Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 9602219" data-attributes="member: 6677017">Now I'm wandering, how many sorts of traps are there that can be set off with mage hand but not mundane means? I used to have a character throw a handful of rocks when thought there might be a trap, which would deal with proximity triggers. The 10-foot pole was mentioned, as tying a rope around the trigger.It sort of is seeming to me like me mage hand is in a similar utility to the light spell. It doesn't really let you do much you couldn't do without it (at least as far as traps), but saves you from carrying around some gear you might otherwise need. At the price of a cantrip, sometimes it's worth it to you and sometimes it isn't.To the idea about players vs characters interacting with a simple trap, that's definitely a play style thing. It's exactly the same consideration as players needing to have a conversation with the DM portraying various NPCs versus just wanting a skill check or statement of intent to cover it, and all the same factors apply. Just as some players aren't as socially adept as their high Charisma characters, some players aren't as clever at problem solving a their high Intelligence characters.Now the real old school approach treats the experience as a game for the players to win, and therefore character skill isn't relevant. But honestly, playing that way with modern D&D makes those stats and skills on your sheet kind of "trap options". Another way of playing is to not treat social or edploration any differently from combat, since they all have PC stats. If I wouldn't expect a player to have to describe an effective means of swinging their sword to counter the defensive stance I described the opponent taking (since one assumes their character knows how to fight and the attack rolls covers it), it doesn't make a lot of sense to expect the player to have to be the one to sweet talk the count, or describe how they move the tumblers of a lock (since one would assume their skill check covers exactly that).Now even in that more typical modern D&D style, there are elements where the players are the ones who have to provide the skill. Like where wil you move and who will you attack. Exactly what that is analogous to in social and exploration pillars is play style dependent, but generally something you want players and DMs on the same page about.Personally I prefer a mix. If you can think of a goud description of how to resolve something, it works without a check, or maybe grants advantage, but if you can't you can fall back on a skill check. Usually I or the other players think up a quick description of what you did based on whether it succeeded or not, so it's not like it entirely bypassed the fiction, it just moved it to after the check. The auto-success element of this (In early 5e I told my 3e players that asking to roll is asking to fail, so just tell me what you are attempting and I'll let you know if a check is required) applies more frequently in non-combat pillars, but that stands to reason since the game rules are mostly built around combat with the other pillars an afterthought.For me the mix works best for allowing different types of players to explore different types of characters (including ones that might not be like them). I also will interpret their actions in light of their stats to a degree. So if a player describes how they try to persuade an NPC to do something, and it is clear that that would be a horrible way to attempt that, and it should be completely clear to the character with their stats, I would likely either let the player know why (I think) that might not get the result they think it would, or just interpret the results of the roll to fit the player intent. So if they say exactly the wrong thing, but still get a great roll (and I know the reason they said the wrong thing is more player skill than character), I might spin it that the NPC took it as humor and enjoyed it, or something like that. I like to encourage in-character dialogue and descriptions of exploration details without punishing it.</blockquote>

Verification