D&D 5E XGE rules on using thieves tool proficiency for finding traps

[jgsugden]

A Rogue can be effective all by themselves when you utilize the envisioned potential three check system. They automatically get thieves tools, so all they need to do is invest in two skills. They get enough skills.

However, if they do not want to do that, all they need to do is be the perceptive one and then they can elect to bring in the investigative one to help when needed.

Also, recall that not all challenges will require multiple rolls as some traps are obvious to find, but hard to figure out, or are easy to figure out, but hard to find. Passive ability use can get you past a lot of those traps 'other legs' if you make just one roll.

I've used this system in 5E since day one. It causes no problems. I've had parties that had a rogue/ranger (with criminal background) that did it all, parties with a perceptive cleric, a investigative wizard, and a criminal background other PC that had thieves tools. Lots of options, and they all tell good stories.

 

[iserith]

A Rogue can be effective all by themselves when you utilize the envisioned potential three check system. They automatically get thieves tools, so all they need to do is invest in two skills. They get enough skills.

However, if they do not want to do that, all they need to do is be the perceptive one and then they can elect to bring in the investigative one to help when needed.

Also, recall that not all challenges will require multiple rolls as some traps are obvious to find, but hard to figure out, or are easy to figure out, but hard to find. Passive ability use can get you past a lot of those traps 'other legs' if you make just one roll.

I've used this system in 5E since day one. It causes no problems. I've had parties that had a rogue/ranger (with criminal background) that did it all, parties with a perceptive cleric, a investigative wizard, and a criminal background other PC that had thieves tools. Lots of options, and they all tell good stories.

Agreed. The key word is what you italicized - potential. As I said above and in another related thread, it's 0 to 3 checks for a trap and 0 to 2 checks to resolve a secret door. Not every task needs a check, and the player is incentivized to work toward making it 0 checks if they can. And not every rogue needs to be able to handle this entirely on their own.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ok, just to chime in I don't think a rogue should need to make three checks to disable a trap.

First, it means you a rogue would need Wisdom and Perception, Intelligence and Investigation, Dexterity and Thieves' Tools proficiency.

So, makes the class more MAD and requires both Perception and Investigation (commonly chosen, but seems overkill IMO). Luckily, at least Thieves' Tools proficiency is free. Not to mention if you want to choose Expertise in all three, that is three out of the four.

It isn't unreasonable for all three, but seems excessive IMO. So, we use Intelligence (Investigation) to locate the trap and Dexterity (Thieves' Tools) to disable. Perception is used in so many other things that it seems more balances to our groups.

Anyway, that's that.

 

[iserith]

Ok, just to chime in I don't think a rogue should need to make three checks to disable a trap.

To reiterate, it's 0 to 3 checks, not always 3 checks, and neither does the rogue need to make all three or, even if the rogue does do that, teammates can work together to grant advantage. The rogue doing everything related to a trap on their own is just something some people want them to do for what I take are reasons based on their experience in other games. When I read this game, I see that this probably shouldn't be the expectation and so I build my characters and strategy accordingly.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The rogue doing everything related to a trap on their own is just something some people want them to do for what I take are reasons based on their experience in other games.

Because it is what they have always done in D&D--it is one of their "things".

 

[iserith]

Because it is what they have always done in D&D--it is one of their "things".

I don't doubt that this is what other versions of D&D have as an expectation. I just don't know why I should have that expectation in this version of D&D. Each game is its own thing. I adjust accordingly.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't doubt that this is what other versions of D&D have as an expectation. I just don't know why I should have that expectation in this version of D&D. Each game is its own thing. I adjust accordingly.

I don't know, why shouldn't you? It is my expectation of D&D, in any version, that finding and disabling traps is the rogue's thing.

5E, like much of its design, steps on toes and breaks niches. You don't need to be a rogue, you just need the proficiencies. You don't even need to be a rogue for expertise because bards have that, as well. Now, with TCoE, even more stuff is broken and you can be an Eldritch Knight with Metamagic, etc. Not my D&D, thank you; so I won't allow it in my games. But, I digress...

My point was for the people who feel the rules require 3 checks. IMO it's too much. 2 checks is the sweet spot: find and remove traps.

 

[iserith]

I don't know, why shouldn't you? It is my expectation of D&D, in any version, that finding and disabling traps is the rogue's thing.

5E, like much of its design, steps on toes and breaks niches. You don't need to be a rogue, you just need the proficiencies. You don't even need to be a rogue for expertise because bards have that, as well. Now, with TCoE, even more stuff is broken and you can be an Eldritch Knight with Metamagic, etc. Not my D&D, thank you; so I won't allow it in my games. But, I digress...

My point was for the people who feel the rules require 3 checks. IMO it's too much. 2 checks is the sweet spot: find and remove traps.

I treat each version of D&D as separate and distinct and try not to carry my expectations and assumptions from one game into another. I find the games work better this way. (I learned this the hard way transitioning from D&D 3.Xe to D&D 4e.) And again, it's 3 tasks, but 0 to 3 checks, not 3 checks every time.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think, in general, players have been trained to just want to roll their two checks or whatever without really interacting with the trap. "I search for traps. Okay, now I disable it." This is boring in my view and really takes the value out of exploration challenges like traps, plus it's actually not very smart play on the part of the player. That second task of figuring out how the trap works is a trigger for players to come up with creative ideas on how to disable it without necessarily leaving the d20 to decide. Skip that step in the process and you leave all those interesting ideas on the table.

I’m curious, could a player at your table skip a step, if they were willing to accept the risk inherent in trying to disable a trap they haven’t deduced the function of yet?

Naturally coming up with an approach to try and disarm a is going to be easier if you understand how it works, but if the party was in a hurry, or didn’t want to risk three wandering monster checks, would it be a valid move to skip Investigating a trap and just try something to disarm it? I’m imagining something like spotting a trip wire and deciding to just cut the wire (at the risk that doing so might actually spring the trap rather than disable it) without taking the time to try and figure out how it works. But maybe that doesn’t really resemble what play looks like at your table.

 

[iserith]

I’m curious, could a player at your table skip a step, if they were willing to accept the risk inherent in trying to disable a trap they haven’t deduced the function of yet?

Naturally coming up with an approach to try and disarm a is going to be easier if you understand how it works, but if the party was in a hurry, or didn’t want to risk three wandering monster checks, would it be a valid move to skip Investigating a trap and just try something to disarm it? I’m imagining something like spotting a trip wire and deciding to just cut the wire (at the risk that doing so might actually spring the trap rather than disable it) without taking the time to try and figure out how it works. But maybe that doesn’t really resemble what play looks like at your table.

I wouldn't necessarily say they could always choose to skip the step of figuring out the trap before disabling it, but some traps are obvious enough where there is no time cost or ability check to figuring out how it works. Take a simple pit, for example. It probably doesn't take 10 minutes or a check to deduce that, if you step on that large cloth with the dirt and debris on it that you spotted, you will fall into a hole. So we can just skip that step. We can also skip the disabling of this trap as well because it's more about avoidance. So here there is perhaps 1 check in this interaction - spotting the pit's covering. Not the three checks that some folks seem to be concerned about.

In general though, if the trap is somewhat complex, the character needs to know how something about how the trap works before disabling it has a chance of success. And given that failing to disable a trap can sometimes come with a high cost, the player is incentivized to want to figure out how it works before they start fiddling with it. In the doing, he or she may be able to come up with a solution that automatically succeeds in disabling the trap or setting it off in a way that doesn't harm anyone. (Or even more fun, using it against those wandering monsters they're worried about!)