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

[clearstream]

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.

It's more a thought experiment. How might I design a method to offer players something like "real" magic, meaning what was historically called magical on Earth.

Players would need to be able to make rough observations that were sometimes right, sometimes wrong. They'd need to be able to form theories that were right just one time, or wrong when I followed it but right when you did. Meeting @Clint_L's question head on, the effects would have to be undeniable. When it works it's visible and miraculous! But it can never be predictable or repeatable in a scientific way... never usable as a technology.

And thus you are right: I agree with your forecast that players wouldn't want to use such a system. Ironically, it's almost scientific to say that game design should sometimes be curiousity led. I'm curious about whether magic-as-magic rather than magic-as-technology could be captured in gameplay.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think a big source of this problem is video game adaptations. Perception check = glowing red square on the floor. Skill check = make red square disappear. What the trap does, how it works, and why it is there is abstracted away. The main reason it’s there is to create a reason for having a rogue in the party.

Really rock and roll music is to blame. And marijuana. And comic books.

And the Russians.

 

[aco175]

If you are a criminal background, you get a crowbar!

 

[Clint_L]

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.

This is incoherent. There is no difference between what you describe and unexplained phenomena. Saying that "no, there is a cause but it is ineffable" is identical to saying that "this is uncaused," or simply shrugging.

Supernatural claims are untestable and meaningless. Magic is not supernatural in fantasy settings; they are instead settings with different natural laws than our own.

 

[clearstream]

This is incoherent. There is no difference between what you describe and unexplained phenomena. Saying that "no, there is a cause but it is ineffable" is identical to saying that "this is uncaused," or simply shrugging.

You're capturing quite well what I am saying - barring the "uncaused" part: it is caused, albeit not explicably. A dualistic metaphysical theory allows a person to say things like "the gods caused it" and "the actions of the gods are inexplicable" where those are both true.

Supernatural claims are untestable and meaningless. Magic is not supernatural in fantasy settings; they are instead settings with different natural laws than our own.

That's what I have been spelling out. "Supernatural claims are untestable". Magic in games is technology refluffed. It is testable: repeatable and predictable - hallmarks of science.

The historical magic that "magic" in games is modelled on comprises a diverse set of supernatural claims. Game designers noticed attempts to present those claims systematically (the Key of Solomon is an example) and proposed with their designs worlds where those systems actually worked. But in the real world, such "systems" worked only anecdotally: folk would claim that it worked on some occasion, but never be able to repeat and predict that success.

 

[mamba]

Another implication is that by using Thieves' tools, the DC is set by the use of the tool, not by the difficulty in the lock or trap.

no, that is just an example value for an ordinary lock

 

[ezo]

no, that is just an example value for an ordinary lock

Well, that is the way it should be...

But, it doesn't say those are typical DCs or any such thing. The DC if you use Thieves' tools is 15. This information was released long before the DMG came out, and is all a player has to go by.

More careful wording and rules would elimate the confusion brought up by the OP. It is poor game design.

 

[mamba]

Well, that is the way it should be...

But, it doesn't say those are typical DCs or any such thing. The DC if you use Thieves' tools is 15. This information was released long before the DMG came out, and is all a player has to go by.

yes, adding the word ‘typical’ would help a lot there, but ultimately it is not the player who sets the DC, and the DM knows better.

Would be nice if the player knew too though. That whole skills section apparently could use some improvements / clarifications. That is the point of buying a rulebook after all, to get clarity instead of having to figure something out from an interpretive dance performance

 

[clearstream]

Well, that is the way it should be...

But, it doesn't say those are typical DCs or any such thing. The DC if you use Thieves' tools is 15. This information was released long before the DMG came out, and is all a player has to go by.

More careful wording and rules would elimate the confusion brought up by the OP. It is poor game design.

I disagree. PHB 11 RAW reads that

The rules provide DCs for certain checks, but the DM ultimately sets them.​

​

This is interesting language, because it creates an instance of a general that overrides exceptions. There are certain DCs provided for in the rules - locks are an example - but after all is said and done ("ultimately") GM sets them.

 

[ezo]

That whole skills section apparently could use some improvements / clarifications.

LOL what "skills section"? 2014 was a bit lax in this but at least it was there...

2024 didn't even seem bother with that much.

I disagree. PHB 11 RAW reads that

The rules provide DCs for certain checks, but the DM ultimately sets them.​

​

This is interesting language, because it creates an instance of a general that overrides exceptions. There are certain DCs provided for in the rules - locks are an example - but after all is said and done ("ultimately") GM sets them.

Great, it would be nice if any of that was actually in a "skill section".

Also, even with what you quoted, the rules provide the DC, and the DM sets them for the check... to the DC's provided. Doesn't really say the DM can, should, will, or whatever change them.

It should say more about it, but hey I guess cramming more artwork into the book took priority.