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

[Shardstone]

I don't use it. I don't think it's a good spell, for the reasons I described. And I don't accept an assumed belief in this thread is "Find Traps is great! What do you do with it?", and anyone who disagrees need not post.

And the reason I say "some people don't like that" is because I don't believe popularity is a compelling argument by any metric other than sales, and I don't find how much money WotC makes and how it relates to its design choices to be at all interesting. And because, like everyone else here, I have no way to know how many people actually prefer one style over another.

Popularity is used to discuss logic, not value or quality, when I discuss it. I mention something is popular because that goes on to effect how WotC portrays their game.

 

[Reynard]

A cantrip is just a tool. Would you tell someone who uses their ten-foot pole on every hallway not to use it? Or someone who uses rope to climb a cliff?

Each of those items has a much more narrow use case than the very broad "find traps."

 

[Shardstone]

Each of those items has a much more narrow use case than the very broad "find traps."

Hmm true. Maybe a Level 1 spell is best for Find Traps then as compared to a cantrip.

 

[Reynard]

Hmm true. Maybe a Level 1 spell is best for Find Traps then as compared to a cantrip.

I agree. Now it's a resource choice, and that in itself is interesting.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Exactly. To me "general nature" tells me that as a DM if the spell detects traps in the area, then I am allowed to reveal some hints but I should not tell them the exact location of the trap (I read it as telling neither the trigger location nor the target location, should they differ). Then, the PCs can proceed to investigate for traps more thoroughly if they want, or leave if they are afraid.

Curiously, almost everyone only thinks about what happens when the spell tells you there are traps, and not when the spell tells you there aren't any, which is also useful.

 

[Reynard]

Exactly. To me "general nature" tells me that as a DM if the spell detects traps in the area, then I am allowed to reveal some hints but I should not tell them the exact location of the trap (I read it as telling neither the trigger location nor the target location, should they differ). Then, the PCs can proceed to investigate for traps more thoroughly if they want, or leave if they are afraid.

Curiously, almost everyone only thinks about what happens when the spell tells you there are traps, and not when the spell tells you there aren't any, which is also useful.

D&D is weird in this regard, because there are some spells that are very open to interpretation (like find traps) but then also there are super precise spell descriptions. It is almost as if no one is driving the bus.

 

[Lanefan]

Agreed. I think traps are best when they are the centerpiece of a particular room. A hallway full of pit traps with spikes is boring.

Except when - as happened in my game once - in an open room with four scattered pit traps one character blunders into every one of them while everyone else manages to (by sheer luck) miss or bypass them all.

Much laughter ensued.

 

[Lanefan]

I would like it better if it was Find Magical Traps, and was limited only to spells like Alarm, Glyphs and the like, as these traps are typically invisible and feel like cheats themselves. To me, a trap is a type of puzzle. There should be a way to detect it, and deal with it versus be a gotcha that a PC falls into for any interaction with the object warded.

Maybe have it only find magical traps at low level, then at a certain somewhat-higher caster level (10th maybe?) it can find physical traps as well? (in other words, it has a one-time scale-with-level feature)

 

[Lanefan]

If you disagree with the stance of the game, you are free to change that. WotC's logic is this: they are going to cater to the biggest customer base. The biggest customer base has no problem with "push-buttons" in their TTRPGs.

That's very much a chicken-and-egg situation: the main customer base has no problem with "push buttons" because over the years and editions they've been led by the designers to more and more expect and rely on those push-buttons.

Turning that trend around has to start somewhere.

 

[DEFCON 1]

D&D is weird in this regard, because there are some spells that are very open to interpretation (like find traps) but then also there are super precise spell descriptions. It is almost as if no one is driving the bus.

They give super-precise descriptions for those things that they know almost all players agree on. We all know how a lighting bolt is supposed to go, so they straight up tell us in the description. But trying to regulate stealth, traps, tracking, negotiation, stuff like that? Everyone runs their games differently regardless of whatever the books may or may not say... so they don't bother giving a super-precise ruling. Basic ruling for all new players and DMs is what they give... like for instance the "Influence" action they've highlighted... which is a fine simplistic system for those that need it but can be easily ignored or expanded upon by veteran players who already have their formatted rulings from years (if not decades) of playing.