iserith
Magic Wordsmith
That fails to honor the action declaration in my view. The player said the character touched the chest since that is assumed in the action declaration of "I examine the chest for traps." Now the DM is saying they didn't touch it. No bueno in my view. DM can't say what the character does.I already said this. They make an investigation check, on good result they notice the poison on time, and don't touch it.* On bad result they don't notice it, continue examining the chest resulting them touching it. Con save next.
(*I mean they can, if they want to intentionally poison themselves, but I doubt that they do.)
The example shows orders of specificity for failure and for uncertainty. There's one more, too: automatic success. If the character specifically searches beneath the folded clothes in the top drawer, there is no need for an ability check since the outcome is certain - they find the key, no roll. The example indicates that reasonable specificity is required and demonstrate that how a player describes an action has an impact on whether it's a success, a failure, or whether a roll is called for.Yes. Like examining the correct piece of furniture. Like 'I open the drawers (of the bureau)' or 'I search the bureau' resulting finding the keys on a successful check. The latter is pretty much same thing than 'I examine the chest for traps' resulting finding the trap on a success. Notice how the key is under folded clothes in the top drawer of the bureau, yet it is not required that the player describes their character lifting the clothes or rifling through them, or specify which drawer they're examining. Hell, it doesn't even need the player to specify what they're looking for, whilst in the case of looking for traps that is specified.
Well, first, the goal of the player isn't to roll. It's to find the trap. Rolling is bad. Succeeding outright by removing uncertainty or the meaningful consequence for failure is the best strategy given how the game is designed.So how would you describe the DMG needle chest, and what the players need to say to get to roll?
Second, my traps are telegraphed. In this case (since I've used this trap before in a one-shot), I described it as "an oversized chest (50 lbs.) of exotic hardwood banded with iron is sealed shut by an oddly-shaped lock with an intricate design." Some players honed in on the lock and searched it specifically for a trap, some using light sources or the like to illuminate the keyhole to see the mechanisms inside. Nobody touched it. (I ran this for about half a dozen groups.) Depending on the approach, this was resolved with a Wisdom (Perception) or Intelligence (Investigation) check.
At least a couple of groups just smashed the chest open because they didn't have anyone that could disarm the trap or pick the lock. This meant breaking a stone tablet within that contained a unique and hilarious spell: ray of nudity. Another group as I recall disabled the trap, extracted the poisoned needle and then used that poison on a villain in the adventure location to great effect. Another group found the key to the chest in another chamber and just used it to unlock the chest. One group used acid to destroy the lock and the trap. What was in the chest was more than the cost of the acid so that was a good trade.
I try to avoid saying anything about the character and describe only the result of their actions. There are a lot of DMs who are happy to hear a lackluster action declaration from a player and then fill in the blanks, assuming and establishing what the character is doing. And there are plenty of players that are happy to play that way. Not at my table!I mean, in the amount that is required to relay the outcomes of actions. "You slice open the gnoll's throat, it gurgles miserably and collapses at your feet." I think this is pretty normal. You don't?