Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6005068" data-attributes="member: 1465">I agree, I think it's a big mistake how they changed it in the last 5e playtest round. And for what purpose? Just because a high-Wis Cleric is slightly more likely to casually noticing traps than a low-Wis Rogue even tho the Rogue is trained in Spot? I think here the designers have been really... unwise! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />First of all now the rules are a bit ambiguous on whether this should be a Wis check (as mentioned in the description on how to run the exploration phase) or an Int check (as per the Find Traps skill). Most typically, the Rogue won't have a low-Int anyway, this is less common than a low-Wis Rogue.Then the fact that other characters (high-Wis Cleric or high-Int Wizard) have a better chance at finding traps won't probably last long considering that skills improve every couple of levels (ok... also ability scores improve by level, and personally I think they shouldn't).Finally, the could just solve this corner-case problem by simply introducing a limit on what traps can be found by someone untrained in Find Traps. 3ed did this with the Rogue's Trapfinding ability, but I think it would be best to link this to the Find Traps skill rather than the class so that if you want you can also have a non-Rogue specializing in finding traps.[OTOH, the already established "take 10" feature of Skill Mastery is very nice!]</blockquote>

Verification