D&D 5E The "General Nature" of a Trap

[DEFCON 1]

In my opinion they make it vague because every single DM and their mom has their own opinions and rulings on how finding traps and then disarming traps is supposed to work. The more specific you make this spell, the more you piss off a larger amount of the DMs out there who now have a rule that goes directly against how they prefer to play the game. It's no different than the stealth rules... just enough to give all players a general idea of what you can do and how to rule it... but open enough that every DM can supplement it with their own additions based on how they prefer and choose to play the game.

Yes, that does mean a DM has to "do more work" in explanation to get the Find Traps spell to work the way they want it to... but better that then have it work the exact opposite way they'd want it to, right?

 

[Reynard]

The problem lies in the traps not the spell. Boring traps that can be found and avoided/disabled with a die roll shouldn't exist at all. I don't remember who started the trend, but the idea that traps should be obvious and engaged with is the right way to go.

Indy knows that the holden idol is trapped and does his best to bypass it. When he fails, the cool stuff happens. That's what D&D traps should be like.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So I was reading Find Traps. Both the 2014 and the 2024 version have similar descriptions of what the spell does, but do you find them as vague as I do?

2024: "This spell reveals that a trap is present but not its location. You do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense."

2014: "This spell merely reveals that a trap is present. You don't learn the location of each trap, but you do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense."

So the spell lets you know a trap is present within 120 feet and in your line of sight, but not exactly where it is, but does tell you its "general nature?"

What does "general nature" mean to you? Do you know if it does damage, type of damage, what sets it off, magical or mechanical, etc?

Let us imagine a tall set of stairs mechanically trapped to collapse into a slide as oil pours from the top and a spiked pit opens at the bottom when the weight of at least 2 medium size creatures get past the 15th step.

What is the "general nature" of that trap?

How would you/do you rule it?

I'm not convinced there's any value to having Find Traps as a spell option at all. All it does is take value from the rogue who should be handling stuff like this IMO. The fact that spell itself makes very little logical sense (how does it discern traps? What criteria does it use, and is that criteria determined?) is icing on the empty calorie cake.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh! i didn't realise we'd started caring when magic would make martial classes redundant, how recently did that change happen?

We haven't talked about that for a while, actually. Who's up for a new thread?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem lies in the traps not the spell. Boring traps that can be found and avoided/disabled with a die roll shouldn't exist at all. I don't remember who started the trend, but the idea that traps should be obvious and engaged with is the right way to go.

Indy knows that the holden idol is trapped and does his best to bypass it. When he fails, the cool stuff happens. That's what D&D traps should be like.

Those are definitely cool traps, but IMO traps should be like whatever the trapster (or the Trapster!) wants, subject to setting logic. If it's a hidden blade or pit, so be it.

 

[Reynard]

Those are definitely cool traps, but IMO traps should be like whatever the trapster (or the Trapster!) wants, subject to setting logic. If it's a hidden blade or pit, so be it.

I prefer to work backward from what makes good play, and build the setting element that makes that make sense. I know you tend to come from the opposite direction.

 

[el-remmen]

Something else I am just now realizing about this spell, it is not an ongoing detection type spell. The duration is "instantaneous." Thus, you need to already have a pretty good idea there might be a trap around and in what direction to look when you cast it.

I've been rewriting a bunch of spells for my VF5E project and this one just moved to the top of the list.

 

[Hriston]

I don't think "within line of sight" requires the caster to look in a particular direction, just that a line from the caster to the trap is unobstructed.

 

[GMMichael]

Let us imagine a tall set of stairs mechanically trapped to collapse into a slide as oil pours from the top and a spiked pit opens at the bottom when the weight of at least 2 medium size creatures get past the 15th step.

What is the "general nature" of that trap?

"Stairs trap."

The problem lies in the traps not the spell. Boring traps that can be found and avoided/disabled with a die roll shouldn't exist at all. I don't remember who started the trend, but the idea that traps should be obvious and engaged with is the right way to go.

"Alex, what was 'third edition?'"

An obvious trap was either made by a novice trapmaker, or a conniving bard. If the PC rogue tells me, "I search for traps. Don't worry: expertise. I got 24. That's fire," my reply might be, "do you feel around for loose panels?" "Ew, no! I'm not touching anything!" "Okay, you see a slight discoloration on the floor ahead. It might be because there was blood there, but someone or something cleaned it up."

Something else I am just now realizing about this spell, it is not an ongoing detection type spell. The duration is "instantaneous." Thus, you need to already have a pretty good idea there might be a trap around and in what direction to look when you cast it.

Instantaneous lasts for "a moment," according to 6e. So, break(dance)ing characters could probably do one of those upside-down head spins and get a good 360 degree assessment of trap presence. But that kinda stinks, because "there's a trap somewhere," doesn't help me much. I'd rather use hand-goggles to block my "line of sight," so I can tell if there's a trap ahead of me or not.

 

[CreamCloud0]

We haven't talked about that for a while, actually. Who's up for a new thread?

as much as i'm always ready to take the one-off jab at caster supremacy we do NOT need another thread generated for that topic again any time soon.