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

[clearstream]

My thanks, but to be perfectly honest, it doesn't help much? That just picks one of the two books to go with, and doesn't comment on the discrepancy.

To my reading, it's not about which book, it's about "specific beats general".

If that's what they meant, why doesn't the DMG mention Thieves' Tools at all? And what about the narrative solutions? Do you mean I MUST roll Thieves' Tools, always, and can't narrate that I wedge an iron spike under the pressure plate? What about the trip wire that I can cut, according to the DMG, without an ability check?

DM can say yes, or call for checks with proficiency, advantage or disadvantage, based on what players describe.

And when I roll, is it a flat DC 15 then? For ALL traps, from nuisance to deadly, even those that scale in damage and detect DC? Lock DCs vary from 10 to 20, but all traps were made equal? I'm sorry folks, does that make a lick of sense to you?

Yes, it makes sense to provide a reasonable DC for general cases.

Thank you, this is one valid reading, and it does make the rules consistent. However, from a game design perspective, I think it's a spectacular failure, and possibly the result of tragic miscommunication between designers.

Alternatively, they communicated and used "specific beats general" in the way intended. Here's Net Trap from XGE

NET TRAP ​

Simple trap (level l-4, dangerous threat) ​

​

Trigger. A trip wire strung across a hallway is riggedto a large net. If the trip wire is broken, the net falls on intruders. An iron bell is also rigged to the trip wire. It rings when the trap activates, alerting nearby guards.​

​

Effect. A net covering a 10-foot-by-10-foot area centered on the trip wire falls to the floor as a bell rings. Any creature fully within this area must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw or be restrained. A creature can use its action to make a DC 10 Strength check to try to free itself or another creature in the net. Dealing 5 slashing damage to the net (AC 10, 20 hp) also frees a creature without harming the creature.​

​

Countermeasures. A successful DC 15 Wisdom (Perception) check reveals the trip wire and the net. A successful DC 15 Dexterity check using thieves' tools disables the trip wire without causing the net to drop or the bell to ring; failing the check causes the trap to activate.​

​

And from the 2024 DMG

Falling Net​

Nuisance Trap (Levels 1–4)​

​

Trigger: A creature crosses a trip wire​

​

Duration: Instantaneous​

A falling net trap uses a trip wire to release a weighted, 10-foot-square Net suspended from the ceiling. The trip wire is 3 inches off the ground and stretches between two columns or trees.​

​

The first creature that crosses the trip wire causes the Net to fall on it. The target must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or have the Restrained condition until it escapes. The target succeeds automatically if it’s Huge or larger. A creature can take an action to make a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check, freeing itself or another creature within its reach from the Net on a successful check.​

​

Detect and Disarm. As a Search action, a creature can examine the trapped area and make a DC 11 Wisdom (Perception) check, detecting the trip wire and the suspended Net on a successful check. Once detected, the trip wire can be easily cut or avoided (no ability check required).​

​

Destroy the Net. Reducing the Net to 0 Hit Points frees any creature trapped in it (see the Player’s Handbook for the Net’s statistics).​

​

Set the Trap. A creature that has Thieves’ Tools and all the trap’s components (including a Net) can try to set a falling net trap, doing so with a successful DC 13 Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check. Each attempt to set this trap takes 10 minutes.​

​

At Higher Levels. You can scale the trap for higher levels by increasing the weight of the Net, which increases the save DC and the DC of the Strength (Athletics) check as follows: DC 12 at levels 5–10, DC 14 at levels 11–16, or DC 16 at levels 17–20.​

A significant change is that in XGE the trap requires thieves' tools to disarm, with the unfortunate possible implication that no matter what players try, if they lack the tools they can't disarm it. The update brings things back toward "skilled play". To me that seems intentional.

Imagine a new DM, and a new player who is excited to play a traps specialist. These two have COMPLETELY different information on how disarming traps works. The player, who is not obliged to read the DMG, will naturally think "ah, I'll play a Thief Rogue, so I can get proficiency in Thieves' Tools, and in Sleight of Hand, and Expertise in Sleight of Hand, and I can do it as a bonus action! surely that will make me an expert in the field!". The DM, who is not obliged or expected to homebrew things from scratch on their first time, will naturally think "ah, if I want to put traps in the game, I'll use some of the sample traps in the DMG, good thing they're all detailed!". And the poor Thief, who thought they were making a traps specialist, will discover they didn't, and their chosen skill and expertise don't matter here, and the Thieves' Tools they bought has absolutely nothing to do with ANY of the traps they come across.

I agree with this point. DM ought to actively disclose anything significantly bearing on a player's evaluation of features. However, incidence in printed material and incidence at table are not mandated to be identical. Some groups might prefer to steer away from what in degenerate cases could be characterised as a parlour game with DM to guess the narrative solution.

Improvised tools are not covered in the rules (unless I missed something in the DMG), it's up to the DM. It's a bit confusing because Thieves' Tools is both an item, that you may or may not hold, and a Proficiency that you may or may not have. Here's how tools work, they do make sense:

• every time you use a tool, you need to have the tool (the item) on your person, and you roll an ability check (which in some cases is a skill check)
• if you are proficient in the tool and/or the skill, you add your proficiency bonus
• if you are proficient in both the tool and the skill, you add your proficiency bonus once and you roll with advantage
• and if you have expertise in the skill, you add your proficiency bonus twice instead of once
• (you can not take expertise in tools)

While I believe the norm at many tables will be that DM can say yes when a player describes improvising a tool in a way that makes sense to the group, I haven't yet spotted specific wording in the 2024 core about that.

The 2024 DMG has only one magical sample trap (Fire-Casting Statue), and it allows for both magical and non-magical means of detecting and disarming it. Detect Magic reveals an aura of evocation magic around the statue. A DC 10 Perception check within 5 ft of the statue detects a glyph. Once the glyph is discovered, a DC 15 Arcana check reveals you can disarm the trap by defacing the glyph with a sharp tool. Separately from that, a DC 15 Perception check "if you examine the section of floor that forms the pressure plate" detects the pressure plate, and then you can wedge an iron spike or similar under the plate to prevent the trap from triggering. No check is mentioned or appears to be required. And Thieves' Tools is neither here nor there.

I believe the intent (at least of this edition) is that players can describe and DM can say yes to actions beyond those listed in texts like that for the Fire-Casting Statue trap. Seeing as it's formally a trap, a DM would be on safe ground (based on other parts of core) in granting a rogue advantage on say a Dexterity (Arcana) check to both identify and safely deface the glyph were they using thieves' tools.

We're dealing here with different sorts of rules. The general rules for skills and tools are game mechanics, meaning that they define how players interact with the game world. They're part of system. The Fire-Casting Statue is a collection of world description and constitutive rules that lay out salient features of some part of the game world. Players may, but do not have to, avail of the ability, skill and tool mechanics to address a Fire-Casting Statue. The better part of doubts raised here are due to reading these different rules to stand on the same footing: they do not.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, this. I've been playing and DM games since the 90s. I can figure this stuff out for myself. But what about the new players they are targeting with this revised edition? It seems to me like they've needlessly muddied some aspects of the game that were actually clearer in the 2014 version (which new players aren't necessarily going to know about or have access to).

Reflecting on this I'd like to elevate something I buried at the bottom of my longer post above. In essence, the better part of doubts raised here come down to reading different kinds of rules as standing on the same footing.

The general rules for skills and tools are game mechanics, meaning that they define how players interact with the game world. They're part of system.​

​

The Fire-Casting Statue is a collection of world description and constitutive rules that lay out salient features of some part of the game world. They are examples, not system.​

​

Players may, but do not have to, avail of the ability, skill and tool mechanics to address a Fire-Casting Statue.​

The list of traps in the DMG exemplifies how to systematise one aspect of the game world. Players can describe and DM can say yes to actions beyond those listed in such examples, leveraging the game mechanics in doing so.

 

[Retros_x]

And my controversial opinion is that if people pay money for RPG books, those books should actually come with the rules for playing the game!

You can't have rules for everything. Someone needs to set a scope for what the rules should cover. For some reason they seemed to decide there need to be no specific rules for pickpocketing. I think its ok. They could've leave it in, but in modern D&D games I played pickpocketing came up so rarely that you might just cut the rules and let the DM have a ruling. Maybe that was their line of thinking.

 

[clearstream]

So sure, I can figure it out. I can also refer to the old books. Hell, if need to be I can write my own game from scratch!
But not everyone is a long time veteran and to some people this book will be their first exposure to RPGs. And my controversial opinion is that if people pay money for RPG books, those books should actually come with the rules for playing the game!

I prefer ability checks, skills and tools in the new edition. For one thing, they've effectively brought "consequences resolution" into the PHB. Only rolling because it matters, matters.

Then too, I find the levers of

abilities + skills​

skills using different abilities​

checks that can require tools​

advantage for skill + tool​

​

Sufficient to offer good expressive range. Frex, where failure means save versus 2d10 fire damage (consequences)

Wisdom (Perception) DC 10 followed by Intelligence (Arcana) DC 15​

Wisdom (Perception) DC 10 followed by Dexterity (Arcana) DC 15 with advantage from Thieves' Tools​

Wisdom (Perception) DC 10 followed by Dexterity (Arcana) DC 15 with disadvantage from improvised Thieves' Tools​

​

Represents three approaches players could describe. Something important to me in exploration is that it's not narrowed to needing one specific character to proceed, while still not so broad that exploration-focused characters don't get to shine.

 

[clearstream]

The interaction of skills and tools is definitely the clunkiest and least intuitive aspect of the game's design. I tried to rephrase the rules myself just now but kept tripping myself up.

My thinking goes somewhat as follows. I observed ample feedback about tools prompted by the 2014 PHB, resulting in the designers taking a second pass at them in XGE. Therefore I conjecture that the designers understand and have explored the issues involved and still see value in what tools can offer play at the table.

So when I read tools, I ask myself how those rules can benefit our play? One way to describe what I'm looking for is the expressiveness of the design, frex

many exploration sequences involve a series of obstacles of one sort or another, which for ease I'll call "doors"​

I can make a tool the straight up "key" to a "door" (the tool is required)​

I can make a tool a way to make it more likely a "door" can be opened (i.e. it gives advantage)​

I can say yes to improvisation, at the cost of a greater chance of negative consequences (i.e. impose disadvantage)​

​

When I connect that with skills using different abilities, I can open up solutions to a wider range of characters. Stressing again that "consequences resolution" (formerly in the DMG only) is now in the PHB... meaning that I can always just say "yes" when there are no consequences for failure that we find interesting.

 

[roguish]

There is no advantage granted here. The fact is the Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) replaces the Dexterity (Thieves' tools) check which would be normally made BECAUSE it is being done as a bonus action. Hence the feature name: Fast Hands.

Thank you for this very detailed response. I must say I do not agree with that interpretation of the rules. At least this bit is clear:

"If you have proficiency with a tool, add your Proficiency Bonus to any ability check you make that uses the tool. If you have proficiency in a skill that's used with that check, you have Advantage on the check too." (PHB p.220)

Whether it's a good rule is another matter, but it IS the 2024 rule. The Thief's Fast Hands feature doesn't replace anything, "a skill that's used with that (Tool) check" is a normal way for Tools to work. But I understand why it's so confusing.

I am now doubling down on my theory that they had a detailed Skills section (like in the 2014 PHB), and scrapped it, and then did NOT revisit the rest of the book, which was written under the assumption that skill rules are covered elsewhere. Seriously, this explains SO MUCH.

Take locks. Picking a lock (another thing you do with Fast Hands) is a Dexterity check with Thieves' Tools according to the Tools section. But it's a Sleight of Hand check with Thieves' Tools if you go to the Glossary (see "Lock"), or to the DMG. If there were a Skills section, it would have an entry on "Sleight of Hand", and explain ALL of this, in one place. (In all probability, it would also say it's a Sleight of Hand check with Thieves' Tools to disarm a trap!) And the fact that Tools only list abilities, and not skills, would simply be the general rule for Tools, applying even in cases when no specific skill is applicable, or several are possible. After all, a skill check IS an ability check. And there would be no contradiction.

Now, though? Contradictions abound, haze and confusion, hate and violence on planet Earth. WotC fully dropped the ball on skills.

So here's my suggestion on houseruling this: USE THE 2014 SKILLS SECTION. Assume it applies in all cases, except those where the 2024 rules contradict it. It was probably meant to be there, and they either ran out of space or... eh, no point speculating. Tell your friends, tell the newbies. The 2024 skill rules are in the SRD 5.1, published under Creative Commons. I'll be houseruling traps later.

(Ironically, I was very underwhelmed by the 2014 Skills section, but like most of 5e, I appreciated how easy it was to fiddle with. If you're a veteran and already have Opinions on what rules are good for your group, you can just implement them, no fuss. The newbies are doomed to wing it forever with no guidelines, but for me? Perfect! The fact that this same section is now, in comparison, a well of useful information is just bonkers.)

Also, I see this thread is veering off towards the Great Thief Debate (roll or narrate? ah, the age-old problem!), and I gotta say, I FULLY support creative gameplay, and not locking a problem's solutions to the roll of the dice and specific items or features the players might or might not have. Very much including traps.

BUT, this is a class system, where characters are ostensibly trained and specialised in their fields, and to some degree it's still a game of simulation, even if there's little emphasis on that in comparison with, say, 3rd Edition. So accommodating for both at the same time is viable, and IMO desirable.

P.S. Do you know how a trip wire really works? Depending on how it's attached, cutting it may disarm the mechanism, or it may trigger it. That's why you should need expertise and tools. If anyone wants to narrate that, and be a creative player, methinks they should first look up how stuff actually works. (And the DM should be an expert on how stuff actually works.) But it's not obligatory! There's another wonderful approach: here's a nice d20, here's a nice character sheet with numbers that represent talent and training the character possesses but the player might not, roll the dice and come what may. Quintessential Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[ezo]

Thank you for this very detailed response. I must say I do not agree with that interpretation of the rules.

Thanks... I guess? But are you saying you do not agree with my interpretation? If so, no issues, just checking. I wasn't aware all the other instances specify Sleight of Hand since the samples for it doesn't include this function (see below).

At least this bit is clear:

"If you have proficiency with a tool, add your Proficiency Bonus to any ability check you make that uses the tool. If you have proficiency in a skill that's used with that check, you have Advantage on the check too." (PHB p.220)

Whether it's a good rule is another matter, but it IS the 2024 rule. The Thief's Fast Hands feature doesn't replace anything, "a skill that's used with that (Tool) check" is a normal way for Tools to work. But I understand why it's so confusing.

Sure, it is the rule. My point was Sleight of Hands is not the skill for picking locks or opening traps, or I should say, that certainly isn't made clear:

It would seem if Sleight of Hand was meant to be used to open locks and disarm traps, it would be here given how prevalent it is in the game. But, of course, we don't have it, do we? I realize this is just supposed to be a "sample" of things you can do, but omitting one of the most common uses seems pretty egregious.

I am now doubling down on my theory that they had a detailed Skills section (like in the 2014 PHB), and scrapped it, and then did NOT revisit the rest of the book, which was written under the assumption that skill rules are covered elsewhere. Seriously, this explains SO MUCH.

I agree completely. I HUGE fail in 2024 by WotC.

Take locks. Picking a lock (another thing you do with Fast Hands) is a Dexterity check with Thieves' Tools according to the Tools section. But it's a Sleight of Hand check with Thieves' Tools if you go to the Glossary (see "Lock"), or to the DMG. If there were a Skills section, it would have an entry on "Sleight of Hand", and explain ALL of this, in one place. (In all probability, it would also say it's a Sleight of Hand check with Thieves' Tools to disarm a trap!) And the fact that Tools only list abilities, and not skills, would simply be the general rule for Tools, applying even in cases when no specific skill is applicable, or several are possible. After all, a skill check IS an ability check. And there would be no contradiction.

Sure. It would have been useful, certainly.

NOTE: again, personally, IMO Sleight of Hand should NOT be used for picking a lock or disarming a trap. Making it so means proficiency in Thieves' tools alone is sort of pointless. How can you pick the lock or disarm the trap without them? A tool proficiency is all you should need to use a tool. There should not be a skill that goes with it. I mean, is Forgery then a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check as well??

Now, though? Contradictions abound, haze and confusion, hate and violence on planet Earth. WotC fully dropped the ball on skills.

So here's my suggestion on houseruling this: USE THE 2014 SKILLS SECTION. Assume it applies in all cases, except those where the 2024 rules contradict it. It was probably meant to be there, and they either ran out of space or... eh, no point speculating. Tell your friends, tell the newbies. The 2024 skill rules are in the SRD 5.1, published under Creative Commons. I'll be houseruling traps later.

Whatever works for you. For myself, I won't allow doubling down on skills and tools.

Also, I see this thread is veering off towards the Great Thief Debate (roll or narrate? ah, the age-old problem!), and I gotta say, I FULLY support creative gameplay, and not locking a problem's solutions to the roll of the dice and specific items or features the players might or might not have. Very much including traps.

BUT, this is a class system, where characters are ostensibly trained and specialised in their fields, and to some degree it's still a game of simulation, even if there's little emphasis on that in comparison with, say, 3rd Edition. So accommodating for both at the same time is viable, and IMO desirable.

Sure.

P.S. Do you know how a trip wire really works? Depending on how it's attached, cutting it may disarm the mechanism, or it may trigger it. That's why you should need expertise and tools. If anyone wants to narrate that, and be a creative player, methinks they should first look up how stuff actually works. (And the DM should be an expert on how stuff actually works.) But it's not obligatory! There's another wonderful approach: here's a nice d20, here's a nice character sheet with numbers that represent talent and training the character possesses but the player might not, roll the dice and come what may. Quintessential Dungeons & Dragons.

Yep. The idea that a trap's tripwire, once you notice it, can just "be disabled" without a check needed is stupid IMO. IME simply cutting a tripwire is a sure-fire way to set off the trap, not disable it.

Narrate or roll is inconsequential to me as far as the rules are concerned. For the people who preferred rolling to role-ing, concrete rules should be in place.

Returning to Thieves' tool and Sleight of Hand, for example.
Although nothing in the Sleight of Hand examples implies it is used with picking a lock, all the rules everywhere else support this is the case. Fine, I don't personally AGREE with that use of the skill, but whatever...

The instances where Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) is used for picking a lock specifies "with Thieves' tools". So, RAW you have:

1. skill proficiency, no tool proficiency, and having thieves' tools to use: normal check with PB
2. no skill proficiency, tool proficiency, and having thieves' tools to use: normal check with PB
3. skill proficiency, tool proficiency, and having thieves' tools to use: advantage with PB
4. skill proficiency, no tool proficiency, and improvised "thieves' tools" (like a slim dagger): disadvantage with PB
5. no skill proficiency, tool proficiency, using improvised "thieves' tools": disadvantage with PB
6. no skill proficiency, no tool proficiency, using improvised tools: disadvantage without PB

Ultimately, that is the way I see it RAW. It is stupid, IMO, because it makes two different proficiencies allow you to add your proficiency bonus to the same check (in other words--either method "works" to open a lock). If you have a tool proficiency, that is all you should need IMO. Having the physical tools, but not knowing how to use them, but still being able to apply your proficiency bonus, seems strange to me. That is #1 above.

What #1 should be IMO, if you wanted to use synergies, would be:

1. skill proficiency, no tool proficiency, and having thieves' tools to use: advantage without PB

Only proficiency in the tool would allow you to add your proficiency bonus. Synergies could still grant advantage if you have the physical tools to use. This would also create another option:

7. skill proficiency, no tool proficiency, using improvised tools: check without PB​

The skill synergy would offset the use of improvised tools.

However, I know this would never be accepted because the idea of having a skill proficiency and NOT being able to add proficiency bonus flies in the face of 5E's "design".

 

[clearstream]

The instances where Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) is used for picking a lock specifies "with Thieves' tools". So, RAW you have:

1. skill proficiency, no tool proficiency, and having thieves' tools to use: normal check with PB
2. no skill proficiency, tool proficiency, and having thieves' tools to use: normal check with PB
3. skill proficiency, tool proficiency, and having thieves' tools to use: advantage with PB
4. skill proficiency, no tool proficiency, and improvised "thieves' tools" (like a slim dagger): disadvantage with PB
5. no skill proficiency, tool proficiency, using improvised "thieves' tools": disadvantage with PB
6. no skill proficiency, no tool proficiency, using improvised tools: disadvantage without PB

Ultimately, that is the way I see it RAW. It is stupid, IMO, because it makes two different proficiencies allow you to add your proficiency bonus to the same check (in other words--either method "works" to open a lock). If you have a tool proficiency, that is all you should need IMO. Having the physical tools, but not knowing how to use them, but still being able to apply your proficiency bonus, seems strange to me. That is #1 above.

I believe the designers are aiming to allow a wider range of characters to interact with each pillar. They're not troubled by making individual checks easier, because they are considering the probabilities across the many checks that players will participate in.

 

[Remathilis]

]
It would seem if Sleight of Hand was meant to be used to open locks and disarm traps, it would be here given how prevalent it is in the game. But, of course, we don't have it, do we? I realize this is just supposed to be a "sample" of things you can do, but omitting one of the most common uses seems pretty egregious.

It should be worth noting that Vecna: Eve of Ruin (which was being worked on at the same time as the 2024 books) also uses Sleight of Hand with thief tools for lockpicking. It was where I first noticed that, and assumed that would be the standard in 2024, which was why I was confused when tool proficiency was still a thing. I guess they opted to have it work both ways: you can pick a lock if you have proficiency in either their tools alone or sleight of hand, and if you have both its advantage on the roll.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In my houserules I just eliminated tool proficiencies. There is usually a skill that already makes sense to cover the tool; sleight of hand for thieves tools, performance for instruments etc. Then I just added a generic crafting skill that covers the rest.