Title says it all, really. Had a player ask. I can't find anything in the PHB which indicates that a Rogue is any better at searching for traps than any other character with trained Perception. In fact, the way I'm reading it, a Cleric with trained Perception will actuall be better than a Rogue with a lower WIS score.
What, if anything, am I missing? Somebody will probably read me chapter and verse, but I'm dashed if I can find it.
Thanks,
Bob
Rogues can be better, if they select expertise in wisdom (perception), but they aren't forced to be better, should you prefer to play a swashbuckler or cutpurse who has never seen a trap in his life.
I'm not a huge fan of the wisdom (perception) and intelligence (investigation) distinction myself, but that's probably because of all the rogue's I've played in 3.5. The spot versus search distinction is fully ingrained at this point.
It's important to remember that you only make checks if the outcome of your action is uncertain. The DM calls for this, so just because a player says "I search for traps" doesn't mean he'll be making a roll. The DM should be responding with "Okay, how do you go about that?" If a player's description is too vague or misses the mark, there is no roll - they simply don't find it. If the player's description is thorough and right on, there is no roll - they find the trap. Only when it's not certainly a success or failure will there be a roll. In any case, the DM should be telegraphing the existence of the trap in a way that invites exploration of this kind. Otherwise, we're in the area of process-sim which isn't well-supported by this game. Rather than engaging in meaningful exploration and decision-making, we're playing a process memorization game where players have to go through procedures to succeed.
Having said all that, it's reasonable for the DM to call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check rather than a Wisdom (Perception) check, especially if the rogue (or whoever) is interacting with the clues telegraphed by the DM with regard to the trap. As well, if there is nothing preventing someone from using the Help action, they should definitely be opting to do that to assist whoever is searching for traps.
If you'd like some additional information on how to telegraph traps in a way that invites exploration rather than process-sim, let me know and I'll go into it further.
I have no solution for you OP, but I did want to chime in and say one of the few complaints I have with 5e is the lackluster skill system. Little granularity where it should be, and too much in areas that players (ime) rarely utilize. More than a dozen artisan choices, but Athletics encompasses climbing, swimming? A 20 strength body builder isn't necissarily going to be good at climbing and swimming.
At the moment, I'm trying to develope my own houserules for 5e skills. Perhaps, OP, you may want to attempt the same feat.
DerelictDroid wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Thanks, all!
Iserith, I'm not sure I get the idea of telegraphing. I don't get the point of telegraphing that they should be searching for traps. As a DM, the first hint I want there to be that there might be traps is when someone falls victim to one or someone's Spidey-sense (passive Perception, Spot, whatever) goes all tingly.
Further, I come from an era where the players were not allowed to roll for things like finding traps or picking pockets. They said, "I'm searching," and the DM rolled the check. Because the character always thinks she's succeeded. She doesn't know she's failed until she got nicked by the rozzers or fell onto the spikes at the bottom of the pit. I don't see a reason why that can't continue.
I'm just of the opinion that Rogues should be able to find traps. Doesn't matter what archetype they are. Part of being a Rogue is to find and remove traps. I'll grant cutpurses and swashbucklers not so much, but the PHB archetypes should all have facility with the F/RT skillset. That there's no specific ability keyed to that iconic characteristic is puzzling.
I think I'll just swap his Investigation bonuses for the normal passive Perception modifiers, and only apply it when I know there are traps about, make his Spidey-sense go off. Then I'll let him use Investigation instead of Perception.
Thanks again! 
Bob
Regarding telegraphing, say the characters are exploring an ancient tomb. They've just arrived in an area that is trapped with poisoned darts. The trigger is stepping on particular floor tiles which are sensitive to pressure and discolored compared to the rest. Now I'm going to telegraph the trap:
"Beyond the doorway is a hallway leading to a stone door about 60 feet away. Midway down the corridor is a desiccated corpse clad in the rotted garb of an explorer. You can still see his boot prints in the dust which stirs as the wind at your back breezes through the hall for likely the first time in decades. Brightly colored feathers lift off the ground and twirl in the air, fluttering past your face.
What do you do?"
At this point, the DM should be looking at the passive Perception of the PCs in the front rank and comparing it to the DC of the trap to see if they notice the hidden threat. If they do, then they might notice the holes in the wall, one of which has a dart jammed in it - a dart with fletching made of brightly colored feathers. If none of the passive Perceptions cut the mustard, now it's on the PCs to search around.
They've got some clues - the boot prints, the corpse, the feathers. Checking them out and trying to deduce something from them might then call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check. The boot prints indicate that the explorer was jumping around erratically from floor tile to floor tile. The corpse looks to be contorted as if the explorer died in poison- or sickness-induced agony. The feathers are clipped and trimmed in a way that suggests its use as fletching. In any case, success indicates the presence of the trap.
If they ignore the clues and decide to simply look at the floors and walls for hidden objects, they might notice the holes in the wall or the uneven (or discolored) floor tiles with a Wisdom (Perception) check. In any case, success indicates the presence of the trap.
Now it's on the PCs to avoid or disable it. See how this is an interactive scene and not just a procedure?
iserith wrote:
Redbeard2 wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Not that I don't find this tangent fascinating, so by all means continue, but back to the OP:
What about just making proficiency in thieves tools apply to all ability checks to find those traps as well. So a rogue (or anyone who took the effort to get better at thieves tools) would add their proficiency to either an Intelligence (Investigation) or a Wisdom (Perception) check when looking for traps?
Tiarn wrote:
I like it, too.
I also like the tangent the two of you are going down. The idea of fitting "there's a trap here" clues into the descriptive text is an excellent idea. I also think it's wise to keep trap "Spot" DCs well within the passive Perception/Investigation capability of the party, provided they're playing smart. Running pell-mell down an unknow corridor might hurt them. But playing smart - "The Rogue leads the way down the corridor, and we're all carefully looking for signs of traps and secret doors." That's gonna mean traps are spotted before triggering.
Anyway, coffee's brewing. Maybe more later.
Keep talking!
Bob
iserith wrote:
I think it's not worth all the folderol. I like that 5e doesn't have more granularity. I don't want to be rolling dice to decide everything. I'm glad 5e has moved away from a place where every possible happenstance was governed by a mechanic. There's no mechanic for a character leaping from a balcony onto a chandelier, swinging across the room, and dropping on an enemy's head, either. Sure, you could think it through and apply one, but doing so would totally ruin the moment. Either say it happens or make one stat-check roll and be done with it.
Adding granularity to 5e will totally ruin the flavor, totally burn the streamlining.
/tangent
Bob
Athletics as a skill in D&D I think you'll find is intended to be used in its root concept, especially in relation to Adventurers, that was employed in the concepts of the original olympian Greeks and you see repeated in Roman philosophies of physical abilities and indeed amongst the Celtic people's like the Fianna trials, red branch tests ect and the same attributes seen in the likes of the many people's of medieval Europe who went Viking.
Sure a modern specialist in any field may suck in another but Adventurers are not patterned after these people. They spend their lives (which are larger than life by virtue of the concepts of the game) climbing, swimming, lifting, running just like the Red Branch, Fianna, Vikings, Roman soldiers, Spartans, Grecian Heroes and so forth. Look at a whole bunch of classic fantasy stories, Conan would be indeed the perfect example of a Barbarian with high Str and Dex with proficiency in Athletics, Perception and Stealth which given how he's the inspiration for those characters is how it's meant to be.
Ansbach wrote:
DerelictDroid wrote:
DerelictDroid wrote:
DooHickey wrote:
iserith wrote:
Redbeard2 wrote:
iserith wrote:
DooHickey wrote:
DerelictDroid wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Don't forget in all this...a DM can impose Advantage or Disadvantage on any rolls to search or investigate for traps, depending on how carefully, or haphazardly, the Rogue (or party) goes about looking for them.
For me personally, the more descriptive the better. If my character can visually see all the clues, then the DM should describe all the clues. It's the wisdom of knowing what those clues mean, that should vary from PC to PC. This is the essense of INT vs. WIS. Someone with a low passive check (or a low roll), would see those pile of leaves in the middle of the road and think nothing of it, or happenstance (or SHOULD play it that way, if they aren't meta-gaming). Someone with a high passive check (or high roll), would suspect it as a trap.
Synjin wrote:
iserith wrote:
Nothing in the game - and certainly not ability scores - requires a player act a particular way with his character. The player determines how his character thinks and acts. "Metagaming" is just something some people made up and isn't even mentioned in D&D 5e. The metagame is actually what allows the game to be played in the first place.
If a player opts to search the pile of leaves for a trap, the DM can decide that he succeeds, fails, or that a roll is called for. So if it's really a concern for the DM, he can just call for the roll and let the player's bad ability scores take its course.
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
I'm genuinely curious to know what you find wrong with these examples of play of a gotcha trap, other than they are a little abbreviated because I didn't want to do a whole bunch of typing:
Pass
GM: OK, you are going to head off down the trail after the goblins. Iserith, you said you were going first?
Iserith: Yes, I am the rogue so I want to scout ahead and keep on the lookout for any ambushes or traps.
GM: OK, give me an idea of what you are looking for.
Iserith: Hmm... I guess want to be extra careful around bends in the road, or large rocks or trees where the goblins could be hiding. I also want to look along the trail for trip wires or hidden pits - things that might be covered up.
GM: Very good. About 10 minutes down the trail, you notice an unusal pile of leaves in the middle of the trail. Sure enough, you can see a rope carelessly hidden leading to the pile - probably a snare trap.
Iserith: I point it out to the rest of the party and we go around.
Joe: Nice work Iserith!
Fail
GM: OK, you are going to head off down the trail after the goblins. Iserith, you said you were going first?
Iserith: Yes, I am a dwarf barbarian and we don't know how long ago they took brother Gundren. We need to hurry after them before it's too late!
GM: OK, so you guys are going to rush down the trail. (Checks Iserith's passive perception, which is not high enough to spot the first trap). After a few minutes down the trail, in your haste you notice at the last second that you have stepped into an unusually large pile of leaves in the middle of the trail. There is a snap and jerk on your leg, and you find yourself dangling upsidedown from a tree, 10ft off the ground.
Iserith: Whoops. I guess rushing down the path wasn't such a good idea.
Joe: Sneaky goblins - we should have known better. I'm the rogue, maybe I should go first now and be on the lookout for traps...
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
TLDR:
iserith would probably say that a poker table is more challenging than a slot machine
Ansbach would probably say that a slot machine is more challenging than a poker table
Does this sound about right?
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Thank you all for your observations, as well as the conversations taking place. It's quite interesting.
What I can't grok is all of you who are talking about modifying your trap-detection DCs based on what the players are telling you. That seems to me rather odd. You're asking a player to describe how his fantasy character is doing one of the things that makes him a fantasy character, and making it harder for that character to exercise her powers if her player isn't very good at conceptualizing how the hero should operate. Do you ask the person playing the fighter to describe in detail how he's swinging his greataxe, and penalize the player if she doesn't describe the technique in a manner you find acceptable? No. The player says, "I hit it with my axe" and rolls to see if she succeeds.
In fact, don't even bother to explain. I've read through what y'all are saying, and it's simply something I cannot accept. A Rogue's ability to spot/find traps is something so inherent to the character I categorically refuse to make the player's skill or brains actively determine - or even influence - how successful the character is. I also categorically refuse to make the Fighter's player, or the Wizard's, or the Druid's, do the same thing.
The character's powers must be separate from the player's.
Gungolphus wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
The telegraphing / gotcha also depend on the severity of the trap.
There's a trip wire that triggers an alarm, can be a gotcha.
There's a pit filled with lava, should not be a gotcha.
iserith wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
Here's an example of searching a room if you don't want to read the entire (it's long) article:
Without spot checks and automatic information gathering rolls, players don’t have a way to generate solutions by rolling dice and checking their character sheets. They have to think. That’s how player skill comes into the game. Compare these two examples of exploring a room where a secret compartment is hidden behind a moose head on the wall.
The Mysterious Moose Head (Modern Style)
John the Rogue: “We open the door. Anything in the room?”
GM: “No monsters. There’s a table, a chair, and a moose head hanging on the wall.”
John the Rogue: “I search the room. My search skill is +5. I roll a 19, so that’s a 24.”
GM: “Nice roll. You discover that the moose head slides to the side, and there’s a secret panel behind it.”
The Mysterious Moose Head (Old Style)
John the Rogue: “We open the door. Anything in the room?”
GM: “No monsters. There’s a table, a chair, and a moose head hanging on the wall.”
John the Rogue: “We check the ceiling and the floor – we don’t step in yet. If there’s nothing on the ceiling and the floor, we push down on the floor with the ten foot pole, and then I step inside, cautiously.”
GM: “Nothing. You’re in the room.”
John the Rogue: “I search the room.”
GM: “What are you checking?”
John the Rogue: “I eyeball the table and chairs to see if there’s anything unusual, then I run my hands over them to see if there’s anything weird.”
GM: “Nope.”
John the Rogue: “Are the moose’s eyes following me or anything?”
GM: “No.”
John the Rogue: “I check the moose head.”
GM: “How?”
John the Rogue: “I twist the horns, look in the mouth, see if it tips sideways …”
GM: “When you check to see if it tips sideways, it slides a little to the side.”
John the Rogue: “I slide it more.”
GM: “There’s a secret compartment behind it.”
mellored wrote:
Yeah, you've already established that you're okay with gotchas. I think it's bad DMing - also established.
Telegraphing doesn't make finding the trap any easier. You keep saying that, but it's not true. The same amount of effort and potential uncertainty exists.
Think of it this way Iserith - the situation can "telegraph" the trap instead of the area description, so just because it's undetectable doesn't make it a "gotcha".
Situation: Playing in Ansbach's game.
Therefore, get out the 10-foot pole and check everything.
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
Yeah, I know what some people mean when they refer to "metagaming," but it is a stupid, silly concern. We're playing a game here. The metagame facilitates that. A player controls his character, fully and completely, and how he arrives at his character's actions is not anyone concern's but that player's. A player determines how his character acts, what he thinks, and what he says based on any process he likes. Accusing someone of "metagaming" is accusing someone of a thought crime. It's a big waste of time and energy being concerned about this made-up distinction in this hobby.
iserith wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Absolutely. Iserith, I'm not trying to pick on you - I agree with a lot of what you say and you generally give good advice. It’s these sweeping claims that you use to desperately assert your authority as a game mastering expert, “think like I do or you are a bad GM”, that completely undermine you. Quit trying so hard – don’t tell people you are an authority with your negative accusations of badwrongfun, show them you are an authority with your helpful, positive advice.
DerelictDroid wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
Dethek wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
This bit:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Does this system allowing characters to apply the player's intelligence rather than their own also apply to other stats as well?
Captain_Kobold wrote:
iserith wrote:
I'm not "allowing" anything. A player determines how his character acts, thinks, and talks. They don't have to get approval from the DM to do that and nobody has to act a particular way just because of a number on their sheet. We can hope they are consistent with their established characterization, but that is not a requirement to play the game. When describing their actions, if the DM determines the outcome is uncertain, then it's uncertain and dice come into play. If he says their action succeeds or fails, then it succeeds or fails.
iserith wrote:
Pangur wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
The thing is, that's not just some arbitrary rule I made up for my games - it's the very definition of roleplaying. I should also amend it to not just the games I run, but every RPG game I have ever seen or been a part of. Just because the player has watched Buffy on TV doesn't mean their character who has never seen or heard of vampires knows how to kill them.
DooHickey wrote:
DooHickey wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
Ansbach wrote:
iserith wrote:
Pangur wrote:
I have bookmarked and saved the contents of this thread as a good example for how gamers will fight to the bitter end to champion their way as the right way and other ways as bad DMing/Playing.
Thanks guys 
I participate in two games.
The first is very laid back, the DM goes easy on us, and its more "modern" in that we pretty much auto suceed any challenges like searching or perception and we are very abstract with what we are doing.
We walk into a room. DM requires one search roll to succeed to reveal its contents. There's always someone in the group with insanely high search roll and when six people are rolling I think we have as a group failed one search roll in five months of playing. Combat is also fairly easy. There are six players but the encounters are designed for four players and we know that there will be for the most part no added monsters to bring up the challenge rating. Also if a monster gets a lucky crit in or a player is about to go down the monsters tend to start ignoring that player and going after other players so that no one really falls and if they do they don't stay down for long.
The second game is more old school. You have to describe things more in depth. The monsters are harder. Death is a legit threat.
The two groups consist of mostly the same people. Fancy that. Both groups enjoy both styles - it scratches an "itch" that the other style cannot and we have the capacity to enjoy both equally.
Ansbach wrote:
Pangur wrote:
For what it's worth, the 5e basic rules discuss using ability scores to flesh out a PCs personality. Here is the relevant section:
Take your character’s ability scores and race into account as you flesh out his or her appearance and personality. A very strong character with low Intelligence might think and behave very differently from a very smart character with low Strength.
For example, high Strength usually corresponds with a burly or athletic body, while a character with low Strength might be scrawny or plump.
A character with high Dexterity is probably lithe and slim, while a character with low Dexterity might be either gangly and awkward or heavy and thick-fingered.
A character with high Constitution usually looks healthy, with bright eyes and abundant energy. A character with low Constitution might be sickly or frail.
A character with high Intelligence might be highly inquisitive and studious, while a character with low Intelligence might speak simply or easily forget details.
A character with high Wisdom has good judgment, empathy, and a general awareness of what’s going on. A character with low Wisdom might be absent-minded, foolhardy, or oblivious.
A character with high Charisma exudes confidence, which is usually mixed with a graceful or intimidating presence. A character with a low Charisma might come across as abrasive, inarticulate, or timid.
-- Player’s Basic Rules Version 0.2, pg. 8
Whether a DM enforces this is their prerogative, but it is encouraged by the 5e rules.
vssg
Notably, that's entirely up to the player to figure out and utilize, not something the DM is tasked with "enforcing." Note also use of the words "probably," "usually," "might be," and the like.
iserith wrote:
eleran wrote:
iserith wrote:
Sometimes you have to roll to simulate what your character knows or can do that the player can't.
Sometimes you have to roll becasue even though the player can deduce it's there maybe the unobservant, dimwitted character shouldn't.
I think advantage/disadvantage for RP that fits your character takes care of the rest.
iserith wrote:
eleran wrote:
iserith wrote:
vssg wrote:
Sure, I get that, and I take my characters ability scores into account when determining how they act in some cases. But that's something I can control because it's my character. I don't expect my fellow players to do that or demand it of them. And a DM can't control another player in that fashion either.
I'd rather not tell a player they have a harder time accomplishing something because they didn't Gump it up enough for my taste. I'd rather reward them with Inspiration when they play to their traits, ideals, bonds, or flaws instead. Carrot > stick.
iserith wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Oh, I didn't mean I'd give disadvantage if you RP counter to your character.
I meant if you invoke a flaw, that might lead to disadvantage on a roll (and inspiration, of course). Or if you RP something about your character or background that makes you more likely to succeed I'd give advantage right then and there, which is basically inspiration too, but for that task.
I'm using RP in a broad sense and not as "acting." I'm not looking for an Oscar.
Say a fighter is going through a dungeon and they've already encountered traps. He has some goblin vengeance flaw because his sister was sacrificed to Maglubiyet. I say the room they enter has a vile shrine to Maglubiyet. The rogue sees the fighter seething and says calm down and let me check it for traps, what else do I see? Before I can describe the room more the fighter says he does not delay and rushes in to smash the alter. I'd give him disadvantage/-5 on his passive perception to notice the goblins hiding in wait. I'd also give him inspiration.
grendel111111 wrote:
usgrandprix wrote:
iserith wrote:
Pangur wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Thanks for the insight. Lots of good discussion in this tread in a good refreshing way. I do have to be careful of blocking but that's on a spectrum and I'm more inclined to act on RP than metagaming for better or worse. I also describe scenes in layers depending on initial actions.
Sorry I played my part in hijacking the OP's thread. Regarding that I'd say just look for feats that make the rogue better at perception. Maybe it should just be something any rogue can do but it does go with the minor customizations in 5e that fall short of multiclassing. A fighter with an acolye backgournd, a ranger with a wizard cantrip, a rogue with some fighter's martial moves. Clerics will have the advantage in perception but sneaking is part of being in front where the traps are.
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
usgrandprix wrote:
Pangur wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
In my opinion:
A character deciding should she trust the king who want to protects his Kingdom from rebellious usurpers, or trust the rebellion who want to dethrone the bad king is a GOOD Role playing
A character deciding if she has enough intelligence to take a smart course of action is BAD Role playing
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Redbeard2 wrote: