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

[DEFCON 1]

You got angry at me for what I said about WotC. I don't know why you think I should shrug and accept that.

??? Which comment were you referring to?

If it was my comment that started "They give super-precise descriptions for those things that they know almost all players agree on."... I was by no means angry when I wrote that, I was just stating what I think they do when they write certain rules. If you took that for anger... heh heh... I would imagine the subsequent posts I made might have been a more concrete indication of what my posts look like when they move in that direction.

If you're referring to my response after you claimed I was apologizing for WotC "not doing their job"... then yeah... that irritated me and I responded.

 

[Reynard]

You're better off getting MCDM's Strongholds & Followers. More in-depth and tactically expansive that the basic Bastion rules in the new DMG.

@Micah Sweet counterpoint: Strongholds and Followers is not particularly well balanced, and beyond that knowing what I do about your preferences, I don't think it's "versumilitude" aspects will work for you.

SH&F isn't bad, but it is very gamist, and I know from many interactions that Micah isn't usually a big fan of gaming mechanics.

 

[aco175]

Remember The Dragon's Lair with Dirk the Daring. The whole thing was a bunch of traps, but with your detect traps spell going you saw a little green pulse on where to go to avoid it. You needed to be quick though- or have a bunch of quarters.

 

[DEFCON 1]

@Micah Sweet counterpoint: Strongholds and Followers is not particularly well balanced, and beyond that knowing what I do about your preferences, I don't think it's "versumilitude" aspects will work for you.

SH&F isn't bad, but it is very gamist, and I know from many interactions that Micah isn't usually a big fan of gaming mechanics.

I would agree with this. I'm not one who thinks a lot of parts of D&D outside of combat need mechanical subsystems, and are usually better served by just roleplaying and interaction between players and DM. Exploration is another one... I don't think much is gained by having rules for and playing an exploration "mini-game" that a lot of people seem to wish WotC would make for them. For me it's just more compelling for the DM to just narrate what is happening as the players explore and the players responding in kind (with the occasional skill check made as needed.) Running an organization or owning a keep or stronghold? Same thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

@Micah Sweet counterpoint: Strongholds and Followers is not particularly well balanced, and beyond that knowing what I do about your preferences, I don't think it's "versumilitude" aspects will work for you.

SH&F isn't bad, but it is very gamist, and I know from many interactions that Micah isn't usually a big fan of gaming mechanics.

Yeah...I thought there was a reason I didn't go any further with it. Still, there might be something I can use.

 

[Lanefan]

You do not get to determine what is and what isn't them doing their job.

Well, to a point, yes we can.

Every time a DM hits something relatively common* that isn't explained clearly (or, worse, isn't explained at all) or that just doesn't make sense, that's an example where the designers either didn't do their job or did it rather poorly.

This has nothing to do with whether any given DM agrees with said clear explanation once it's given, but instead simply refers to that explanation's lack of clarity and-or complete absence before that point.

* - some past and-or present examples: grappling, chase rules, stealth-hiding-perception, surprise, spell write-ups, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

I would agree with this. I'm not one who thinks a lot of parts of D&D outside of combat need mechanical subsystems, and are usually better served by just roleplaying and interaction between players and DM. Exploration is another one... I don't think much is gained by having rules for and playing an exploration "mini-game" that a lot of people seem to wish WotC would make for them. For me it's just more compelling for the DM to just narrate what is happening as the players explore and the players responding in kind (with the occasional skill check made as needed.) Running an organization or owning a keep or stronghold? Same thing.

I agree with this, but even then some rules or guidelines around stronghold construction, staffing, maintenance, costs, revenues, and activities would be useful. I haven't seen the bastion rules in the new DMG yet so can't really comment on those specifically.

Even more useful would be variants to account for different types of strongholds based on the character's class (e.g. a temple for Clerics, a guildhouse for Rogues, a monastery for Monks, etc.) and-or for if a whole party want to make a common stronghold or base to serve all of them both together and separately.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree with this, but even then some rules or guidelines around stronghold construction, staffing, maintenance, costs, revenues, and activities would be useful. I haven't seen the bastion rules in the new DMG yet so can't really comment on those specifically.

Even more useful would be variants to account for different types of strongholds based on the character's class (e.g. a temple for Clerics, a guildhouse for Rogues, a monastery for Monks, etc.) and-or for if a whole party want to make a common stronghold or base to serve all of them both together and separately.

My favorite OSR builds strongholds based on class like you're suggesting.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Well, to a point, yes we can.

Every time a DM hits something relatively common* that isn't explained clearly (or, worse, isn't explained at all) or that just doesn't make sense, that's an example where the designers either didn't do their job or did it rather poorly.

This has nothing to do with whether any given DM agrees with said clear explanation once it's given, but instead simply refers to that explanation's lack of clarity and-or complete absence before that point.

* - some past and-or present examples: grappling, chase rules, stealth-hiding-perception, surprise, spell write-ups, etc.

That can can be true right up until the point someone else says "What are you talking about? What is written there is clear and works fine." At which point, it now turns into a subjective question of how much something needs to be explained and whether any one person gets to make the declarative statement whether what was written was indeed enough or not. Was something made poorly? Well, that depends on what the designers were trying to make and at what level of design, and whether there are people who find it to work well for that design and level or did not.

Some random person saying WotC did their job poorly is not a fact nor is it objectively true. It's only true for them (or anyone who makes a decision about that for themselves). And those that disagree are not idiots or shills or apologists or whatever other pejorative one wants to throw around just because (general) you didn't get what you wanted while it seems other people did. (General) you had expectations that weren't met. And that's fine. But don't get pissy at the other people for whom their expectations apparently were.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't think you can just ignore the title of the spell. A trap is defined in the DMG. It seems clear.