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

[clearstream]

I'm pretty sure RAI is ease of use being prioritized over practically everything else.

Agreed about ease of use. Another benefit of using simple difficulty steps like 10, 15, 20, rather than worrying about more granular increments, is the experience in play where the difference between say 10 and 12 is generally only intellectually perceptible (that's not nothing, of course) rather than playing out as distinctly different experiences of success/failure rates (i.e. perceptible at our table).

My current rubric is

Don't roll if there are no consequences that matter​

DC seems to be less than 10 = say "Yes" (so again, don't roll)​

DC 10 = baseline (no particular impediments to success)​

Step up in increments of 5 (to 15, 20 etc.) when something impedes success​

​

I'm as yet undecided if it is worth applying the ability modifier and proficiency of creatures opposing the action, or simply counting that as just one more possible impediment to success (so using a 5 point step).​

​

A 25% difference is somewhat perceptible at the table, although I sometimes feel one could just go with 10, 20, 30 and that would cover it! Of course this is highly subjective and depends on the texture of play one wants to achieve.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed about ease of use. Another benefit of using simple difficulty steps like 10, 15, 20, rather than worrying about more granular increments, is the experience in play where the difference between say 10 and 12 is generally only intellectually perceptible (that's not nothing, of course) rather than playing out as distinctly different experiences of success/failure rates (i.e. perceptible at our table).

My current rubric is

Don't roll if there are no consequences that matter​

DC seems to be less than 10 = say "Yes" (so again, don't roll)​

DC 10 = baseline (no particular impediments to success)​

Step up in increments of 5 (to 15, 20 etc.) when something impedes success​

​

I'm as yet undecided if it is worth applying the ability modifier and proficiency of creatures opposing the action, or simply counting that as just one more possible impediment to success (so using a 5 point step).​

​

A 25% difference is somewhat perceptible at the table, although I sometimes feel one could just go with 10, 20, 30 and that would cover it! Of course this is highly subjective and depends on the texture of play one wants to achieve.

My issue here is simply that if a task makes sense to be easier or harder in the fiction for some intrinsic reason for that task, the mechanics should reflect that. The laundry list of tasks that all have the same difficulty snaps my reality suspenders, even as I am very aware of the reason it was done that way.

 

[Guest 7037866]

I'm pretty sure RAI is ease of use being prioritized over practically everything else.

Agreed about ease of use.

Ditto.

IME DC 10, 15, and 20 is really all I need, however to break up the monotony I like to randomly assign DCs within ranges:

Easy: DC 5 - 10 (d6+4)
Mod.: DC 10 - 15 (d6+9)
Hard: DC 15 - 20 (d6+14)
Very Hard: DC 20 - 25 (d6+19)
Nearly Imp.: DC 25 - 30 (d6+24)

For example, if a slippery cliff face is Hard to climb, the random DC reflects random conditions: when did it rain last? Is the path taken with better handholds than otherwise, etc.

Oh yes. There are SO MANY instances of "DC 15" (usually) that make little or zero sense, and would make all the sense if that DC was "typical" or "default" or something.

• Identify any ongoing spell: Arcana DC 15
• Climb any tricky surface (slippery or with few handholds): Athletics DC 15
• Avoid full damage falling into water from any height: Athletics or Acrobatics DC 15
• Swim in all kinds of rough water: Athletics DC 15
• Everything tool related: detect any poison with a Poisoner's Kit, spot anyone cheating with a Gaming Set (DC 10), identify any substance with Alchemist's Supplies, detect any poison in a drink with Brewer's Supplies or in food with Cook's Utensils, appraise any gem with Jeweler's Tools, disarm any trap (well. on paper.) with Thieves' Tools (DC 15), pry open any door with Carpenter's Tools [whereas forcing a door open without tools has a scaling DC from 10 to 30 per the DMG], win any game with a Gaming Set, duplicate any wax seal with a Forgery Kit (DC 20)
• (with the exception of a tool use that seems to say that, but is specified elsewhere to say something else: lockpicking is not a flat DC, it depends on the lock)
• And of course the inexplicable Stealth DC 15

And RAI is opaque here. I have no way of knowing which of these flat DCs were meant to be default but there was shoddy writing involved (like locks), and which are a deliberate choice of game design. The Influence action does say "default" DC 15, so they are clearly aware this is a word!

The good news is that the DM can easily adapt all of that, so on some level I do realise I'm whining for the heck of it. Please forgive my grumpiness.

Many of these should also be contested rolls, not just a one-sided check, like "spot anyone cheating with a Gaming Set (DC 10)".

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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

There is a lot to unpack here but I see magic somewhat differently to you. At least, in the context of worlds like D&D.
One can have magical technology in D&D like world. Technology is just the construction of engines that manipulate forces in the natural order to do something.

I see D&D magic as akin to prescientific alchemy. Alchemy had a bunch of recipes and procedures that produces some reagents with a degree of reliability. Along with a bunch of theoretical esoterica that had little or nothing to do with the modern understanding of chemistry.

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).

We could, but if the ineffable has no observable or inferable systematic effect on the real world what has that to do with anything. A suitably trained person (wizard) can reliably go out as cast fireball a couple of times a day, everyday. There is nothing ineffable about that.

 

[clearstream]

Ditto.

IME DC 10, 15, and 20 is really all I need, however to break up the monotony I like to randomly assign DCs within ranges:

Easy: DC 5 - 10 (d6+4)
Mod.: DC 10 - 15 (d6+9)
Hard: DC 15 - 20 (d6+14)
Very Hard: DC 20 - 25 (d6+19)
Nearly Imp.: DC 25 - 30 (d6+24)

For example, if a slippery cliff face is Hard to climb, the random DC reflects random conditions: when did it rain last? Is the path taken with better handholds than otherwise, etc.

Nice. I'm a fan of determining DCs stochastically, too!

 

[clearstream]

There is a lot to unpack here but I see magic somewhat differently to you. At least, in the context of worlds like D&D.
One can have magical technology in D&D like world. Technology is just the construction of engines that manipulate forces in the natural order to do something.

I see D&D magic as akin to prescientific alchemy. Alchemy had a bunch of recipes and procedures that produces some reagents with a degree of reliability. Along with a bunch of theoretical esoterica that had little or nothing to do with the modern understanding of chemistry.

We could, but if the ineffable has no observable or inferable systematic effect on the real world what has that to do with anything. A suitably trained person (wizard) can reliably go out as cast fireball a couple of times a day, everyday. There is nothing ineffable about that.

To clarify, I'm not disputing the possibility or consequences of magic-as-technology. Your take on that seems fine. I'm disputing what we should properly count as "magic" at all (what we ought to apply the label "magic" too). I'm proposing an alternative definition for "magic": one that would invalidate your claims in any possible world in which it applied.

In doing so, I accept that it has become normal in games to label various predictable systems "magic". In line with your observations, I'm saying that label is fluff, not crunch.

To my observation, that which was labelled "magic" in human history was non-scientific. Predictions such as "A suitably trained person (wizard) can reliably go out as cast fireball a couple of times a day, everyday" could not be relied upon... and were they reliable then they would be excluded from being magic at all. The "magical" is a rejection of the scientific.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I am now doubling down on my theory that they had a detailed Skills section (like in the 2014 PHB), and scrapped it, and then did NOT revisit the rest of the book, which was written under the assumption that skill rules are covered elsewhere. Seriously, this explains SO MUCH.

I think you probably nail it here. At some point, for "space", they probably decided that it wasn't all that important (DMs can figure it out, after all - the general framework is described, etc) and then they didn't do a Pass to see if everything else lined up clearly.

We can make it work, sure, but I don't think that anyone should have to bounce around to at least three different places and gather somewhat contradictory information and then force a "best fit line" through that contradictory information.

Skills and Tools are in a lot of ways improved in 2024 - but they're still a mess.

And with Stealth and Thieves' Tools both being (let's say "muddy") in their design intents... I feel for new Rogue Players and DMs running games for them.

But, yeah, if you're experienced at the game - just keep using what you were using before.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

To clarify, I'm not disputing the possibility or consequences of magic-as-technology. Your take on that seems fine. I'm disputing what we should properly count as "magic" at all (what we ought to apply the label "magic" too). I'm proposing an alternative definition for "magic": one that would invalidate your claims in any possible world in which it applied.

In doing so, I accept that it has become normal in games to label various predictable systems "magic". In line with your observations, I'm saying that label is fluff, not crunch.

To my observation, that which was labelled "magic" in human history was non-scientific. Predictions such as "A suitably trained person (wizard) can reliably go out as cast fireball a couple of times a day, everyday" could not be relied upon... and were they reliable then they would be excluded from being magic at all. The "magical" is a rejection of the scientific.

My apologies, I think I mistook what you meant about magic, I have no care about what magic as presented by you in the real world might mean metaphysically. Nor any particular interest in discussing it. I was referring to what the rules of the game define as magic and how I saw it, and you appear to understand my position quite well.

 

[clearstream]

My apologies, I think I mistook what you meant about magic, I have no care about what magic as presented by you in the real world might mean metaphysically. Nor any particular interest in discussing it. I was referring to what the rules of the game define as magic and how I saw it, and you appear to understand my position quite well.

One way I'd cash out my take in a game is to make magic unreliable. Such as by rolling to see if the spell is cast. Fairly netting out the probabilities across the roll-to-cast and saving throw or attack roll presents a barrier to a simple implementation for D&D, and one would need a way to constrain attempts. All scaling of course. A dice pool of some sort might achieve it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

One way I'd cash out my take in a game is to make magic unreliable. Such as by rolling to see if the spell is cast. Fairly netting out the probabilities across the roll-to-cast and saving throw or attack roll presents a barrier to a simple implementation for D&D, and one would need a way to constrain attempts. All scaling of course. A dice pool of some sort might achieve it.

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?