D&D 5E How is a Trap not a Mimic? Question about False Appearance & Traps

[Quickleaf]

Several monsters in the MM have the False Appearance trait – animated objects, blights, cloakers, darkmantles, some fungi, galeb duhr, gargoyles, some mephits, some oozes, piercers, ropers, scarecrows, treants, and of course mimics. In VOLOS this includes the slithering tracker and trapper. In MToF this includes the oaken defender, the alkilith demon, the eidolon's sacred statue, and the stone cursed. This trait reads as some variation of:

False Appearance (Object Form Only). While the mimic remains motionless, it is indistinguishable from an ordinary object.

The intention seems to be that – as long as the remaining motionless condition is met – that there is no ability check which will discover the presence of the monster. The only ways to detect such monsters seems to be magics like detect thoughts / locate creature or clever strategies (e.g. luring the monster to reveal itself). Otherwise, their disguise/camouflage is flawless. It doesn't matter how high a PC's Insight, Investigation, or Perception check is. They're very much designed as "gotcha" monsters with a perfect way to gain surprise. In other words, they're a lot like a trap (or at least how traps have frequently been presented).

Is this accurate to how you run False Appearance monsters?

Now, I'm wondering why, say, a gargoyle or eidolon's sacred state can flawlessly appear to be a normal statue, but a trapped statue cannot flawlessly appear to be a normal statue. Clearly, the DM needs to provide the players with actionable information and foreshadowing of a trap, whether that's through ability checks or whatever – That's just "best practice" for DMing. But the game seems to draw a stark distinction between a gargoyle and a trapped statue or a mimic and a trapped chest. The False Appearance monster cannot be detected with an ability check, whereas traps are presented as being directly detectable with an ability check. For instance, XGtE has this to say about a Pit Trap:

Countermeasures: A successful DC 10 Wisdom (Perception) check reveals the presence of the canvas and the 1-foot-wide ledge around the edges of the pit where it is safe to travel.

What makes the monster different, and should it be any different?

I've been thinking on this for a bit, and while I clearly lean toward the "there should not be a difference" perspective, I do see how opposing views make sense. I'm actively trying to find the right balance with my group as they will be entering a trap-filled dungeon soon. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

 

[BigBadDM]

I guess I would answer it like this:

I'm a mimic. I assume the form of a chest. I have the option to make it look like I have a gas trap on my lock. But why would I do that? (well if I were an extra devious DM I might do that so they touch it.

You can always make them roll a perception check when they get to the Mimic chest. And say nope, you don't detect raps.

or I'm a gargoyle. I am going to put this little bit on poison dribble on my toe. Now I looked like a trap when they see me. (honestly you have given me some good ideas).

What I am getting at is why would they detected anything, detecting traps and detecting life are different things. I the world of realism you might say you should be able to detect one in the same. But this is a game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Several monsters in the MM have the False Appearance trait – animated objects, blights, cloakers, darkmantles, some fungi, galeb duhr, gargoyles, some mephits, some oozes, piercers, ropers, scarecrows, treants, and of course mimics. In VOLOS this includes the slithering tracker and trapper. In MToF this includes the oaken defender, the alkilith demon, the eidolon's sacred statue, and the stone cursed. This trait reads as some variation of:



The intention seems to be that – as long as the remaining motionless condition is met – that there is no ability check which will discover the presence of the monster. The only ways to detect such monsters seems to be magics like detect thoughts / locate creature or clever strategies (e.g. luring the monster to reveal itself). Otherwise, their disguise/camouflage is flawless. It doesn't matter how high a PC's Insight, Investigation, or Perception check is. They're very much designed as "gotcha" monsters with a perfect way to gain surprise. In other words, they're a lot like a trap (or at least how traps have frequently been presented).

Is this accurate to how you run False Appearance monsters?

Now, I'm wondering why, say, a gargoyle or eidolon's sacred state can flawlessly appear to be a normal statue, but a trapped statue cannot flawlessly appear to be a normal statue. Clearly, the DM needs to provide the players with actionable information and foreshadowing of a trap, whether that's through ability checks or whatever – That's just "best practice" for DMing. But the game seems to draw a stark distinction between a gargoyle and a trapped statue or a mimic and a trapped chest. The False Appearance monster cannot be detected with an ability check, whereas traps are presented as being directly detectable with an ability check. For instance, XGtE has this to say about a Pit Trap:



What makes the monster different, and should it be any different?

I've been thinking on this for a bit, and while I clearly lean toward the "there should not be a difference" perspective, I do see how opposing views make sense. I'm actively trying to find the right balance with my group as they will be entering a trap-filled dungeon soon. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

I think this problem only really exists if you employ perception/investigation/insight checks with the precipitating action left abstract, and/or determined based on the results of the check. In such a case, yes, the player can "check for traps," no check will be called for because the mimic is indistinguishable from an ordinary object, and the action will accordingly be determined to have been one that had no chance of succeeding at determining that the object was a mimic.

On the other hand, if you require the player to describe a specific goal and approach, and determine if it succeeds, fails, or requires a check based on that goal and approach, you open up the door for many more possible outcomes. For example, if the player's approach involves touching the object... Well, they're going to stick to it thanks to the adhesive trait. There's really no chance of that action failing to determine that this object is a mimic, although the player now has bigger problems to deal with. If the player's approach involves... I don't know, throwing something at the mimic... Whatever they throw is also going to stick to the mimic's adhesive, yeah? I guess the character might think the object is sticky for reasons other than it being a mimic, but that's up to the player to decide in my opinion. If the player's approach only involves looking at the object and not touching it, then they can't distinguish it from an ordinary object, and there is no need for a check.

 

[iserith]

Several monsters in the MM have the False Appearance trait – animated objects, blights, cloakers, darkmantles, some fungi, galeb duhr, gargoyles, some mephits, some oozes, piercers, ropers, scarecrows, treants, and of course mimics. In VOLOS this includes the slithering tracker and trapper. In MToF this includes the oaken defender, the alkilith demon, the eidolon's sacred statue, and the stone cursed. This trait reads as some variation of:



The intention seems to be that – as long as the remaining motionless condition is met – that there is no ability check which will discover the presence of the monster. The only ways to detect such monsters seems to be magics like detect thoughts / locate creature or clever strategies (e.g. luring the monster to reveal itself). Otherwise, their disguise/camouflage is flawless. It doesn't matter how high a PC's Insight, Investigation, or Perception check is. They're very much designed as "gotcha" monsters with a perfect way to gain surprise. In other words, they're a lot like a trap (or at least how traps have frequently been presented).

Is this accurate to how you run False Appearance monsters?

No, because like traps, I telegraph the existence of monsters with False Appearance. The area in which the PCs find the mimic might have an acrid smell in the air because of its acidic bile. A couple of bolts are lodged into the walls leading up to when the PCs might encounter the oaken bolter. And so on. When the PCs lay eyes on the monster, it looks like what it looks like, but there are clues in the environment that something isn't quite right. Maybe the PCs investigate before things go awry and maybe they don't, but by my description of the environment, I've at least given them a chance.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yup, something that looks exactly like a chest looks exactly like a chest. Ergo no skill roll will reveal that it is not a chest. Skill rolls only apply when the outcome is uncertain.

If the players can come up with some clever way to distinguish between a chest and something that looks exactly like a chest, but it may or may not work, then a skill roll is called for.

Some methods (e.g. "I stick my spear in it") may automatically succeed in revealing the true nature of the chest without requiring a skill check.

The same applies to traps. If there is no external indication of the presence of the trap, then no skill roll will detect the trap. Most traps have some sort of trigger or mechanism that is detectable, but this does not have to be the case.

 

[aco175]

I find that these monsters used sparingly can fool the players and the PCs, but overdone makes the whole game slow own as the player have the PCs poke every rug and chest moving through the dungeon. My player have been gaming a long time and it seems that any statue could come alive and any rug could hide a pit under it. Could it be safe to assume that actual adventurers that grew up in a world of monsters and such would be weary of passing statues and chests that could eat them. I cannot see them being automatically surprised when passing a statue unless there are some other factors such as rooms full of statues and only one gargoyle. Being alert all the time is difficult to maintain.

I guess you could give a Perception to notice something else about the chest that may hint at danger. Something about the dirt around the chest makes it appear to have been dragged in two directions or the joints in the wood are not normal. Maybe the false appearance is a means to lure people close enough and not a total foolproof means, or enough to fool commoners and not mighty heroes.

 

[Hriston]

Several monsters in the MM have the False Appearance trait – animated objects, blights, cloakers, darkmantles, some fungi, galeb duhr, gargoyles, some mephits, some oozes, piercers, ropers, scarecrows, treants, and of course mimics. In VOLOS this includes the slithering tracker and trapper. In MToF this includes the oaken defender, the alkilith demon, the eidolon's sacred statue, and the stone cursed. This trait reads as some variation of:



The intention seems to be that – as long as the remaining motionless condition is met – that there is no ability check which will discover the presence of the monster. The only ways to detect such monsters seems to be magics like detect thoughts / locate creature or clever strategies (e.g. luring the monster to reveal itself). Otherwise, their disguise/camouflage is flawless. It doesn't matter how high a PC's Insight, Investigation, or Perception check is. They're very much designed as "gotcha" monsters with a perfect way to gain surprise. In other words, they're a lot like a trap (or at least how traps have frequently been presented).

Is this accurate to how you run False Appearance monsters?

No, I run False Appearance as an ability to hide in plain sight, so for example if a party encounters a mimic, and one of the party members is keeping watch for hidden threats as they travel, I would roll a DEX (Stealth) check for the mimic contested by the party member’s passive Perception score, which would determine whether the mimic remains motionless or not.

Now, I'm wondering why, say, a gargoyle or eidolon's sacred state can flawlessly appear to be a normal statue, but a trapped statue cannot flawlessly appear to be a normal statue. Clearly, the DM needs to provide the players with actionable information and foreshadowing of a trap, whether that's through ability checks or whatever – That's just "best practice" for DMing. But the game seems to draw a stark distinction between a gargoyle and a trapped statue or a mimic and a trapped chest. The False Appearance monster cannot be detected with an ability check, whereas traps are presented as being directly detectable with an ability check. For instance, XGtE has this to say about a Pit Trap:



What makes the monster different, and should it be any different?

I've been thinking on this for a bit, and while I clearly lean toward the "there should not be a difference" perspective, I do see how opposing views make sense. I'm actively trying to find the right balance with my group as they will be entering a trap-filled dungeon soon. Thank you for sharing your perspective.

I agree with you that it shouldn’t be any different although perhaps not for the same reasons.

 

[Oofta]

A trap is purely mechanical, there has to be a hole for the needle, a thin slot for the blade to come out of and so on.

A gargoyle on the other hand uses magic to flex and bend what should be solid rock. There are no seam lines, no visible joints that could be noticed.

Depending on the situation you may be able to pick up on the gargoyle being a gargoyle. For example it's raining out and the statue is wet but in a protected area that's otherwise dry.

But generally I run it like the books say. You can't tell it's not a statue.

 

[Beleriphon]

I guess you could give a Perception to notice something else about the chest that may hint at danger. Something about the dirt around the chest makes it appear to have been dragged in two directions or the joints in the wood are not normal. Maybe the false appearance is a means to lure people close enough and not a total foolproof means, or enough to fool commoners and not mighty heroes.

I think its supposed to be effectively foolproof, but the bit about the dirt is a good clue and I think that perceptive characters should get that information either through rolls, passive scores, or whatever. The mimic still looks like a completely ordinary chest, but that chest has been "pushed" and moved multiple ways from where it sits now.