D&D 5E I reject your reality and substitute my own!

[Stephen Shomo]

The rogue said he wanted to search for traps, so I asked him to make an Investigation check. I didn't bait him or twist his arm; he asked to do it all on his own.

It would have been different if I had asked him to make the check, or if I had said "Hey, would you like to search that chest for traps? It looks awful suspicious just sitting there." But I didn't. I just told the group that there was a chest at the foot of this altar they had found, and he immediately went all Indiana Jones on it.

Plus he interrupted my room description to make that announcement, and that always irks me when players do that. So I was already unsympathetic to his plight.

I have make blind rolls for that sort of thing.

 

[ccs]

The actual answer to your question is NONE. Because I'm the DM & I control all the realities.

 

[ccs]

"But I rolled a nat-20!" the player insisted. "I totally found the trap!" It never occurred to him that there was never a trap there for him to find. When I explained that to him, he accused me of wasting his Luck points.

Ahh, my favorite type of trap!

 

[Thunder Brother]

The rogue said he wanted to search for traps, so I asked him to make an Investigation check. I didn't bait him or twist his arm; he asked to do it all on his own.

Yes, but if there's no trap then there's no check to be made.

PC: I search the chest for traps.
DM: After examining the chest for a minute, you find no evidence of it being trapped.

No check, because the PC can't technically fail and a low roll only leads to a false perception of failure, because the character thinks it's safe but the player, seeing the roll, thinks it's dangerous.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, but if there's no trap then there's no check to be made.

I guess that depends on DM style.

Depending on circumstance, I might have a roll to detect a nonexistent trap. The failure would mean, "You are unsure if there is or isnt some kind of trap."

The player can then continue to cautiously interact, and when not triggering anything, assume there is no trap, or roll later to confirm there is no trap.

 

[J.Quondam]

It would have been different if I had asked him to make the check, or if I had said "Hey, would you like to search that chest for traps? It looks awful suspicious just sitting there." But I didn't. I just told the group that there was a chest at the foot of this altar they had found, and he immediately went all Indiana Jones on it.

Plus he interrupted my room description to make that announcement, and it irks me when players do that. So I was already unsympathetic to his plight.

Should've put a second chest inside the first chest.

 

[MarkB]

I guess that depends on DM style.

Depending on circumstance, I might have a roll to detect a nonexistent trap. The failure would mean, "You are unsure if there is or isnt some kind of trap."

The player can then continue to cautiously interact, and when not triggering anything, assume there is no trap, or roll later to confirm there is no trap.

Yeah, the RAW is "only ask for a check if the outcome is uncertain", but an equally valid approach is "only ask for a check if you want the players to think the outcome is uncertain."

 

[Thunder Brother]

I guess that depends on DM style.

Depending on circumstance, I might have a roll to detect a nonexistent trap. The failure would mean, "You are unsure if there is or isnt some kind of trap."

The player can then continue to cautiously interact, and when not triggering anything, assume there is no trap, or roll later to confirm there is no trap.

True, but I think that can lead to a lot of metagaming and meaningless rolling.

 

[CleverNickName]

Yes, but if there's no trap then there's no check to be made.

I might be wrong, but I don't think that's stated in the rules. It really boils down to preference...and I prefer the method that builds suspense and tension, and encourages the players to consider their actions carefully.

 

[Puddles]

Yes, but if there's no trap then there's no check to be made.

PC: I search the chest for traps.
DM: After examining the chest for a minute, you find no evidence of it being trapped.

No check, because the PC can't technically fail and a low roll only leads to a false perception of failure, because the character thinks it's safe but the player, seeing the roll, thinks it's dangerous.

Surely that leads to this sort of play:
Player: I wish to search the chest for a trap.
DM: There is no trap, no need to roll.
- 5 minutes later -
Player: I wish to search this different chest for a trap.
DM: Make an investigation check.
Player: Err, 5...
DM: There is no trap.
Player: