Find and DISARM traps is WISDOM?

I could understand Finding traps, but DISARMING?  Someone with a high wisdom could understand a trap and even have a good idea on how to disarm a trap but if he's got a dex of 3, he's eating the poison needles.  Surgery requires a steady hand.

Furthermore, making it Wisdom based has 1 of 2 effects on rogues:

1.  Strain.  Now in addition to Dex and Int, a rogue has to have a decent wisdom modifier if they want to be good at disarming traps.  The thief scheme bonus just wipes out the negatives you might have from a lower wisdom score.  On the other hand a rogue could...

2.  Favor Wisdom over Intelligence.  Since there are no ranks and we haven't seen how Intelligence will effect the volume or depth of skills known, Rogues could make Wisdom their secondary stat behind Dex.  This actually seems interesting and almost like the intention except that the rogue in the packet has a +2 Int mod and a -1 wis mod.

Did anyone else find this to be a problem?  What are your thoughts?

Unfortunately, the halfling in all three of my runs so far did almost no trap finding or disarming, so we didn't run into that particular issue. He acted more as a scout despite being played by completely different people.


In the end, I've taken the looser rule set to, as a DM, suggest alternate Attributes to the Task at hand when it made sense, so far. That actually may be the simplest solution. Your mileage may vary.

What makes you think the Disarming roll is based on Wisdom?  The finding roll almost certainly is, but I based the disarming roll on Int in my game.
In the DnD Next_DM Guidelines on page 6-7 is Find and Disarm Traps where it decribes using a singe Wisdom check to find traps.  It mentions disarming a trap but never says to us another stat implying Wisdom is the way to go.

I didn't play 4th ed, but in 3rd I'm pretty sure disable device was dex. 
Having had to remove my fair share of traps and snares while hunting, disable device should DEFINITELY be a Dex check!
Intelligence is irrelevant, unless the trap represented some kind of high-technology that requires a sophisticated understanding of electronics, physics, biomedicine, ... or arcane alchemy.

Wisdom is fine, representing not only the ability to notice details, but to interact with details, and create things in a detailed way. (Sometimes it isnt obvious whether you should cut the yellow wire or the blue wire to defuse the bomb. You need a Wisdom check to see if you can discern other clues in the pattern.)

That said, your point about Dexterity makes sense, especially, if deactivating a trap puts one in danger of triggering it.
It mentions disarming a trap but never says to us another stat implying Wisdom is the way to go.


I don't think that is as strong an implication as you're making it. They just didn't tell us what stat to use. In the adventure, they call for Dex.
In my opinion the rules regarding Search and Disable Device were not well thought out.  I changed those skills to both use Int as per v3.5.  This balances out the utility of the attributes as it applies skills to some extent.
Having had to remove my fair share of traps and snares while hunting, disable device should DEFINITELY be a Dex check!


Truth. Wisdom of seeing a trap is leaving it alone.
I didn't play 4th ed, but in 3rd I'm pretty sure disable device was dex. 

It was Intelligence in 3rd if I recall correctly.  That precedent combined with the fact that literally everything else the Rogue does is based on Dex already led me to go with Intelligence for disarming.  I did Wisdom for finding since, well, from 3rd edition on, Wisdom essentially changed from "piety and common sense" to "perception and divine magic."
In another thread, Abdul (I think) suggested that the Rogue should make a choice.  

He could use INT (based on his knowledge of traps he could know where they might be and how they can be disarmed).

He could use WIS (he has a "feeling", perception or an incite that lets him find and disarm).

He could use DEX (he uses his finely developed sense of touch, and fine motor skills to locate the trap and then disarm it) 

This could work for me.

 

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I agree that any three of these stats could be used to disable a device, or if you wanted to complicate things then all three stats could be used cumulatively. Ha ha ha.
The way I run it: If a rogue (or anyone) walks through an area, without making any attempt to look for traps, I'll make a roll based on their wisdom, and any skills modifiers. This represents their instinctive perception and that type of "see it at a glance" type of perception.

If that rogue (or again, anyone) wants to find a trap, and takes time examining the ground and walls, and the like, that takes more active thought and perception, and that's Intelegence, the same way Search was Int based in 3.x.

Now, after the rogue has found the trap, the modifier I'd use would be determined by the level of sophistication of the trap. A simple trap could be disarmed by just snipping a trip-wire, or prying a coin into the workings, or the like, which would be a Dex check. A More sophisticated check, with mechanical workings would require Int, to determine how actually to disarm the trap.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

The idea behind how skills work in DDN next is that they are situational modifiers to other rolls rather than dictating what the rolls should be.  The 'Find and remove traps' bonus applies to any roll involving finding or removing traps independant of what attribute is used.  The DM determines what attribute is most applicable depending on the situation.  Thus spotting a trap will be based on wisdom while disarming a trap could be based on dex, int or even strength depending on the nature of the trap.  carefully searching for a trap could be based on int and it could even be argued that it could be used with charisma to spot and avoid a trap in dialogue.

I think the problem here is that people are in the 3.x/4ed mindset where the skill being used determines the attribute that is used.  It was stated in L&L that they are not meant to be married in this way... perhaps the rules are unclear about this (or it is possible that the design team changed direction on it).  I only skimmed the DM section of the playest rules.
I find myself thinking lately that the Attribute and even skill in question used to spot something should be based completely on what it is you're trying to stop, and should default to Wis only in very non-specific situations.

Somebody could be among the most perceptive in the world, but they might not identify a pressure plate trap because they don't know what they're looking at. If you don't know about traps and how they work, then how would you spot one that's well concealed? Anybody can notice a trip-line, but an awful lot of booby-traps offer little or no visual evidence, and you're not gonna notice them unless you already know what you're looking for.

An experienced guard or soldier is going to immediately and instinctively assess his surroundings for points of egress and likely ambush risks. A thief wouldn't necessarily do that, but they know how to spot triggers, alarms and booby-traps, as well as the tell-tails of whether or not somebody has been in a room recently, or where they are likely to stash valuables.
 
A lot of other situations fall into the same category though. Telling if someone is lying requires understanding both people and HOW to lie well, so you would get the bonuses that apply to bluff or diplomacy.

so on, and so forth.

Personally, I think that's the best way to handle it, and honestly wouldn't require any extra skills or mechanics.

As to active or passive rolls, in my experience, most people who are trained or very experienced in something like that... They do it without even thinking about it. It's second nature. I always treated it so when I ran a game.

If there was something to be seen, I'd either roll FOR the players (if I didn't want them to know that there was something there to be seen that they might have missed) or tell them to roll periodically, both when there is and isn't something of note to spot.
You know what, I'm okay with having Wisdom be the required stat for disarming traps.  If it means a rogue character has to spread his Ability scores a little more, I'm okay with that too.  Put's a real wrench in power-gamers gears, hehe.  I'd personally like to see all the classes have to spread their abilities out more.  So if a Player does decide to make their 'Twink' Figher (or whatever), they face some serious penalties because of it. 

In the end though, I think Rhenny and Avric are on the right track. 
The idea behind how skills work in DDN next is that they are situational modifiers to other rolls rather than dictating what the rolls should be.  The 'Find and remove traps' bonus applies to any roll involving finding or removing traps independant of what attribute is used.  The DM determines what attribute is most applicable depending on the situation.  Thus spotting a trap will be based on wisdom while disarming a trap could be based on dex, int or even strength depending on the nature of the trap.  carefully searching for a trap could be based on int and it could even be argued that it could be used with charisma to spot and avoid a trap in dialogue.

I think the problem here is that people are in the 3.x/4ed mindset where the skill being used determines the attribute that is used.  It was stated in L&L that they are not meant to be married in this way... perhaps the rules are unclear about this (or it is possible that the design team changed direction on it).  I only skimmed the DM section of the playest rules.



I completly agree.

I think it was one of the factors that made the designers move away from "skills" in the sense it seemed to constrain DMs and players to think of a maneuver as always based on a particular stat.
 It is a common problem with any RPG based on skills.
You first check if you have the skill then the question if you can try it arises. Instead of doing it the other way around.
 Like first you explain what you want to do and then the DM asks "ok, do you have any ability that might help you in this particular endavour?"

And no the rules are'nt unclear, they simply are'nt there, yet. But as you suggest the designers might give it another direction. The problem here isnt the rules, its subjective interpretation.

And I am personally pro stat based using of skills in that particular situation. Aiming a bow for a window might in the end force the player to use an endurance based attack, when the target finally is seen after 4 rounds.
 Just an example of how you can use different stats to accomodate situations.

 
You know what, I'm okay with having Wisdom be the required stat for disarming traps.

Me too. Wisdom seem fine for disarming most medieval traps. 

If it means a rogue character has to spread his Ability scores a little more, I'm okay with that too.  Put's a real wrench in power-gamers gears, hehe.

LOL

  I'd personally like to see all the classes have to spread their abilities out more.  So if a Player does decide to make their 'Twink' Figher (or whatever), they face some serious penalties because of it.

The kind of class I like best is the one that has a clear primary ability. But then it has different class builds that use different secondary abilities. I benefit from investing in a secondary ability. If I feel like it, I use a tertiary ability to dabble in one of the other class builds.
Haldrik, I hear what you're saying.  

I personally don't like that style of ability focused class builds (w/ out starting an edition war, it's something I didn't like in 4ed).  I think it also makes it easy to classify a character as a party role (tank, healer, etc.), which puts the mechanics ahead of roleplaying, IMO.  

All that said, 5ed is supposed to be about allowing everyone to play the game they love.  So it might work for you that way.
What if anyone could make a skill check and the modifier was only based on your ability score, but you automatically gained advantage when using your own skills? 

Then, you'd have the cleric rolling at +3 or whatever, but you'd be rolling twice at -1 and taking the better result.  Would that still feel like you were being overly penalized for low Wisdom?

The metagame is not the game.

The ability score used should depend on what you're trying to do. However, it is up to the PLAYER, not the DM, to justify his ability choice. The whole point of the D&D Next skill system is to make it more flexible. If you can reasonably justify how you use a certain ability score in conjunction with your skill "training" then the DM should allow you to make the check.

In my own games, the thief uses Wisdom to find a trap. He uses Intelligence to see if he can understand how the trap works. He then uses Dexterity to attempt to disable the trap without setting it off. He gets to add his skill "training" bonus to each of these checks, because finding and disarming traps are his bread and butter. He knows what he's doing.

Just my opinion.
Using Wisdom to find the traps makes sense. Since skills appear to be less coupled to ability scores, I don't see why this necessitates also using Wisdom to disable it. Going off of my own personal experience, I could see using either Intelligence or Dexterity for the actual disarming of the trap, depending on the nature of the trap and the method being employed, so I would let the player make a case for whichever one he preferred.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
Sign In to post comments