They can't put in spells that stomp on other classes just in case that class is missing from a party. If they did you'd have a lot of instances where there is a rogue in the party and the cleric took find traps.
The better design is to not create things that step heavily on the toes of other classes. Minor toe stomping is fine, but find traps doesn't work as a minor toe stomp.
You sense the presence of any trap within range that is within line of sight. A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes anything that would inflict a sudden or unexpected effect you consider harmful or undesirable, which was specifically intended as such by its creator. Thus, the spell would sense an area affected by the alarm spell, a glyph of warding, or a mechanical pit trap, but it would not reveal a natural weakness in the floor, an unstable ceiling, or a hidden sinkhole.
This spell merely reveals that a trap is present. You don't learn the location of each trap, but you do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense.
You sense the presence of any trap within range that is within line of sight
pressure plate under a carpet? Not in LoS
Pit trap under some leaves? Mayyybe in LoS depending on source of the leaves.
. A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes anything that would inflict a sudden or unexpected effect you consider harmful or undesirable, which was specifically intended as such by its creator.
Poison immune creature sets up a poison mist trap?... maybe not a trap
Lowest bidder on a catwalk did a poor job on a catwalk that's going to collapse? Not a trap
Thus, the spell would sense an area affected by the alarm spell, a glyph of warding,
There's the first devil. Even slippery muck growing naturally where it was left to grow might not count even if it's likely to zip you into the lava below, Likewise with mushrooms that emit a poison cloud when disturbed & similar
This spell merely reveals that a trap is present. You don't learn the location of each trap, but you do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense
detect traps:"Yes there is a poison trap."/"yes there is a mechanical trap"
Player:"Where?"
Detect traps: "You don't learn the location of each trap"
Detect traps: "The general nature is poison."/"The general nature is mechanical."
Player: "um... can I get my spell slot back? Maybe swap that for something that performs a useful function?"
GM: "Yea to both"
It's not a ritual spell so no caster is ever going to want to burn a L2 slot casting it even with a permissive gm who gives more
Sphere: Divination
Range: 0 Components: V, S
Duration: 3 turns Casting Time: 5
Area of Effect: 10 ft. × 30 yds. Saving Throw: None
When a priest casts a find traps spell, all traps—concealed nor-
mally or magically—of magical or mechanical nature become appar-
ent to him. Note that this spell is directional, and the caster must face
the desired direction in order to determine if a trap is laid in that
particular direction.
A trap is any device or magical ward that meets three criteria: it
can inflict a sudden or unexpected result, the spellcaster would view
the result as undesirable or harmful, and the harmful or undesirable
result was specifically intended as such by the creator. Thus, traps
include alarms, glyphs, and similar spells or devices.
The caster learns the general nature of the trap (magical or
mechanical) but not its exact effect, nor how to disarm it. Close
examination will, however, enable the caster to sense what
intended actions might trigger it. Note that the caster’s divination is
limited to his knowledge of what might be unexpected and harm-
ful. The spell cannot predict actions of creatures (hence, a con-
cealed murder hole or ambush is not a trap), nor are natural
hazards considered traps (a cavern that floods during a rain, a wall
weakened by age, a naturally poisonous plant, etc.). If the DM is
using specific glyphs or sigils to identify magical wards (see the
3rd-level spell glyph of warding), this spell shows the form of the
glyph or mark. The spell does not detect traps that have been
disarmed or are otherwise inactive.
Even then a caster would rather a rogue do their thing because spell slots were important & resource attrition was a bigger thing.
You sense the presence of any trap within range that is within line of sight. A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes anything that would inflict a sudden or unexpected effect you consider harmful or undesirable, which was specifically intended as such by its creator. Thus, the spell would sense an area affected by the alarm spell, a glyph of warding, or a mechanical pit trap, but it would not reveal a natural weakness in the floor, an unstable ceiling, or a hidden sinkhole.
This spell merely reveals that a trap is present. You don't learn the location of each trap, but you do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense.
pressure plate under a carpet? Not in LoS
Pit trap under some leaves? Mayyybe in LoS depending on source of the leaves.
Poison immune creature sets up a poison mist trap?... maybe not a trap
Lowest bidder on a catwalk did a poor job on a catwalk that's going to collapse? Not a trap
Not if it was behind a tapestry, inside a chest, or behind a book for example, they wouldn't be in LoS
Unless it's not in LoS
There's the first devil. Even slippery muck growing naturally where it was left to grow might not count even if it's likely to zip you into the lava below, Likewise with mushrooms that emit a poison cloud when disturbed & similar
detect traps:"Yes there is a poison trap."/"yes there is a mechanical trap"
Player:"Where?"
Detect traps: "You don't learn the location of each trap"
Detect traps: "The general nature is poison."/"The general nature is mechanical."
Player: "um... can I get my spell slot back? Maybe swap that for something that performs a useful function?"
GM: "Yea to both"
It's not a ritual spell so no caster is ever going to want to burn a L2 slot casting it even with a permissive gm who gives more
Sphere: Divination
Range: 0 Components: V, S
Duration: 3 turns Casting Time: 5
Area of Effect: 10 ft. × 30 yds. Saving Throw: None
When a priest casts a find traps spell, all traps—concealed nor-
mally or magically—of magical or mechanical nature become appar-
ent to him. Note that this spell is directional, and the caster must face
the desired direction in order to determine if a trap is laid in that
particular direction.
A trap is any device or magical ward that meets three criteria: it
can inflict a sudden or unexpected result, the spellcaster would view
the result as undesirable or harmful, and the harmful or undesirable
result was specifically intended as such by the creator. Thus, traps
include alarms, glyphs, and similar spells or devices.
The caster learns the general nature of the trap (magical or
mechanical) but not its exact effect, nor how to disarm it. Close
examination will, however, enable the caster to sense what
intended actions might trigger it. Note that the caster’s divination is
limited to his knowledge of what might be unexpected and harm-
ful. The spell cannot predict actions of creatures (hence, a con-
cealed murder hole or ambush is not a trap), nor are natural
hazards considered traps (a cavern that floods during a rain, a wall
weakened by age, a naturally poisonous plant, etc.). If the DM is
using specific glyphs or sigils to identify magical wards (see the
3rd-level spell glyph of warding), this spell shows the form of the
glyph or mark. The spell does not detect traps that have been
disarmed or are otherwise inactive.
Even then a caster would rather a rogue do their thing because spell slots were important & resource attrition was a bigger thing.
They can't put in spells that stomp on other classes just in case that class is missing from a party. If they did you'd have a lot of instances where there is a rogue in the party and the cleric took find traps.
The better design is to not create things that step heavily on the toes of other classes. Minor toe stomping is fine, but find traps doesn't work as a minor toe stomp.
I disagree. The players can work out their own not stepping on toes. It's a team game. Act like a team. If you have a rogue then it is a wasted slot for the cleric to take it.
I disagree. The players can work out their own not stepping on toes. It's a team game. Act like a team. If you have a rogue then it is a wasted slot for the cleric to take it.
They can't put in spells that stomp on other classes just in case that class is missing from a party. If they did you'd have a lot of instances where there is a rogue in the party and the cleric took find traps.
The better design is to not create things that step heavily on the toes of other classes. Minor toe stomping is fine, but find traps doesn't work as a minor toe stomp.
I tweaked Find Traps such that it only pulls magic traps, e.g. glyphs or symbols or illusion-based traps, that a Rogue likely can't find anyway unless said Rogue somehow has means of detecting magic.
It is interesting that 5e has made so many steps towards not protecting class niches, so you can theoretically make a group without traditional parties...and yet, there are some bridges that can't quite be burned.
In principle I'm not opposed to this change.
I think player/monster symmetry is by far over valued am I am very happy we're far from the rabbit hole that 3E ended up in.
Likewise I personally prefer Critical Hit = Maximum damage that could have been rolled rather than rolling double damage dice.
This meshes the best in my mind,
1) I prevents the saddening situation of a poor roll on a Crit that ends up being worse than an average roll of a normal hit.
2) Avoids any niggly rules about some things not taking critical hits for whatever dubious justification I don't care about because there is already
BUT
I might just be being a bit of a killjoy and there is a significant number of players and GMs who very much embrace the memorable moments caused by wild swings of the dice.
Likewise 5E most certainly doesn't have a reputation for lethality (aside perhaps at the very lowest levels) and many monsters at mid to high level could do with all the help they can get.
The crit killing weak characters issue could also be addressed by DMs having minions that do predictable amounts of damage. I like the idea of what we used to call 'massive damage' causing death at the end of the victim's next turn, and of only powers that specify instant death actually causing instant death.
I tweaked Find Traps such that it only pulls magic traps, e.g. glyphs or symbols or illusion-based traps, that a Rogue likely can't find anyway unless said Rogue somehow has means of detecting magic.
Detect Magic can find Magic Traps and tell you something about them. Maybe have Find Traps give advantage or a bonus to the character actually trying to do so. maybe make a melee strike be the somatic component of casting True Strike, and perhaps with Weaponmaster, give a +1 bonus to one weapon to hit, or just make it a fighting style, Chose one weapon, you gain proficiency and get +1 to hit with one proficient weapon. Worth a feat.
This is the only part of the playtest that I hate. If it is made a rule, it will be ignored and therefore take up book space with useless material. The expressed reason is that crits can unpredictably kill low level characters. This problem is a rare occurrence and does not need a complex nerf bat solution. Crits are fun. Big numbers are fun. They are fun for rogues and fun for wizards. The drama created when a monster does it is usually fun too. The recharge solution is unusable. It would take every single monster or at least every encounter having something like that. No. Keep it simple, bring back minions who in a prior edition did predictable damage and revisit the death mechanic. What we used to call 'Massive Damage' caused death with no saves. Make it a threshold that can occur occasionally like say, half of maximum, but let it cause death at the end of your next turn. I would propose that only deliberately designed instant death effects should cause truly instant death.
Agree, instant death isn't fun but more monsters having something special attacks or better attacks would make them a more immersive threat than they are now. CRs also need some work. 5E has few templates. I would like to see them return. A little variance in a pack of orcs or kobolds can make it more interesting.
I can agree that inspiration on a crit would be an interesting benefit. That assumes though that inspiration becomes a mainstream rule as well as the crit change. There's no guarantee that both will happen. I concur that Smite should just be reliable and not be expended on a miss but it it's a critical hit, it makes sense that everything that depended on that hit should be part of the critical effect. Plus, bigger numbers are fun. There's no reason not to make inspiration an optional rule in my book, then all players and DMs could have their big handfuls of dice and the DM could award inspiration as well.
This thread is literally the first time I’ve ever heard anyone complain about the existence of crits in D&D. Those of you who want them removed have made good arguments, I understand your point, but I can’t help but cock my head to one side and say, “What? This is a problem?”
If the problem is that some random mook might end a character’s narrative, maybe the problem is really all the meaningless fights in D&D. It does seem like the newer batch of players are more risk averse, which I say with no disdain, I’d argue my generation was more risk adverse than the gaming generation that came before mine. I certainly have no interest in some of the meat grinders that classic adventures of the past were.
More and more I keep thinking D&D isn’t for me anymore. And that’s okay, things change and the audience today is different from what it was in 1992. But this just feels like another nail in the coffin for me.
Drama is possible no matter the task as long as there are tools to elevate that task. teh problem is D&D traditionally puts all the tools into combat, so other tasks -- cooking, negotiating, exploring the wilderness -- are boring slogs composed of DM fiat and/or skill checks. D&D is fully capable of creating exciting cooking contests if it embraces tools that are meant to make anything exciting by creating stakes for the players and characters -- like combat does.
Drama is possible no matter the task as long as there are tools to elevate that task. teh problem is D&D traditionally puts all the tools into combat, so other tasks -- cooking, negotiating, exploring the wilderness -- are boring slogs composed of DM fiat and/or skill checks. D&D is fully capable of creating exciting cooking contests if it embraces tools that are meant to make anything exciting by creating stakes for the players and characters -- like combat does.
To do that with noncombat tasks would seem to me to require narrative mechanics, which are a bridge too far for me. Would love to be proven wrong here.
Drama is possible no matter the task as long as there are tools to elevate that task. teh problem is D&D traditionally puts all the tools into combat, so other tasks -- cooking, negotiating, exploring the wilderness -- are boring slogs composed of DM fiat and/or skill checks. D&D is fully capable of creating exciting cooking contests if it embraces tools that are meant to make anything exciting by creating stakes for the players and characters -- like combat does.
That's right, the game needs all three pillars of play. Meaningful exploration and social interactions are equally important.
That's not the same as spending a whole adventure dicking around the town, though.
