I really wish that this spell did a bit more. The fact you can sense the trap's nature but not the location seems horribly ineffective as something to dump a spell slot into given how Investigation checks could do the same thing for free.

You think that with the spell being called "Find Traps" it would in fact, find traps for you. Sadly it does not. A better spell name would be "Hey, are there any traps in the broad direction I'm looking?".

Why this spell so bad?

Line of sight? Humans have a 114 degree field of view. And this spell has a 120 foot range.

If my calculations are right, that's 14,325 square feet of open ground. Not even including anything hanging overhead.

or 1,325 square metres for those of use who use metric.

Except there's no chance of failure, no matter how well hidden the trap is. It doesn't replace the investigation to find the traps, but it tells you for sure if there are or aren't any. An investigation check can be a crapshoot, especially if you don't have a good investigation skill. 

That is completely fair, and is probably the only saving grace. Regardless it still feels like it needs to be stronger to some degree: typically if there’s a party together, at least one person who is proficient in Investigation or Perception will catch the trap/trigger with their check. Find Traps in its current form feels like it should either be a 1st level spell or actually narrow down the location of the trap somewhat (120ft can actually be a detriment depending on the location as you need to then track where in that area it could be as you move about). 

It's pretty underwhelming for a ranger though, whose spell slots are quite precious. I think it's relatively easy to fix, just make it a ritual spell.

As a DM I got caught off guard by this spell the first time it was used.

The scenario was a open area where the party was going to be essentially ambushed by enemies laying in wait. I spent so much time trying to figure out and debating what constitutes a 'trap' that it essentially gave the whole thing away :/

For the record, can we agree that it doesn't include a ambush?

Quote from Twitchswitch >>

As a DM I got caught off guard by this spell the first time it was used.

The scenario was a open area where the party was going to be essentially ambushed by enemies laying in wait. I spent so much time trying to figure out and debating what constitutes a 'trap' that it essentially gave the whole thing away :/

For the record, can we agree that it doesn't include a ambush?

 "A trap, for the purpose of this spell, includes anything that would inflict a sudden or unexpected effect you consider harmful or undesirable, which was specifically intended as such by its creator."

I'd argue that someone laying an ambush is not "its creator"

My hatred from this spell comes from the 'line of sight'. Turns out, if your GM rules that light level impacts line of sight, then this spell is pretty much useless. All the more if they decide that dim light is not enough.
My particular single use of it was our party knowing we would be passing through an old minefield. My thoughts were, that I could get a count (as it identifies the threat type of each trap, so allowing me to count them) and then decide if we try navigating through or disarming our way through.
What I got was a ruling that line of sight required sufficient light for me to actually be able to see the locations. We got to the area that we expected the minefield at night, and by the light of a torch... I got nothing since I could barely see anywhere. So, our trap searching person just checked every tile going forward and disarmed each trap they found on our path.
I felt gyped since I could have prepared a different spell that would have been more useful.
I'm of two minds... of two minds. One, I never take this spell with a character ever again (unless it is house rule improved)... or have a character that dumps all level 2 and above slots into this spell, rendering the character useless for anything else. Probably have them paranoid and encourage the DM to kill it off with a trap at some point... if something else doesn't get it first.
If I ever DM 5e, this is one of the first spells I will mod with house rules. First of many spells I would mod, to make them actually worth using.

This actually isn't that bad of a spell considering how much info you'd get out of it in the first room of a certain dungeon. It probably should emphasize the line "...you do learn the general nature of the danger posed by a trap you sense". So, yes this is susceptible to DM interpretation, but if your DM is punishing you for picking Find Traps then ask him/her if you can swap it out or check with him/her before the campaign how Find Traps will work. Based on the line, if this all was in the room you'd know the following if casting it, falling ceiling, spike trap, arrow trap, & magical effects. This is supposed to contribute to the scene in which somebody moves into a room looks for a second and says, "Something isn't right here", and they move over to a rug, lift it up and see a pit that leads to spikes underneath the rug. This is just my interpretation of it, don't force your DM to conform to my interpretation, but inform him/her it's the same level spell as augury & is limited to line of sight. It also is still up to the DM's interpretation how vague they want to be. Magical effects can range from an alarm to a sphere of annihilation or glyph of warding. Interesting thing though, if the player has enough castings of the spell, they can use it to find roughly where the traps are by restricting their line of sight, with their arm and have an increasingly tighter focus on an area after each casting. That's only really useful for parties with an insanely high amount of disposable slots though. To those that say investigation replaces this, in my opinion your DM is giving investigation too much power. The best example of what investigation is meant to do is this:
DM: "You found the secret door with a perception check, but you are unsure of how to open it."
Darius: "I try to see if it looks feasible to pry open the secret door with a crowbar."
DM: "Roll investigation."
Darius passes the check
DM: "The door seems too thick to be moved with a crowbar, but you notice the hinges seem to have some sort of mechanism to them that could be triggered with tools."

Quote from Esperologist >>

 if your GM rules that light level impacts line of sight

 I'd call that unfair.  Line of sight isn't "visible in given light", it's "clear line of view to".  So, a trap behind a rock (out of clear line of view) isn't detected, & a trap that drops a net out of a tree is, no matter how damn dark it is.

If this spell was called Sense Traps, it would make sense that you don't learn the exact location of each trap. But it's not called Sense Traps, it's called Find Traps. And a spell with the word Find in its name that doesn't give you a location is bloody ludicrous.

underwhelming for most people, but thematic for a ranger -- especially one with goblinoids as a Favored Enemy. I don't LIKE the wording of this spell, but at the same time I think many tables have punitive or inflexible dms that don't uphold the *spirit* of the spell. I don't mean that they should actually say "that thing over there is a trap", because the spell doesn't say that it locates the trap... but by learning the 'general nature' you can infer things.

If you learn that the general nature of the trap is "a crushing pendulum" then you can use that information for advantage on your investigation.. or at the very least keep to the sides of the room. If the trap comes from your side it won't have momentum and if it comes from the far side you might have more time to get out of the way for an easier Dexterity save (via advantage  due to foreknowledge or just the extra distance the trap must travel).

I think some dm's also take 'line of sight' too literally and deny that it finds traps inside objects or under tiles -- if the trap is *triggered* by interacting with an object then that object is PART of the trap.

Just been discussing this with a cleric in my current Oota campaign.
I think this spell is very weak for a level 2 Spell Slot.

We're thinking of it granting advantage for any investigation checks related to Trap Finding if the spell detects anything (as the person looking knows there is something there) or essentially giving them "Reliable Talent" and make any Dice Roll Below a 10, a 10.

I imagine a vacationer using this to avoid tourist traps. As a DM I see no RAW issue, though maybe not as intended.

Quote from varg1 >>

Quote from Esperologist >>

 if your GM rules that light level impacts line of sight

 I'd call that unfair.  Line of sight isn't "visible in given light", it's "clear line of view to".  So, a trap behind a rock (out of clear line of view) isn't detected, & a trap that drops a net out of a tree is, no matter how damn dark it is.

 The spell is working with line of sight and ties with cover and obscurity mechanics; so actually yes, if its totally dark and you don't have dark vision you can't see the trap and thus the spell fails to find the trap. Magical darkness, regular darkness, heavy fog, and dense foliage all block line of sight.

Plus it's the DM's call whether the trap is actually within "line of sight"; a trap with it's trigger mechanisms in a room behind a secret door wouldn't be detected because you can't see any components of that trap until you open that secret door and proceed inside. The same would be true if you look into a room and there isn't enough light to provide sight. In a lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, creatures have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. The DM might actually require you to make a perception check to see the trap for the spell to work.

My fix: "For the duration, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10 for any Wisdom (Perception) checks made to spot traps or natural hazards within 120 feet of the place you cast the spell. You also sense the general nature of the danger posed by traps and get a +5 bonus to ability checks made to determine how to disarm, disable or circumvent them."

It's literally insultingly bad. I would rather trigger the traps than cast this spell. The spell itself is a worse trap than whatever you're encountering.

If I were using mundane means to search for traps and my DM responded in the way this spell responds, I would ask what I had done to offend them.

"I search for traps!" - "You find traps."

"Can I disable them?" - "You'd have to find them first."

"...Where are they?" - "You don't know."

Before casting it, you had to stand there and say, "I bet there's traps up ahead. If not, I'm about to waste a spell. Tally ho!" Then consider what happens after successfully detecting traps with this spell: you either quit the adventure, or you mundanely search for these traps using Investigation or Perception, which you would have done anyway without it. This skill roll will still determine whether you trigger the traps.

At least without casting it, you could still have a 2nd level spell slot to deal with the aftermath. Would you theoretically be upset by a trap that burned your spell slots when triggered? If you prepare this spell, you've already triggered one.