D&D 5E Mage Hand and Trap Avoidance

[Charlaquin]

This is where the design principles of later editions of D&D really fail when it comes to traps. Some players want to deal with traps as a skill roll or through a spell; I roll to find the trap, I roll to disarm the trap, and if I fail at one or the either, I take my 10 points of damage. Of course that is unsatisfying. I'd rather ditch the trap and put a monster encounter in its place. IMO, traps work best when it challenges the player, not the PC. It is a form of metagaming, but it's a welcome one. Of course, the player can always decide that their low intellect PC wouldn't know how to figure out the puzzle, but I feel like that's their choice.

The dice roll is, in my view, a means of resolving uncertainty in the outcome of an action the player describes. The existence of a perception skill and a thieves’ tools proficiency doesn’t eliminate the need to locate a trap and describe how you go about trying to disarm it. It just provides the DM with tools to resolve the action when the outcome is unclear.

 

[TiQuinn]

The dice roll is, in my view, a means of resolving uncertainty in the outcome of an action the player describes. The existence of a perception skill and a thieves’ tools proficiency doesn’t eliminate the need to locate a trap and describe how you go about trying to disarm it. It just provides the DM with tools to resolve the action when the outcome is unclear.

It could but I think that falls in the same bucket as people who want to deceive or persuade an NPC, but not describe how they do it. Like, that is a total THING for some players. They want the roll to simply be the answer, and forego even the description. For me, the description is part of the fun. In the case of a trap, what if describing what you do is part of the puzzle? What if what you describe is actually either the "right" way to disarm the trap, or the "wrong" way to disarm it, like whether or not you need to cut the red wire on the bomb or the green wire on the bomb?

 

[Charlaquin]

It could but I think that falls in the same bucket as people who want to deceive or persuade an NPC, but not describe how they do it. Like, that is a total THING for some players. They want the roll to simply be the answer, and forego even the description. For me, the description is part of the fun.

Well, for me it’s not so much about the description but about the engagement in terms of fictional action. Which might sound like splitting hairs, but I think it’s a meaningful and important distinction.

In the case of a trap, what if describing what you do is part of the puzzle?

Well, for me it always is. If you haven’t declared what you are trying to accomplish and what your character is doing to try to accomplish it, you haven’t made a complete action declaration.

What if what you describe is actually either the "right" way to disarm the trap, or the "wrong" way to disarm it, like whether or not you need to cut the red wire on the bomb or the green wire on the bomb?

Then you’ve removed any uncertainty in the outcome, and a dice roll isn’t necessary to resolve the action. The DM should just describe the (certain) results.

 

[TiQuinn]

Well, for me it’s not so much about the description but about the engagement in terms of fictional action. Which might sound like splitting hairs, but I think it’s a meaningful and important distinction.

Not sure I follow what that distinction is. Do you have an example?

Well, for me it always is. If you haven’t declared what you are trying to accomplish and what your character is doing to try to accomplish it, you haven’t made a complete action declaration.

I agree, and yet, I've seen people who don't want to engage with that at all. To me, it's like saying they want to play Charades but not act or mime.

Then you’ve removed any uncertainty in the outcome, and a dice roll isn’t necessary to resolve the action. The DM should just describe the (certain) results.

Agreed, that's what I think of when it comes to traps. In a way, I prefer for traps not to come down to die rolls for the most part, or they should be layered, i.e. there's a way of disarming the trap (as a puzzle), or you can take the less sure route of disarming it via a roll, and maybe that doesn't work and it accidentally sets off the trap.

 

[KYRON45]

Traps were fabulous in previous editions. You spring the trap, it takes half of your HP and now you are a drag on party resources. Or you have to go back to town to heal up.

Now...you spring the trap....you take 10 HP and then you whistle a tune* until you get your HP back.
If the trap doesn't make you take the long way round, or you have to use up some valuable resource to deal with it or it doesn't split the party...it's the equivalent of the random encounter that just kills time.**

Most of my comment is hyperbole and at this point i'm not sure i have a point at all.
But think of all the times "because magic" was the answer.....mage hand is just that moments "because magic".
Almost all of my players have been measurably smarter than me so i would never waste time trying to "trick" them with a riddle or a trap. I have found that you have to gear parts of your encounter building to match wits with the players (not their PCs) and that typically means exploiting something they're not that great at dealing with.

So short story long.....is it that the spell is wrong for the encounter, or is it that the encounter needs to be adjusted for the spell?***

*short rest or one of the 150 healing potions you have in your bag of holding that you bought during an 8 hour shopping episode last time you were in town.
**It's possible i'm not using random encounters right.
***I'm sure you are a great DM, we all are. Except that one buy back in middle school....you know who you are!!!

 

[KYRON45]

Well, for me it’s not so much about the description but about the engagement in terms of fictional action. Which might sound like splitting hairs, but I think it’s a meaningful and important distinction.

You aren't splitting hairs. A wise man once said:
"Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. You get it? We both have layers"
RPGs are complicated.

 

[Wasteland Knight]

Is it safe to assume that if a mage hand can only carry 10 lbs, that is can also only apply 10 lbs of force? (I wish it had a Strength score). I ask this because I can imagine plenty of traps that mage hand might not serve to set off.

This has been my table interpretation of the spell.

So a trap triggered by moving a smoothly operating lever could be triggered by Mage Hand, but a pressure plate set for the weight of at least 50 lbs could not.

 

[Retreater]

I thought it was a rogue archetype that could disarm traps with mage hand. (Or maybe I'm thinking of a prior edition?)
So ... no, unless you're trained in this archetype, mage hand doesn't work this way.

 

[Reynard]

I thought it was a rogue archetype that could disarm traps with mage hand. (Or maybe I'm thinking of a prior edition?)
So ... no, unless you're trained in this archetype, mage hand doesn't work this way.

They did not disarm it, they set it off remotely.

 

[Sorinth]

The simplest solution is to make traps require more then 10lbs of force to trigger. Stepping on a tile that triggers the trap for instance can easily require more then 10lbs of force to activate. Also any magic trap could in theory be programmed to not trigger off things like mage hand/unseen servant.

Also as a note if the PCs are being cautious with mage hand or 10ft poles and the like they are inherently moving slowly so you can have the enemies doing something during that time. Including gathering up all their treasure and fleeing so by the time the players get to the treasure room/vault it's been emptied.