D&D (2024) How do I disarm traps? Does Thieves' Tools do anything?

[clearstream]

Great, it would be nice if any of that was actually in a "skill section".

I found its placement in the earliest section in the book concerning difficulty setting reasonable.

Also, even with what you quoted, the rules provide the DC, and the DM sets them for the check... to the DC's provided. Doesn't really say the DM can, should, will, or whatever change them.

Is it right to understand here that you interpret

The rules provide DCs for certain checks, but the DM ultimately sets them.​

To mean

The rules provide DCs for certain checks, but the DM ultimately sets them to the DCs the rules provide.​

​

That seems like a rather strained misconstrual to me.

 

[ezo]

I found its placement in the earliest section in the book concerning difficulty setting reasonable.

Great, but it would make more sense to actually have it in the place where proficiencies and skills are actually addressed.

Or, more easily, specificy the DCs shown under tools are examples or typical DCs, even better, don't put them there and tell the player to ask the DM for likely DCs.

Is it right to understand here that you interpret

The rules provide DCs for certain checks, but the DM ultimately sets them.​

To mean

The rules provide DCs for certain checks, but the DM ultimately sets them to the DCs the rules provide.​

​

That seems like a rather strained misconstrual to me.

Just to clarify, that is not "my interpretation". I am more devil's advocate here for the OP and others who find the new rules confusing, etc.

Ultimately, it comes down to your impression of the rules, located in different sections of the books, provides a clear indication of how to run the game, OR that it doesn't do that. IMO, it fails and falls on its face.

 

[roguish]

5e doesn't give details or DCs for even the most bog-standard skill uses that you expect to come up at every campaign, and I think that's a serious design flaw.

A generic DC table from 5 (very easy) to 30 (nearly impossible) is GREAT as a guideline* for when the DM doesn't have other resources or a better idea, for niche cases, and for crazy things the players came up with. Game designers can't predict everything, and honestly shouldn't try.

But things like climbing walls and picking pockets should come with instructions and numbers. As is, the DM is either winging it every time and the players are in the dark, or the DM is doing the designers' work for them, and homebrewing DC tables for everything.

* And even as a guideline it's not explained very well: inexperienced DMs may not realise that an ability check (does not include proficiency bonus) and a skill ability check (may or may not include proficiency bonus, or maybe it's double with Expertise) produce VERY different probabilities of success. And yet the books keep treating these two mechanics as one and the same. They're not.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

5e doesn't give details or DCs for even the most bog-standard skill uses that you expect to come up at every campaign, and I think that's serious design flaw.

A generic DC table from 5 (very easy) to 30 (nearly impossible) is GREAT as a guideline* for when the DM doesn't have other resources or a better idea, for niche cases, and for crazy things the players came up with. Game designers can't predict everything, and honestly shouldn't try.

But things like climbing walls and picking pockets should come with instructions and numbers. As is, the DM is either winging it every time and the players are in the dark, or the DM is doing the designers' work for them, and homebrewing DC tables for everything.

Yes! I've been saying this for years, and I am utterly flabbergasted that 5.5e somehow managed to make the things worse and offer even less guidance than 5e did.

 

[ezo]

Yes! I've been saying this for years, and I am utterly flabbergasted that 5.5e somehow managed to make the things worse and offer even less guidance than 5e did.

Boggles the mind, don't it?

 

[Remathilis]

Yes! I've been saying this for years, and I am utterly flabbergasted that 5.5e somehow managed to make the things worse and offer even less guidance than 5e did.

I mean, I don't want 3.5's tables of modifiers for skill checks (is the ledge less than 6" wide? Is it raining? Are you moving 1/3rd of your speed? Ok. Roll a balance check DC 18.) but I would really would have liked descriptions of what some typical actions using skills are (you can pick a pocket vs opponents passive perception, or you can use medicine to treat the poisoned condom vs the original save DC). There just isn't enough info for a DM to determine if a skill is applicable to a task. (I mean, they give a detailed breakdown of investigation vs perception, but it would be nice if they gave guidance on all the other skills).

 

[Nefermandias]

you can use medicine to treat the poisoned condom

What?

 

[Remathilis]

What?

Not supported by the rules, but reasonable considering. But wouldn't it be nice if medicine had rules like this so we knew if it was within the parameters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not supported by the rules, but reasonable considering. But wouldn't it be nice if medicine had rules like this so we knew if it was within the parameters.

Medicine in general (the skill and associated medicinals and the like) desperately needed more mechanical support in D&D 5e. Fortunately, Level Up has many resources to fill this gap.

 

[Clint_L]

You're capturing quite well what I am saying - barring the "uncaused" part: it is caused, albeit not explicably. A dualistic metaphysical theory allows a person to say things like "the gods caused it" and "the actions of the gods are inexplicable" where those are both true.

Well, no, because saying "the ineffable gods caused it" is the same as saying "the ineffable fairies caused it" or "my magical ineffable farts caused it." None of them have any truth value aside from personal belief. Dualistic metaphysics are just physics with imagination added. Which is fun!