D&D (2024) How do I disarm traps? Does Thieves' Tools do anything?

[Micah Sweet]

How about allowing the spell to be reliably cast the first time but an Arcana check or the like to continue to be able to use it?

Isn't that what Shadowdark does?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Traps may also be disarmed by stumbling into them, no DC or Thieves Tools required. I'm not sure if that is in the 2024 comprehensive ruleset, but that is how I plan to run it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Traps may also be disarmed by stumbling into them, no DC or Thieves Tools required. I'm not sure if that is in the 2024 comprehensive ruleset, but that is how I plan to run it.

How many adventurers need at stumble into a spiked pit before it is disarmed?

 

[Clint_L]

I agree, and in that sense it's not magic but technology... about which I agree with your observations.


That's not metaphysically necessitated, rather it's the semantic implication of "real"... which needs unwinding. We could inhabit (and many believe we do) a dualistic reality, in which the ineffable (which defies study and is inconsistent) interacts with the effable (the "physical" universe, which may be studied and found consistent).

What’s the difference between something that is ineffable and nothing? Other than belief?

Magic in D&D is very effable!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

One thing I struggle to conceptualize in the fiction is how a mundane set of thieves' tools can defeat a magic spell. Like, what is the character actually doing in this instance? Is it purely a game mechanic thing, or can it be given a reasonable explanation within the context of the game?

Thieves' Tools include a small brush (various uses) one of which is to carefully deface mystic runes without causing them to 'splodey.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How many adventurers need at stumble into a spiked pit before it is disarmed?

About a dozen or so in a standard 10' x 10' I'd say.

 

[clearstream]

What’s the difference between something that is ineffable and nothing? Other than belief?

From the perspective of folk living in a world interacted with by ineffable non-nothings, the difference would be that said interactions would occur whether or not they believed in them. Occurrences would be numerous and overt - bushes bursting into flame, people transforming into seals, etcetera. People could attempt to study and predict them, and perhaps there would be some apparent rules that appear to hold for some time in some places, but they are ultimately inscrutable.

The belief that I take you to be thinking of I might call faith - belief without evidence. The ineffable that I am describing would be robustly evident, just not scrutable.

Magic in D&D is very effable!

Yes! Hence I call it technology labelled as "magic". The "magic" label is fluff. It also serves as a tag or identifier for some set of game elements (tagged "magical") so that other elements 'know' they can interact with them. (More accurately, so that we know that and can apply it, such as when we apply a rule that affects "magical" items but not mundane items.) The latter aspect of system can be served equally well by other tags such as "thrawn" (so that we would have a set of things that interact with anything "thrawn") so I deem choosing "magic" as the label to be strictly fluff.

 

[clearstream]

How about allowing the spell to be reliably cast the first time but an Arcana check or the like to continue to be able to use it?

That first cast would introduce predictability. Achieving my ideal would need some additional element to make the pattern chaotic rather than simply random. Maybe adding a deck to draw from that interacted with the roll would do it, so long as the manipulation of that deck was in some way cyclical. Or that approach might need a minimum of two decks... I'm not sure. It's not an easy problem to solve.

 

[roguish]

Thieves' Tools include a small brush (various uses) one of which is to carefully deface mystic runes without causing them to 'splodey.

I have Opinions and Essays about thieves' tools, but the tl,dr; version is: there's no good reason to assume it's just a bunch of lockpicks. It's called "breaking and entering" for a reason, most burglaries involve forcing things open. The tool kit is not just for locks, it's also for sabotage and tinkering. (Well. It should be.) And it's pointless to stick to medieval technology (which would mean "lockpicks" are really skeleton keys, not hooks and rakes): the game is full of early modern contraptions, and the pin-and-tumbler lock that everyone imagines when they think of "lockpicking" is late modern. Also, it's D&D, not Earth.

Therefore, a Rogue walking around with tools of the trade can and should be carrying tension wrench, hook and rake lockpicks, skeleton keys, jemmy, small pick, small hammer, chisel, awl, auger, nails, tweezers, penknife, gum or other adhesive, string, wire, rags, and oil.

If you do that, a) it will be so much cooler, b) it will be easy to imagine the toolkit being used to disarm traps and the like, and c) you will have no reason to tell the Rogue "you can't roll Thieves' Tools to open that door because it has no lock". People have bested bolted doors with nothing but a jemmy in real life, so of course it should be feasible in D&D.

(And it's still totally cool to roll dexterity while forcing things open: the ancient technology of the Fulcrum and Lever is just that good. Trust me, I have a strength penalty in real life.)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

That first cast would introduce predictability. Achieving my ideal would need some additional element to make the pattern chaotic rather than simply random. Maybe adding a deck to draw from that interacted with the roll would do it, so long as the manipulation of that deck was in some way cyclical. Or that approach might need a minimum of two decks... I'm not sure. It's not an easy problem to solve.

Then I really doubt that players will use such an unreliable system. Given a choice between very unreliable and hit it with a stick, the stick wins.