D&D 5E Would you require a roll for this?

[Corinnguard]

So what is the purpose of the trap here, and what is the purpose of requiring everyone to roll even after it has been detected? Is this an attrition trap, meant to eat some hp, or are you expecting the players to change tact and engage it as a puzzle? Or something else?

Why not both? If there are multiple trip wires connected to the swinging log trap, it is possible that some of the wires are dummies. Setting off one of these dummy wires won't set off the trap. But which of the wires are real and which are dummies? That's the puzzle the adventurers must solve. The DM could then ask the players for Perception and Investigation checks before the Rogue starts disarming each and every one.

The attrition part would be the possible loss of time needed to safely disarm said trap.

 

[Reynard]

No no no. The real pit trap is the 5 feet on the other side of the obvious pit, so PCs jump the easy one and end up plummeting into the stingbat infested undercaverns.

 

[Reynard]

Why not both? If there are multiple trip wires connected to the swinging log trap, it is possible that some of the wires are dummies. Setting off one of these dummy wires won't set off the trap. But which of the wires are real and which are dummies? That's the puzzle the adventurers must solve. The DM could then ask the players for Perception and Investigation checks before the Rogue starts disarming each and every one.

The attrition part would be the possible loss of time needed to safely disarm said trap.

Players making Perception and Investigate checks isn't a puzzle, it is just an algorithm.

Slowing the PCs down is a thing tat might have interesting consequences, if you are counting time to the minute. Are you doing that at every point in play? If not, what difference does it make if it takes the party 1 minute or 4 minutes to solve the issue? Obviously, there are wandering monster checks to consider but those are generally measured in longer increments and frankly I have never GMed for a party that would spend more than five minutes on the thing rather thank just torch it and see what happens from a distance.

 

[ezo]

Tripwires are typically near the floor but, regardless, I hope all the pertinent details are then shared with the rogue (who can share with the party) upon discovery of said tripwire.

The other part of ability checks is to only call for them if there is some uncertainty in the outcome. If the rogue has found the tripwire, in this example, presumably they can guide the other characters safely past it. No uncertainty in the outcome, therefore no roll.

Of course, most tripwires are near the floor, and all the details can be given: the height of the tripwire, how hard it is to see (most were supposed to be nearly invisible, especially given a DC 20--most PCs would fail that perception check), what the floor conditions are, etc.

Given the situation, the DM can certainly rule "You all make it over with the Rogue's help", OR the DM can call for a roll, feeling the situation (light, difficulty seeing the tripwire, nerves of a PC knowing if they fumble they might endanger everyones' lives, the unevenness or slippery floor, etc.) makes the attempt uncertain indeed!

Is this worth it though? The trap has been found and there is an easy way to bypass it now. IMO, let them have their victory for the Rogue doing the Rogue-y thing and move on to the next challenge.

As I said above, certainly bypass it if you want. Other DMs might not want to. I'm one of those. The chance might be very small, but the risk if that chance happens is so dangerous that you need to check.

There are times when the PCs need to roll a 20 for an ability check. Is that so "unlikely" that they shouldn't even bother rolling?? No, they still roll, because it could happen (and is often cool when it does). The low DC traps with high risk is just the opposite position.

Now, if this tripwire situation actually is more complicated than that, then the DM's description should telegraph to the rogue (and/or other party members) that something else will be required to disable said tripwire or otherwise mitigate the danger. Jumping to an ability check here, even one set very low, seems to be skipping over a step in the play loop, IMO.

Nothing else needs to be required. Stepping over the tripwire avoids it. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

But people can be clumsy (even those who are normally quite graceful). Add in the stress of a possibly lethal trap and people panic sometimes, screwing up when it was the one thing they were trying to avoid.

I mean, people trip, stumble, lose their balance, and so forth when there is really no reason. Sometimes it just happens (albeit--thankfully--rarely!).

Let's apply this to the pit example. Perhaps it is 20' deep and has acid at the bottom. Some potentially serious consequences for falling in, especially for low level characters. However, if the PC in the front of the party marching order discovered it and that pit is only 5' wide, should the DM make them all roll to see if they stumble in b/c... lots of factors?

Yes. It is potentially deadly. Is the challenge finding the trap, avoiding it, or both?

It doesn't take long to roll, a few seconds if the DM just has everyone roll at once:
DM: Ok, Garth found the edge of the pit. Everyone needs to make a DC 5 Strength (Athletics) check with advantage to make sure you clear the pit successfully.
(everyone rolls)
DM: Anybody fail? No. Ok... moving along.

Of course, all this needs to keep in mind that there is no natural 1 always fails in 5E. So, if your Strength (Athletics) is +4, you don't roll because you (literally) can't fail.

 

[Oofta]

So what is the purpose of the trap here, and what is the purpose of requiring everyone to roll even after it has been detected? Is this an attrition trap, meant to eat some hp, or are you expecting the players to change tact and engage it as a puzzle? Or something else?

Bit of a puzzle, a challenge, an obstacle to overcome, hopefullya tense momentor two. When I use traps (which again, is rare) it's because it's part of setting the tone.

I can't really answer much more without knowing the scenario. But if detecting a trap makes it easy to bypass by simply stepping over a trip wire* I guess I don't really see the point most of the time.

But I was just trying to explain that if I do ask for acrobatic checks, it's going to be something that is complex enough that the outcome is uncertain.

*and if it is that easy, there's no roll required as long as you move at half speed going over it. If you're double moving doing an expedient retreat on the way out ... maybe a check would be called for.

 

[Reynard]

I can't really answer much more without knowing the scenario.

But you established the scenario. You posted how even after detection the rest of the party had to make checks. My question was why. What benefit does that have for play?

 

[Maxperson]

There is a chest and the Rogue rolls and detects a trap. A needle trap that would eject into the thief's hand and poison them.

The Rogue's player says that he borrows the Fighters metal gauntlet (which the needle couldn't penetrate) and safely sets off the trap.

Roll for disarm or not?

No. No disarming is happening. He's safely triggering the trap which requires no roll.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Of course, most tripwires are near the floor, and all the details can be given: the height of the tripwire, how hard it is to see (most were supposed to be nearly invisible, especially given a DC 20--most PCs would fail that perception check), what the floor conditions are, etc.

Given the situation, the DM can certainly rule "You all make it over with the Rogue's help", OR the DM can call for a roll, feeling the situation (light, difficulty seeing the tripwire, nerves of a PC knowing if they fumble they might endanger everyones' lives, the unevenness or slippery floor, etc.) makes the attempt uncertain indeed!


As I said above, certainly bypass it if you want. Other DMs might not want to. I'm one of those. The chance might be very small, but the risk if that chance happens is so dangerous that you need to check.

There are times when the PCs need to roll a 20 for an ability check. Is that so "unlikely" that they shouldn't even bother rolling?? No, they still roll, because it could happen (and is often cool when it does). The low DC traps with high risk is just the opposite position.


Nothing else needs to be required. Stepping over the tripwire avoids it. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

But people can be clumsy (even those who are normally quite graceful). Add in the stress of a possibly lethal trap and people panic sometimes, screwing up when it was the one thing they were trying to avoid.

I mean, people trip, stumble, lose their balance, and so forth when there is really no reason. Sometimes it just happens (albeit--thankfully--rarely!).


Yes. It is potentially deadly. Is the challenge finding the trap, avoiding it, or both?

It doesn't take long to roll, a few seconds if the DM just has everyone roll at once:
DM: Ok, Garth found the edge of the pit. Everyone needs to make a DC 5 Strength (Athletics) check with advantage to make sure you clear the pit successfully.
(everyone rolls)
DM: Anybody fail? No. Ok... moving along.

Of course, all this needs to keep in mind that there is no natural 1 always fails in 5E. So, if your Strength (Athletics) is +4, you don't roll because you (literally) can't fail.

I think we’re mostly on the same page here.

The only quibble would be with your qualifiers that “people can be clumsy” or ascribing “nerves” to PCs — bold adventurers are typically not clumsy and it’s up to the players to determine how their PCs think and act so, as DM, I’m not going to build those qualifiers in as reasons to call for rolls at our table.

 

[Oofta]

But you established the scenario. You posted how even after detection the rest of the party had to make checks. My question was why. What benefit does that have for play?

I was extrapolating from a proposed scenario, a wire trap that had been detected. If I were DMing a simple wire across the ground could be easily avoided by stepping over it, no check required. If there's no uncertainty there's no roll. There may be certain scenarios where it would be possible to set it off such as if they were running away.

Why it's there isn't really relevant. Some traps can be easily avoided once perceived and there is no roll. Others cannot be so easily avoided. Which category they fall in will be a DM judgment call.

As far as why have traps? Why have any challenges or obstacles?

 

[M_Natas]

That just happened in my game last sunday. The PCs were plundering the ruins of the thieves guild they had blown up before finding a chest. The party rogue found a needle trap on the lock of the chest by making an investigation check.

So what did they decide to do? Trigger the trap while holding a bigger piece of wood in front of it.

No additional roll needed.

In 90% of the time, knowing that there is a trap and knowing what it is is enough to avoid it.

But the thing I noticed here in the responses is, that People come to different conclusions because the situation was not clear enough and everybody imagines theirnown trap mechanism.

In order for a DM to adjucate the actions of the PCs, in order for the PCs to be able to make informed decisions, the DM needs first describe in the case of a trap exactly what they are seeing and the DM needs to know how the trap works.

Is there a spring feather mechanism that will trigger and spring the needle outwards if the lock is manipulated? It is a magical needle triggered by a rune noticing proximity without the right key?

What can trigger the needle? Is it opening the chest without the right key? Is it if something is put into the lock that is not the right key?

If I as a DM know this, now I can adjucate the actions of the PCs and can make an informed decision if a DICE roll is necessary or not.