D&D 5E Survivor Worst Spells: FIND TRAPS IS THE WORST!

[FormerlyHemlock]

That niche is really small. Like, incredibly small. And several posters, including myself, have detailed times when True Strike is fine. It's still terrible, of course, because both spells are terrible. But it's not cool to claim nobody has put forth a valid use for True Strike, and then present incredibly niche scenarios for Find Traps.

I must have missed those. The only one I remember is lowkey's anecdote about the guy who casts True Strike as a character shtick before combat starts, and I think someone else also mentioned one-use magic items and expensive spells (Contagion, Plane Shift). Are there other uses I'm overlooking?

If two things both have small niches, but one of those things costs you permanent resources (cantrip slot) to have available just on the off chance that that niche is ever encountered, and the other one can simply be safely ignored until that niche is on the horizon... the one that costs you permanent resources looks worse to me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There's no security feature designed by intelligent beings that exceeds the destructive capacity of natural hazards. If you get into fantasy elements, then it does become arbitrary because you can justify any amount of lethality for either natural hazards or designed security features, at your preference.

It doesn't have to exceed the destructive capacity of natural hazards. It's sufficient to equal the destructive capacity while increasing the likelihood of you suffering those destructive effects, for example by countering your countermeasures. Falling into lava accidentally? Bad. Being driven insane by a Symbol of Insanity while also being teleported into lava? Much worse.

But I houseruled Find Traps a long time ago, and my players still don't bother, even though I tend to use somewhat lethal traps (designed and natural). Granted, they value high perception and investigation scores as a general rule.

Likewise, I houseruled Find Traps to allow you to remove your choice of the concentration requirement, the "only next turn" requirement, the range limitation, or the action requirement (it becomes a bonus action). Still no one has bothered to take it. That's anecdotal, and it's an anecdote that somewhat surprises me, but there it is all the same, as valid as your anecdote.

As for True Strike - any time you are having a conversation that you think will end in combat. It's been mentioned several times in this thread.

That's not actually useful--it's worse than the opportunity cost of e.g. Readying a Fear spell, and not actually even any better than simply declaring a Help action for someone else. At least Help doesn't occupy a cantrip slot.

 

[Iry]

It doesn't have to exceed the destructive capacity of natural hazards. It's sufficient to equal the destructive capacity while increasing the likelihood of you suffering those destructive effects, for example by countering your countermeasures. Falling into lava accidentally? Bad. Being driven insane by a Symbol of Insanity while also being teleported into lava? Much worse.

That's still arbitrary. One DM chooses to add a Symbol of Insanity to increase the lethality, while another DM chooses to add some kind of lava monster to increase the lethality. One DM chooses to put a teleportation trap somewhere he suspects the party will investigate, another DM puts the weak floor someplace he suspects the party will walk over.

That's not actually useful--it's worse than the opportunity cost of e.g. Readying a Fear spell, and not actually even any better than simply declaring a Help action for someone else. At least Help doesn't occupy a cantrip slot.

Fear is not a cantrip. Help is absolutely lovely (I use it all the time), but you can't use it against creatures more than 5 feet away from you unless you're a Mastermind archetype or something similar.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's still arbitrary. One DM chooses to add a Symbol of Insanity to increase the lethality, while another DM chooses to add some kind of lava monster to increase the lethality. One DM chooses to put a teleportation trap somewhere he suspects the party will investigate, another DM puts the weak floor someplace he suspects the party will walk over.

By the logic you seem to be using, no spells can be good or bad because there could always be an arbitrary DM somewhere who might make your choice ineffective. Fireball and Witch Bolt are equivalently good because one DM arbitrarily decides to make everything immune to fire while another makes everything vulnerable to electricity.

Wouldn't it make more sense to analyze the probability distributions? Perhaps 50% of DMs create traps arbitrarily as you suggest, but if another 50% create them based on what actually makes sense in the game world, and if 20% of that 50% are willing to actually let the party TPK on traps, then you have a solid 10% niche for Find Traps. The fact that there are other DMs out there who just create traps arbitrarily based on their whims seems beside the point.

After all, there are also plenty of DMs who won't let you get away with casting spells without repercussion during conversation with potentially-hostile creatures, either. If it turns out you've wasted your first round casting True Strike and then the flind spends *its* first round beating you with its flindbars, you're going to regret not doing something better with your window of opportunity. And there isn't much that *isn't* better than True Strike. Mending, maybe.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

 

[Iry]

Wouldn't it make more sense to analyze the probability distributions? Perhaps 50% of DMs create traps arbitrarily as you suggest, but if another 50% create them based on what actually makes sense in the game world, and if 20% of that 50% are willing to actually let the party TPK on traps, then you have a solid 10% niche for Find Traps. The fact that there are other DMs out there who just create traps arbitrarily based on their whims seems beside the point.

I think your premise is critically flawed.

One of the best things about fantasy elements being present in the game is that it dramatically widens the number of things that 'make sense in the game world' because you can come up with fantasy explanations for why they exist. It's a Venn Diagram with massive overlap for any DM with a solid imagination. So most traps will also make sense in the game world.

The lethality of any given trap is also determined by the DM. So there is nothing like 50% create traps as I suggest, and another 50% create them based on something else. Just everyone creating traps of arbitrary lethality, which also make sense within their game world, based upon the desires of the DM making the trap. Unless they are running a module or something where the traps were prepared by someone else, of course.

And Find Traps has such a huge number of failure points that the spell is far more likely to NOT save the party in any niche (10% or otherwise). There is almost always going to be a different spell that would have given you better odds than Find Traps.

After all, there are also plenty of DMs who won't let you get away with casting spells without repercussion during conversation with potentially-hostile creatures, either. If it turns out you've wasted your first round casting True Strike and then the flind spends *its* first round beating you with its flindbars, you're going to regret not doing something better with your window of opportunity. And there isn't much that *isn't* better than True Strike. Mending, maybe.

If your DM is not going to let you get away with casting True Strike, which has only S components, then he's definitely not going to let you get away with casting a spell like Fear. And readying a spell like Fear is a huge gamble! Any conversation is extremely likely to go on longer than one round, and True Strike allows you to keep casting it repeatedly so you have the benefit the moment combat actually starts. Meanwhile, if you ready yourself to cast Fear (or another similar spell) there is an extremely high chance you will lose that spell before combat starts, wasting precious resources, unless you are absolutely going to start combat the next round before you lose the spell.

 

[Maxperson]

It doesn't have to exceed the destructive capacity of natural hazards. It's sufficient to equal the destructive capacity while increasing the likelihood of you suffering those destructive effects, for example by countering your countermeasures. Falling into lava accidentally? Bad. Being driven insane by a Symbol of Insanity while also being teleported into lava? Much worse.

I dunno. If I'm insane I might not be aware of how bad the lava is, which is much better. It's depends on perspective sometimes.

 

[Hillsy7]

Don't pick Find Traps: IT'S A TRAP!!!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The lethality of any given trap is also determined by the DM. So there is nothing like 50% create traps as I suggest, and another 50% create them based on something else. Just everyone creating traps of arbitrary lethality, which also make sense within their game world, based upon the desires of the DM making the trap. Unless they are running a module or something where the traps were prepared by someone else, of course.

That's a pretty maximalist opinion. "No, 100% of DMs create traps of arbitrary lethality, arbitrarily and equally distributed between deliberate and natural hazards." It's not only maximalist but it's also false.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using EN World mobile app

 

[Phazonfish]

Falling into lava accidentally? Bad. Being driven insane by a Symbol of Insanity while also being teleported into lava? Much worse.

Is it though? Sounds like I'm super dead either way.

Likewise, I houseruled Find Traps to allow you to remove your choice of the concentration requirement, the "only next turn" requirement, the range limitation, or the action requirement (it becomes a bonus action).

I think you mean True Strike here.

 

[Iry]

That's a pretty maximalist opinion. "No, 100% of DMs create traps of arbitrary lethality, arbitrarily and equally distributed between deliberate and natural hazards." It's not only maximalist but it's also false.

True, some Dungeon Masters roll randomly on trap charts.