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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Is it though? Sounds like I'm super dead either way.

Maybe. Neither one is a guaranteed kill; but most of the ways to survive the former fail when you're attacked by the latter. (And it gets even worse if a Dispel Magic is included in the trap.) E.g. a Long Death monk (11th+ level) could survive being dropped into lava pretty easily--he'd lose a bunch of HP and a ki point and just run right back up the chute he dropped through. But an insane Long Death monk can't teleport himself back to his point of origin, and by the time he regains his sanity he is almost or entirely out of ki, and then he dies. A mid-level wizard might be able to survive the lava with Absorb Elements and the right combination of stats, and teleport back up--but if he's insane he can't teleport, so he'll just die the second round.

I think you mean True Strike here.

You are correct.

 

[Iry]

Maybe. Neither one is a guaranteed kill; but most of the ways to survive the former fail when you're attacked by the latter. (And it gets even worse if a Dispel Magic is included in the trap.) E.g. a Long Death monk (11th+ level) could survive being dropped into lava pretty easily--he'd lose a bunch of HP and a ki point and just run right back up the chute he dropped through. But an insane Long Death monk can't teleport himself back to his point of origin, and by the time he regains his sanity he is almost or entirely out of ki, and then he dies. A mid-level wizard might be able to survive the lava with Absorb Elements and the right combination of stats, and teleport back up--but if he's insane he can't teleport, so he'll just die the second round.

As I mentioned before, those are all just extra elements that the DM is adding to increase the lethality of the trap. Those extra elements could just as easily be hotter lava, noxious and disorienting fumes, or any other thematically appropriate thing the DM can dream up.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As I mentioned before, those are all just extra elements that the DM is adding to increase the lethality of the trap. Those extra elements could just as easily be hotter lava, noxious and disorienting fumes, or any other thematically appropriate thing the DM can dream up.

You've claimed so before, but when I try to engage your with claim you resort to flippancy instead of defending your claim. "True, some Dungeon Masters roll randomly on trap charts. [silly face]" That's not an intellectually serious position.

Some DMs generate traps the way you apparently do, based on whim. Others ask themselves, "What would Archer the Mad Archmage actually do? Would he really place a trap that does only 5d8 damage, in a world where many, many potential intruders could easily survive that? Or would he make traps with a serious purpose? How would an Int 20 archwizard actually design his security to both protect things he considers important and avoid killing himself accidentally with his own security? Which locations would be trapped, and in what manner?" You've claimed implicitly that no DMs actually do this, but that isn't true.

 

[Iry]

You've claimed so before, but when I try to engage your with claim you resort to flippancy instead of defending your claim. "True, some Dungeon Masters roll randomly on trap charts. [silly face]" That's not an intellectually serious position.

I've been trying to keep things lighthearted and friendly. I've been told my writing style is somewhat severe. It was also acknowledging an exception to my statement that most DMs make up traps based on their needs.

Some DMs generate traps the way you apparently do, based on whim. Others ask themselves, "What would Archer the Mad Archmage actually do? Would he really place a trap that does only 5d8 damage, in a world where many, many potential intruders could easily survive that? Or would he make traps with a serious purpose? How would an Int 20 archwizard actually design his security to both protect things he considers important and avoid killing himself accidentally with his own security? Which locations would be trapped, and in what manner?"

Those are not separate things. The answer to the question of "What would Archer the Mad Archmage actually do" is entirely arbitrary, since you also made up Archer the Mad Archmage, and whatever you decide he would do is what he would do. How he expresses his 20 Intelligence is up to you. What resources he has available to cast spells or integrate natural hazards into his library is also up to you. That's why it's abitrary. As a DM, you can arrange the circumstances of the world and the personalities involved to generate any result you consider somewhat reasonable.

You've claimed implicitly that no DMs actually do this, but that isn't true.

I've claimed that most DMs will make an arbitrary decision about what kind of trap is going to be used, and how lethal that trap is going to be, based on their personal desires and the needs of the campaign. And I wholeheartedly believe that to be true. I've also acknowledged two exceptions, which are pre-existing traps from modules and DMs who prefer to roll their traps from a random trap table or similar tool.

 

[Seramus]

If two things both have small niches, but one of those things costs you permanent resources (cantrip slot) to have available just on the off chance that that niche is ever encountered, and the other one can simply be safely ignored until that niche is on the horizon... the one that costs you permanent resources looks worse to me.

Yeah, True Strike costs a cantrip, but you always know it's going to work as advertised when you take it. Even if what it advertises is pretty terrible. But Find Traps can just fail. That's what happened in my campaign thee times. I use extremely dangerous traps when it's appropriate, but the party just picked bad places when they cast the spell. There were no traps nearby to be found. And even when Find Traps does work, it barely tells you anything useful.

If I have the option, I wouldn't pick either of them. But if I was forced to always have one, it would be True Strike. At least it works most of the time.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Those are not separate things. The answer to the question of "What would Archer the Mad Archmage actually do" is entirely arbitrary, since you also made up Archer the Mad Archmage, and whatever you decide he would do is what he would do. How he expresses his 20 Intelligence is up to you. What resources he has available to cast spells or integrate natural hazards into his library is also up to you. That's why it's abitrary. As a DM, you can arrange the circumstances of the world and the personalities involved to generate any result you consider somewhat reasonable.

As I pointed out before, the DM creates everything in the game world. If traps are "arbitrary", then so is resistance to fire or immunity to charm, and Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern are no better than Witch Bolt and True Strike, because some DM somewhere could "arbitrarily" decide to create a world with fire- and charm-immune creatures. In practice, most DMs don't do this--the probability distributions of what DMs actually do are relevant.

It's not like you're going to be surprised if your DM is the type to roleplay Archer the Mad Archmage as someone who acts in a realistic, goal-driven fashion including designing "security"-style traps instead of "fun", traditional-D&D-style traps. That kind of personality trait in your DM will show up in all kinds of ways long before you try to steal anything from Archer. It's sometimes called "simulationism."

I've claimed that most DMs will make an arbitrary decision about what kind of trap is going to be used, and how lethal that trap is going to be, based on their personal desires and the needs of the campaign. And I wholeheartedly believe that to be true. I've also acknowledged two exceptions, which are pre-existing traps from modules and DMs who prefer to roll their traps from a random trap table or similar tool.

And simulationist DMs who are willing to TPK you.

 

[OB1]

I must have missed those. The only one I remember is lowkey's anecdote about the guy who casts True Strike as a character shtick before combat starts, and I think someone else also mentioned one-use magic items and expensive spells (Contagion, Plane Shift). Are there other uses I'm overlooking?

If two things both have small niches, but one of those things costs you permanent resources (cantrip slot) to have available just on the off chance that that niche is ever encountered, and the other one can simply be safely ignored until that niche is on the horizon... the one that costs you permanent resources looks worse to me.

Perhaps the best use is by mid-high level Rogues, whether through Magic Initiate or Arcane Trickster. It's worth giving up a d6 or a d8 one round to get the additional sneak attack damage next round if you need to hit an opponent who no one is engaged with. Makes for easier defending from a fortified position.

But it's still worse than Find Traps I'd say Find Traps is a great spell to take if your playing Yawning Portal.

 

[Iry]

As I pointed out before, the DM creates everything in the game world. If traps are "arbitrary", then so is resistance to fire or immunity to charm, and Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern are no better than Witch Bolt and True Strike, because some DM somewhere could "arbitrarily" decide to create a world with fire- and charm-immune creatures. In practice, most DMs don't do this--the probability distributions of what DMs actually do are relevant.

I agree that the probability distributions of what DMs actually do are relevant. But you are claiming that DMs do not design traps based around their needs, and should instead obey some external formula you cannot adequately explain, and that designed security features, on average, are more dangerous than natural hazards.

I then vocalized (well, text) my disagreement by explaining that most DMs do design traps based around their needs, your external formula is arbitrary, and that there is no particular reason why a natural hazard has to be less dangerous than a designed security feature. Especially when we include fantasy elements.

It's not like you're going to be surprised if your DM is the type to roleplay Archer the Mad Archmage as someone who acts in a realistic, goal-driven fashion including designing "security"-style traps instead of "fun", traditional-D&D-style traps. That kind of personality trait in your DM will show up in all kinds of ways long before you try to steal anything from Archer.

I genuinely don't know what you are talking about here.

And simulationist DMs who are willing to TPK you.

Simulationist DMs who are willing to TPK you would fall under arbitrary lethality.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I agree that the probability distributions of what DMs actually do are relevant. But you are claiming that DMs do not design traps based around their needs, and should instead obey some external formula you cannot adequately explain, and that designed security features, on average, are more dangerous than natural hazards.

No. I claimed that when you're dealing with a DM who designs traps based, not on the "appropriate challenge" for adventurers and what will be fun to experience, but rather on the needs and capabilities of the NPC who created the trap--when you're dealing with such a DM, and the scenario involves high-capability NPCs like an evil wizard from whom you're trying to steal magic items, that that is Find Traps' niche.

I make no claim about what happens "on average". (Averaged how? Across the universe of all traps by all possible DMs?)

You've made the counterclaim that there is no difference between natural hazards and traps designed by intelligent, capable NPCs. The burden of proof for that claim is on you; it smells bogus to me, since so far all the evidence you have for it is your assertion that DMs can create whatever content they want.

 

[Iry]

No. I claimed that when you're dealing with a DM who designs traps based, not on the "appropriate challenge" for adventurers and what will be fun to experience, but rather on the needs and capabilities of the NPC who created the trap--when you're dealing with such a DM, and the scenario involves high-capability NPCs like an evil wizard from whom you're trying to steal magic items, that that is Find Traps' niche.

There are no instances of the words "appropriate challenge" in your posts or my posts since we began this discussion. We've never been discussing "appropriate challenges" vs "intelligent NPCs".

I make no claim about what happens "on average". (Averaged how? Across the universe of all traps by all possible DMs?)

In this post, you make the claim that 'Natural and accidental hazards are orders of magnitude less lethal than deliberate security features.' which is objectively false in the real world, and unknowable in a fantasy setting.

You've made the counterclaim that there is no difference between natural hazards and traps designed by intelligent, capable NPCs. The burden of proof for that claim is on you; it smells bogus to me, since so far all the evidence you have for it is your assertion that DMs can create whatever content they want.

Correct. In a fantasy setting where the DM can determine the elements and lethality of the trap, using his choice of natural hazards or designed security, the only thing that determines if one is more lethal than the other is the preference of the DM. And If you do not believe that a DM can create whatever content they want, then our viewpoints are so alien to each other that we probably cannot continue this conversation.