for the regional POCs, on the LFR Community page - and not everyone knows how to find that page. I don't see contact addresses for the globals (useful in the case of core/spec/adap/quest mods), the writing directors (though I suppose we could just contact them through the POCs), and certainly nothing for the authors (the adventure questions in the above three mods ask that feedback be e-mailed to the author and/or the campaign staff). I happen to know how to contact my own region's writing director (one of the two, anyway) and all of the globals because they're all pretty active on the boards, but I only know that because *I'm* active on the boards and have had discussions with all four of these people. There's no big flashing sign pointing to any of the boards-active campaign staff - someone just signing onto the boards to look for someone would have a good degree of difficulty, I think.

An email address printed in an adventure isn't a good idea for an adventure that could be available for two or more years. The job of the POC's is to be just that - a Point of Contact. If you have any questions or comments on any adventure either send a message to that regions POC or send a message to your POC. The POC's do know how to contact the various writing directors and global administrators and if its a questino they've been asked before may well be able to answer it without having to pass anything on.

Kithran
Luruar POC (luruar kithran org)
I would not want feedback emailed to the author as it is the Writing Directors and the Global Admins who provide editing and continuity, not individual authors. Sure you can provide them with personal feedback, but that may not help the campaign improve.

As noted, email addresses have a way of changing. You should always be able to reach any LFR staff member through your regional poc.

Feedback is encouraged. Include short name of adventure (WATE1-1, for instance) and the word feedback...to help us find, sort and save comments.

Don't really bother about minor typos, misspellings, etc. We won't change the PDF copy for that and random errors are just that, random.

Feedback with why you thought something was broken, wrong, etc, or what you thought was neat.

Please realize not everyone has the same taste in adventures. It helps if you caveat that in your feedback.

like...."I was bored with all the roleplaying, but then, to be honest, I approach the game as combat tactics oriented..." or "too much combat for my taste, but then I would be happy roleplaying in social encounters the entire adventure..." (no value judgment implied)

Frankly, feedback from the DM, the person who actually read the adventure and hopefully understood the author intent, is particularly useful for the writing staff members.

If the adventure ended in a TPK, please tell us PC composition and if there were additional considerations in effect. We cannot design an adventure for all variations of party composition nor can we deal with issues from the DM. What we can do is write adventures to be clear, cogent, fun adventures that should appeal to a wide variety of PC types and players, and easy for a DM to run.

Keith
Keith Hoffman LFR Writing Director for Waterdeep
they go something like this:

Pit Trap
Level 3 Hazard
The player takes 2d10 points of damage:
Detection:
There is no perception check required to notice that there is a floor.

After reading up on your example from LURU1-1, a more similar example might be:
"Summoning basin
Level 3 Hazard
Trap: This swirling wash basin starts summoning soapy opponents once the PC's enter the room
Detection: There is no perception check required to notice the swirling wash basin."


Personally, I would allow an Arcana check to notice that the basin is magical, but this revelation seems unlikely to surprise. Did you have any other (more egregious) examples?
That's the main problem. There should have been some kind of check to notice something was wrong with the silvery pools, likely an Arcana or Dungeoneering check of some sort. There are always ways to notice something is wrong, all of the traps in the DMG have some method of discovering the trap even without it being a perception check.

As it was presented in the mod, the trap simply isn't finished. We survived it just fine, but if your going to build your own traps please remember to include an additional skill to use if you want it to blend in to your dungeon.
An email address printed in an adventure isn't a good idea for an adventure that could be available for two or more years. The job of the POC's is to be just that - a Point of Contact.

But people would have to find those - and our regions PoC resigned, so maling hims doesn't much use either.
An email address (of the WD) in the adventure at least makes it easier, and hopefully more likely, that feedback is sent.
If an email address (or WD) changes, that is a pity, but imo better a fair chance at feedback than none at all.

Gomez
Also, I don't see why the feedback e-mail needs to be a specific person's personal inbox. If there any reason that you can't get, say, [email]LFRFeedback@wizards.com[/email] or something and give read access to all the admins/writers? After all, most of the issues people have with specific adventures are not regionally based, but structural problems that can apply to just about any module.
This little signature is my official and insignificant protest to the (not so new now) community redesign. The layout is lousy. The colour scheme burns the eyes. The wiki is a crippled monstrosity. So many posters have abandoned this site that some major forums are going days without posts. The 4e General Discussion board regularly has posts on the front page from two or even three days ago. This is pathetic. Since I have to assume Wizards has a vested interest in an active community I wish someone in charge would fix this mess.
Also, I don't see why the feedback e-mail needs to be a specific person's personal inbox. If there any reason that you can't get, say, [email]LFRFeedback@wizards.com[/email] or something and give read access to all the admins/writers? After all, most of the issues people have with specific adventures are not regionally based, but structural problems that can apply to just about any module.

If it wasn't regionally based, it would be too much information for writers to have to trawl through everytime feedback was given. Not to mention most of the time it wouldn't be relevant to them.

A regional email (see Points of Contact) allows the feedback to get to those who it is supposed to.
I probably should send my LURU1 feedback (as a player) at some point... Until then:

Show

We did not actually deal with the pools. When we knocked down the last silvery warder we just opened the door (with a Thievery check iirc) and continued on. We talked to the lady then and she neutralized the pool for us before we went back.
Thievery to deal with the ponds is not a great leap, even though it is not intuitive. But you have to get next to the pool and thus take damage to do that. I think a Dungeoneering check might have been appropriate for realizing you can cave in the pools - we didn't think of that possibility either (though IIRC I did attack the pool itself once with no effect).

This was probably me (as GM) deciding that traps are boring, once all the mobile opponents are dead. I hope it didn't spoil anyone's enjoyment!

Running D&D Adventurers League events in Sheffield, UK from August. Contact me for more details.

I can understand not adding an e-mail address - perhaps add something to the generic boilerplate and give a link to the page that has the list of POCs?
If it wasn't regionally based, it would be too much information for writers to have to trawl through everytime feedback was given. Not to mention most of the time it wouldn't be relevant to them.

A regional email (see Points of Contact) allows the feedback to get to those who it is supposed to.

It could very easily be scripted to forward messages based on the subject line.

It ought also be very easy for wizards to set up something like:
[email]poc@region.wizards.com[/email]

for each region.
The prevelance of x-bow traps and the issues that arose because of them certainly taught us some things about what does and what does not work in 4E.

Pieter Sleijpen
RPGA LFR Global Administrator

Just picking this last part of Madfox's post out because it reminded me that I wanted to ask about it. Has it been anyone else's experience that said prevalent crossbow traps are psychotically lethal as-written? I don't think my tables would mind them as much if they were maybe 20%-30% as effective as they are.

Sorry to distract from the rest of the thread. It seems like the OP's concern has been communicated to me though.
D&D rules were never meant to exist without the presence of a DM. RAW is a lie.