D&D 5E Survivor Worst Spells: FIND TRAPS IS THE WORST!

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, I mean, in fairness ...

This is all fantasy. Real security measures are rarely lethal. Because ... people screw up all the time, and do you want to live in a place where, if you mess up or forget (what was that password again?) you die?*

I get the "high fantasy" appeal of the deadly trap in the Wizard tower, but it's not very realistic. So comparing the "realism" of deadly deliberate security measures with the "realism" or natural deadly hazards seems a fool's errand.

A weak spot in a floor can drop you ALL THE FEET. A security measure might just disable you. Or a deliberate trap can kill you, while a natural hazard might do 1d6. It's whatever is put in there.

*Not to mention it would have a chilling effect when you have friends over! "Oh, enjoy the appetizers, but watch out where you step!"

I confess that I'm having trouble following the argument you're making. One the one hand you appeal to realism and the fact that, in the real world we live in, lethal booby-traps are not in common use. (You attribute this to human fallibility, but technical difficulty and legal difficulties seem relevant as well--terrorists in Afghanistan can't create traps which ignore goat-herders but drop a building on American troops, and rich corporations like Apple and Lockheed-Martin don't need to kill you when they can just send you to jail. Arguably, neither of these factors applies to an archwizard in a fantasy world.)

On the other hand, you appeal to fantasy and DM fiat ("whatever's put there") and seem to shrug off realism.

Perhaps you'd care to clarify your point further?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

it doesn't really matter because this is a game, and we are used to having poison needles in chests, and cursed items, and trapped books that explode with a fireball, and so on. But arguing "realism" in terms of natural v. deliberate traps doesn't seem very fruitful.

It might be fun to lampshade it now and then: an aging lord hires the party to retrieve items from his vault because he no longer has the strength to shift the crushing stones and leap the spiked pits that seemed such a good idea in his youth, or the party looting the tower of a vanished wizard find his corpse in a secret room, where he mispronounced a ward's password or turned a poison-needle latch left instead of right..

 

[Iry]

The hyperbole about black holes is mildly diverting in a lowkey/Survivor sort of way (which, to be fair, is what this thread technically is), but laying aside the word games and returning to substantive discussion: a weak spot in the floor that happens to drop you down a story for 1d6 falling damage before you climb back up is less lethal than a camouflaged pit trap filled with acid that covers itself with a rotating lid and locks itself to prevent you from climbing out before you drown/dissolve in the acid.

It was certainly a humorous aside, hence the smiley, but it does represent an important point. The lethality between natural hazards and deliberate security is completely arbitrary and up to the individual DM. The evil wizard library could just as easily be situated near an active volcano for geomantic reasons (and bond villain reasons), or somewhere in the middle of the palace and restricted by the order of the Sultan for Jafar reasons.

 

[Seramus]

I confess that I'm having trouble following the argument you're making.

I'm also having trouble following the argument you're making. I'm not saying that to be snarky. It seems similar to... arguing that a Fighter does more damage than a Barbarian. It might be true, but only in certain circumstances, and it totally depends on the build. Like Lowkey mentioned, if we sat down and looked at every trap vs every natural hazard in the game, we might discover that they tend to be less lethal. But I feel like it would really be up to the DM, and there's some bias just because module makers probably don't think slipping off a cliff is a very heroic way to die.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It was certainly a humorous aside, hence the smiley, but it does represent an important point. The lethality between natural hazards and deliberate security is completely arbitrary and up to the individual DM. The evil wizard library could just as easily be situated near an active volcano for geomantic reasons (and bond villain reasons), or somewhere in the middle of the palace and restricted by the order of the Sultan for Jafar reasons.

It's not arbitary--it's an emergent property of intelligence, and security features designed by intelligent beings. The hazards of an active volcano are still orders of magnitude less deadly from a potential thief's perspective than the hazards of an intelligent evil wizard who is leveraging an active volcano to kill you.

Maybe your DM doesn't run things that way. [shrug] Fine, in that case Find Traps probably won't be useful to you, because you're not in one of the scenarios where it makes a difference. But if he does, then it is, which makes it better than True Strike--True Strike has no scenarios that I'm aware of where it is useful. If you can think of one I'd be glad to hear about it.

(I'm not counting lowkey's scenario where the PC gets to cast True Strike without retaliation due to it being his shtick; that's clearly an example of a DM realize that True Strike is lame as written, and bending the rules a bit to make it useful/not quite a spell. Otherwise you might as well just cast Fire Bolt, or Fear, instead of True Strike on that initial round of combat.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm also having trouble following the argument you're making. I'm not saying that to be snarky. It seems similar to... arguing that a Fighter does more damage than a Barbarian. It might be true, but only in certain circumstances, and it totally depends on the build. Like Lowkey mentioned, if we sat down and looked at every trap vs every natural hazard in the game, we might discover that they tend to be less lethal. But I feel like it would really be up to the DM, and there's some bias just because module makers probably don't think slipping off a cliff is a very heroic way to die.

I agree that Fighters and Barbarians are only "better" than each other in specific circumstances. That's all I'm arguing for Find Traps as well. It has certain niches where it's useful. I'm comparing that to True Strike, which is kind of the equivalent of a non-spellcasting Dragon Sorcerer. It's very hard to think of circumstances where it's useful at all. Sure, I guess at high levels you get to fly and cause fear--but it's never better than the opportunity cost.

 

[Seramus]

I agree that Fighters and Barbarians are only "better" than each other in specific circumstances. That's all I'm arguing for Find Traps as well. It has certain niches where it's useful. I'm comparing that to True Strike, which is kind of the equivalent of a non-spellcasting Dragon Sorcerer. It's very hard to think of circumstances where it's useful at all. Sure, I guess at high levels you get to fly and cause fear--but it's never better than the opportunity cost.

That niche is really small. Like, incredibly small. And several posters, including myself, have detailed times when True Strike is fine. It's still terrible, of course, because both spells are terrible. But it's not cool to claim nobody has put forth a valid use for True Strike, and then present incredibly niche scenarios for Find Traps.

 

[Iry]

It's not arbitary--it's an emergent property of intelligence, and security features designed by intelligent beings. The hazards of an active volcano are still orders of magnitude less deadly from a potential thief's perspective than the hazards of an intelligent evil wizard who is leveraging an active volcano to kill you.

There's no security feature designed by intelligent beings that exceeds the destructive capacity of natural hazards. If you get into fantasy elements, then it does become arbitrary because you can justify any amount of lethality for either natural hazards or designed security features, at your preference.

Maybe your DM doesn't run things that way. [shrug] Fine, in that case Find Traps probably won't be useful to you, because you're not in one of the scenarios where it makes a difference. But if he does, then it is, which makes it better than True Strike--True Strike has no scenarios that I'm aware of where it is useful. If you can think of one I'd be glad to hear about it.

I've never seen any 5E table where it was very useful as written, not just my own. But I houseruled Find Traps a long time ago, and my players still don't bother, even though I tend to use somewhat lethal traps (designed and natural). Granted, they value high perception and investigation scores as a general rule.

As for True Strike - any time you are having a conversation that you think will end in combat. It's been mentioned several times in this thread.