Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Southernskies 03-23-07, 06:22 AM	FAQ pg62: Alarm spell not a trap If this ruling is used, we might as well hand in our characters now. Every magical trap that uses an alarm spell can never be detected or disabled by the rogue in time. To disable a trap, you have to find it first. To find the trap that uses an alarm spell as a trigger, you must be within 10 ft to make a Search check (PH pg81), which means you are already inside the 20 ft radius trigger of the spell. This covers most of the DMG example traps (including the wail of the banshee trap).
ezreal2001 03-23-07, 06:34 AM	FAQ pg62: Alarm spell not a trap If this ruling is used, we might as well hand in our characters now. Every magical trap that uses an alarm spell can never be detected or disabled by the rogue in time. To disable a trap, you have to find it first. To find the trap that uses an alarm spell as a trigger, you must be within 10 ft to make a Search check (PH pg81), which means you are already inside the 20 ft radius trigger of the spell. This covers most of the DMG example traps (including the wail of the banshee trap). That'll teach them tha pesky rogues to rely ontheir class abilities. Well while the alarm spell has always been out of reach of a Rogue's Traps ability - This interperation will certainly make it harder for Rogues
Maesto 03-23-07, 07:39 AM	It certainly makes Vatic Gaze worth taking. But then again, I'm fairly sure that nothing has actually changed...
Southernskies 03-23-07, 07:47 AM	Until the ruling, you used to be able to detect magical traps with a Search check before they went off. It is now impossible to find them without having an active detect magic running as you trigger them before you are allowed to make a search check; which can't be done in a large dungeon (whereas the rogue could search all day without duration).
Madfox11 03-23-07, 08:12 AM	You do realize that a trap is closer to a magical item than the actual spell? Just because a cloak of resistance requires the cantrip resistance does not mean all cloaks only provide a +1 resistance bonus to saves, or a shocking sword can shoot lightning bolts. Especially since no trap with the alarm spell as a trigger actually triggers when a PC is within 20 ft (unless specifically stated so). It tends to be tied to a very specific area which more often tha not is much smaller than an ordinary alarm spell. A trap with an alarm spell as the requirement of the trigger can still be found and still be disabled just as a targeted dispel on a magic item would disable it for 1d4 rounds and not permanently.
Arvagor 03-23-07, 08:48 AM	Agreed (w/Madfox11)... An alarm spell incorporated into a trap is detectable and able to be disabled because you're not trying to detect and disable the alarm spell -- you're detecting and disabling the trap in which the alarm spell is incorporated. That's why a trap still has a Search and Disable Device DC...
Potato Weasel 03-23-07, 08:55 AM	Actually, once alarm is attached to a trap (that is, made into a part of a trap) it's no longer the spell alarm, its alarm as part of a trap, and only detecting within the confines of the trap, allowing it to be disarmed and detected. It's the same as a rogue not being able to recognise a silent still finger of death being cast, but still being able to detect it as a trap. Well, thats how I see it, as once its part of a permanent trap, theres no way that you can define it as anything else but a trap, they just wanted to clarify the spell by itself as normal. Otherwise you'll have to give in and buy yourself a cat that always stays 10-80 feet in front of you at all times.
awroe 03-23-07, 09:19 AM	Otherwise you'll have to give in and buy yourself a cat that always stays 10-80 feet in front of you at all times. That's a very long cat :)
Zanzibax 03-23-07, 09:19 AM	Agreed (w/Madfox11)... An alarm spell incorporated into a trap is detectable and able to be disabled because you're not trying to detect and disable the alarm spell -- you're detecting and disabling the trap in which the alarm spell is incorporated. That's why a trap still has a Search and Disable Device DC... The FAQ is clear. Your desire for the above it unclear and does not seem to rely upon any ruling or have any documentation to back it.
smerwin29 03-23-07, 09:30 AM	The FAQ is clear . . . but just about the alarm spell. The question in the FAQ was specific to the alarm spell, not to traps in general. Avagor and MadFox are spot on with their posts. Can a rogue disable an alarm spell? No. Can a rogue disable a trap that incorporates the alarm spell? Absolutely. Always could, always will. That's why traps have a DC for finding and disabling in their description. Just because the sage didn't specifically say, "This ruling on the alarm spell doesn't include traps using the alarm spell" doesn't mean it does.
awroe 03-23-07, 09:35 AM	The FAQ is clear. Your desire for the above it unclear and does not seem to rely upon any ruling or have any documentation to back it. The FAQ is clear about the Alarm spell. If I cast it a rogue can not disable it. The FAQ makes no mention of the Wail of the Banshee trap. It is explicitly stated in the PHB that a rogue can disable magical traps without setting them off. The Wail of the Banshee trap has a Search DC to find it. Thus you can find it without setting it off by searching in any square which is trapped.
Zanzibax 03-23-07, 09:35 AM	The FAQ is clear . . . but just about the alarm spell. The question in the FAQ was specific to the alarm spell, not to traps in general. Avagor and MadFox are spot on with their posts. Can a rogue disable an alarm spell? No. Can a rogue disable a trap that incorporates the alarm spell? Absolutely. Always could, always will. That's why traps have a DC for finding and disabling in their description. Just because the sage didn't specifically say, "This ruling on the alarm spell doesn't include traps using the alarm spell" doesn't mean it does. So the alarm spell wouldn't go off 10' before the rogue could be close enough to search for it?? Or...the warded area...now part of a trap...can be detected 20' from the trap itself...as that's the closest anyone can get to it to trigger it?? I tend to take the opposite point of view...The ruling on the alarm spell applies to the alarm spell...why can we assume that it doesn't apply when it is included as part of a trap? I think it would need that exception clearly writ.
Zanzibax 03-23-07, 09:36 AM	The FAQ is clear about the Alarm spell. If I cast it a rogue can not disable it. The FAQ makes no mention of the Wail of the Banshee trap. It is explicitly stated in the PHB that a rogue can disable magical traps without setting them off. The Wail of the Banshee trap has a Search DC to find it. Thus you can find it without setting it off by searching in any square which is trapped. I can accept that, thanks.
blood_kite 03-23-07, 12:21 PM	The proximity trigger used most often for magic device traps is the alarm spell. Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger can have an area that’s no larger than the area the trap is meant to protect. This certainly reads to me like you can get within 10' of the area a trap covers and make a Search check to find it.
Japangirl 03-23-07, 04:08 PM	There are two uses of the Alarm spell being discussed. 1) Alarm cast as a warning. Not a trap or a trap trigger, not findable by a rogue with a Search check and not disable-able with Disable Device. It just does its Alarm thing of going off as a siren or giving the person who cast it a mental warning. 2) Alarm as the trigger to a trap. This makes it part of a trap, thus findable by a Search check. It is also disable-able as part of disabling the main trap, whatever it might be. That, at least, is what I think the FAQ is saying and it also means that rogues don't get completely hosed by the ruling.
Mommy was an Orc 03-26-07, 12:30 AM	Really bad FAQ ruling. Two alarm spells('Active abjuration spells') right next to each other for 24 hours or more 'create barely visible energy fluctuations. These fluctuations give you a +4 bonus on Search checks to locate such abjuration spells.' So a Rogue can clearly, by RAW, detect an alarm spell with a +4 bonus to the Search check in some situations. Which the FAQ now contradicts.
Arvagor 03-26-07, 08:24 AM	Really bad FAQ ruling. Two alarm spells('Active abjuration spells') right next to each other for 24 hours or more 'create barely visible energy fluctuations. These fluctuations give you a +4 bonus on Search checks to locate such abjuration spells.' So a Rogue can clearly, by RAW, detect an alarm spell with a +4 bonus to the Search check in some situations. Which the FAQ now contradicts.The FAQ contradicts nothing. The quote you provide, from the Search skill description, has nothing to do with traps -- the energy fluctuations from two abjuration spells would be visible to anyone, and anyone could Search and find them, rogue or no. (Note that the passage you quoted is not in the restrictions on Search for rogues only). The FAQ says nothing about whether a rogue could find the alarm spells in such a situation (and in fact, does not deny them the ability to do so), only whether they could use Disable Device to disable it.
Zanzibax 03-26-07, 09:14 AM	This is confusing because a warning is often a trap. It seems that we can have a warning, and this is somehow differentiated from a trap. So if we cast an alarm spell at a random spot in a dungeon...not a trap...but put it near something like a heavily snow-covered mountainside...and bingo...it's a trap and can be dispelled?? I dunno. There are two uses of the Alarm spell being discussed. 1) Alarm cast as a warning. Not a trap or a trap trigger, not findable by a rogue with a Search check and not disable-able with Disable Device. It just does its Alarm thing of going off as a siren or giving the person who cast it a mental warning. 2) Alarm as the trigger to a trap. This makes it part of a trap, thus findable by a Search check. It is also disable-able as part of disabling the main trap, whatever it might be. That, at least, is what I think the FAQ is saying and it also means that rogues don't get completely hosed by the ruling.
Madfox11 03-26-07, 10:02 AM	So if we cast an alarm spell at a random spot in a dungeon...not a trap...but put it near something like a heavily snow-covered mountainside...and bingo...it's a trap and can be dispelled?? No, the mountainside example is still NOT a trap it is just a side effect of the regular spell. For it to function as a trap it has to be part of a trap as defined in the DMG and not the dictionary, which is more like a magical item and costs xp, and gp to create.
Mommy was an Orc 03-26-07, 12:11 PM	The FAQ contradicts nothing. The quote you provide, from the Search skill description, has nothing to do with traps -- the energy fluctuations from two abjuration spells would be visible to anyone, and anyone could Search and find them, rogue or no. (Note that the passage you quoted is not in the restrictions on Search for rogues only). You're getting a +4 to your normal search check to find the alarm spell. Only if you can find abjuration spells in the first place is it possible to get a +4 to your check. So, no, a non-rogue cannot find the barely visible energy fluctuations. If a Rogue can't find them, then no one can(at least not with Search) The FAQ says nothing about whether a rogue could find the alarm spells in such a situation (and in fact, does not deny them the ability to do so), only whether they could use Disable Device to disable it. The only DC that we know of for finding abjuration spells is the DC 25+spell level for magical spell traps. So are you therefore saying that 2 alarm spells next to each other constitute a trap, but 1 alarm spell by itself does not? I'd never allow such a dumb ruling in a home campaign. It would be along the lines of saying in a d20 Modern game that Rogues can disarm a nuclear bomb trap(as in the TV show 24), but not household burglar alarms.
Samwise 03-26-07, 02:30 PM	For a snow covered mountainside: It isn't a trap. It might be a natural hazard, but unless the alarm spell somehow triggers it, it is in no way a trap. At best, some theoretical avalanche might trigger the alarm, but just being near each other makes neither one a trap. For detecting two closely situated alarm spells with search: Just because you get +4 to find two closely located abjuration spells does not mean you can find alarm spells that are not connected to traps. The description of search includes a very specific list of spells that it can detect, and alarm is not one of them. By that reasoning, I should also get a +4 to search for someone wearing a ring of protection and a cloak of resistance for more than 24 hours since they have active abjuration spells on them. Of course, they aren't traps, but then neither is the alarm spell. The FAQ is correct. Let's not add new rules that aren't needed.
Mommy was an Orc 03-26-07, 03:31 PM	By that reasoning, I should also get a +4 to search for someone wearing a ring of protection and a cloak of resistance for more than 24 hours since they have active abjuration spells on them. Of course, they aren't traps, but then neither is the alarm spell. And the rules where you can use Search to find a person are where exactly? And I'm not talking about their tracks. The rules specifically give you +4 to search for active abjuration spells that are near each other for 24 hours. It creates 'barely visible energy fluctuations'. The writer clearly intended that you be able to find such abjuration spells. If 2 alarm spells are cast next to each other for a period of more than 24 hours, they create such energy fluctuations. There is no DC listed for such an action. For the FAQ to blithely argue that you can ignore the rules we do have because alarm isn't listed as being a trap is nonsensical. Sepia Snake Sigil is a spell that isn't listed under Search and there's a DC to detect a Sepia Snake Sigil Trap(and it isn't a magic item, either because there's no XP cost)
Samwise 03-26-07, 03:41 PM	And the rules where you can use Search to find a person are where exactly? And I'm not talking about their tracks. And the rules where you can use search to find the alarm spells are where exactly? The rules specifically give you +4 to search for active abjuration spells that are near each other for 24 hours. It creates 'barely visible energy fluctuations'. The writer clearly intended that you be able to find such abjuration spells. If 2 alarm spells are cast next to each other for a period of more than 24 hours, they create such energy fluctuations. There is no DC listed for such an action. Oh well, there you go. I won't search for the person, just his magic items. :rolleyes: For the FAQ to blithely argue that you can ignore the rules we do have because alarm isn't listed as being a trap is nonsensical. Sepia Snake Sigil is a spell that isn't listed under Search and there's a DC to detect a Sepia Snake Sigil Trap(and it isn't a magic item, either because there's no XP cost) Ignore what rules? Alarm isn't a trap. No DC is given to detect it or disable it. You are the one ignoring the rules and trying to create a new one, changing the spell into a trap, in order to be able to find it with Search and disable it.
Zanzibax 03-26-07, 04:14 PM	No, the mountainside example is still NOT a trap it is just a side effect of the regular spell. For it to function as a trap it has to be part of a trap as defined in the DMG and not the dictionary, which is more like a magical item and costs xp, and gp to create. Wonderful...now I've given that set of corrupt writers in LG the perfect means for slaughtering a party. :mad: Without regard for their APL. "It isn't a trap!" *sigh*
Zanzibax 03-26-07, 04:16 PM	For a snow covered mountainside: It isn't a trap. It might be a natural hazard, but unless the alarm spell somehow triggers it, it is in no way a trap. At best, some theoretical avalanche might trigger the alarm, but just being near each other makes neither one a trap. The alarm spell is placed purposefully to trigger an avalanche. This is the context of my post.
Mommy was an Orc 03-26-07, 05:31 PM	And the rules where you can use search to find the alarm spells are where exactly? Under Search? Alarm is an abjuration spell. Two Alarm spells next to each other for 24 hours therefore create 'barely visible energy fluctuations' and are clearly findable with Search. The DC is in question; that they can be found by Search is not. That the FAQ now says otherwise is writing rules. Oh well, there you go. I won't search for the person, just his magic items. :rolleyes: You can make a search check within 10' of you as a full-round action, you have to pick the 5'x5' square, and it provokes. Not entirely sure what possible use you can imagine for this that isn't done far more easily in some other way. Ignore what rules? Alarm isn't a trap. No DC is given to detect it or disable it. You are the one ignoring the rules and trying to create a new one, changing the spell into a trap, in order to be able to find it with Search and disable it. Sepia Snake Sigil actually says it isn't detectable by normal observation. Yet the DMG is happy to allow one to detect Sepia Snake Sigil with a search check. I'm pretty sure the intent of Monte was to allow Rogues to find and disarm Alarm or he simply didn't think it through. If he felt otherwise, he would have given them some basic 'detect spells' ability - when a 20th level Rogue doesn't have enough skill to get past a 1st level Wizard, you can be pretty sure that wasn't intent, but someone misinterpreting the rules.
mlund 03-26-07, 05:47 PM	So a Rogue can't detect an Alarm Spell unto itself. On its own it is not considered to be a Trap. I do not see anything prohibiting a Rogue from detecting any Trap that happens to involve an Alarm Spell in its Crafting (such as using it as a proximity trigger). The Trap is its own entity no matter what spells make up part of the device. So Alarm by itself = not a trap Trap w/ Alarm trigger = a trap Is there anything more to this I'm not seeing here? - Marty Lund
Samwise 03-26-07, 11:12 PM	The alarm spell is placed purposefully to trigger an avalanche. This is the context of my post. An alarm spell set to trigger an avalanche is a trap, and can be detected as such. Given the volume of the audible version of the alarm spell, I would never consider it sufficient or reasonable to expect it could trigger an avalanche incidentally. (It sounds like a hand bell, can be heard clearly within 60 feet, and faintly at 180 feet, and lasts for 1 round.)
Samwise 03-26-07, 11:36 PM	Under Search? Alarm is an abjuration spell. Two Alarm spells next to each other for 24 hours therefore create 'barely visible energy fluctuations' and are clearly findable with Search. The DC is in question; that they can be found by Search is not. No, it is not clearly findable with Search. It must be two abjurations, within 10 feet of each, for at least 24 hours, and it must be a trap you can detect. That the FAQ now says otherwise is writing rules. The FAQ is adding no rules. There is no provision in the alarm spell to find it by using Search. You can't find it. Sepia Snake Sigil actually says it isn't detectable by normal observation. Yet the DMG is happy to allow one to detect Sepia Snake Sigil with a search check. Because the DMG turns it into a generic trap instead of the text specific conjuration spell that it is. I'm pretty sure the intent of Monte was to allow Rogues to find and disarm Alarm or he simply didn't think it through. If he felt otherwise, he would have given them some basic 'detect spells' ability - when a 20th level Rogue doesn't have enough skill to get past a 1st level Wizard, you can be pretty sure that wasn't intent, but someone misinterpreting the rules. Was it? Why? Note that even under your example of combined fields, there would have to be two alarm spells within 10 feet of each other for there be anything to detect. It would have to be a pretty stupid wizard to do that. And that is quite a leap, assuming that a rogue must be able to bypass every spell of a wizard. Does this 20th level rogue also have the ability to force the 1st level wizard to make a normal (non-touch) attack roll in order to hit with his magic missiles? Does he get to use Disable Device to break the wizard's mage armor spell? If WotC feels the intent was that the alarm spell could be detected as a trap they can errata the spell. Until then, the FAQ is not the place to write new rules.
Madfox11 03-27-07, 07:15 AM	Wonderful...now I've given that set of corrupt writers in LG the perfect means for slaughtering a party. :mad: Without regard for their APL. "It isn't a trap!" *sigh* Of course it is a trap as far as ELs go, and definitely as far as the dictionary definition go. It is NOT a trap as defined in the DMG which is much more akin to a special kind of item/magic item. Just compare it to a wondrous magical item that generates a permanent spell effect (e.g. belt of giant strength +4). If it is dispeled, the effect is surpressed for 1d4 rounds while if it was cast by a caster the same spell (bull's strength) is permanently removed. Besides, I agree with Samwise that if the alarm spell generates enough sound to trigger the avalanche, it would have been triggered long ago either by the PCs own noise or some random event. Mind you, I don't agree with the sage in this particular case. It is just that some people are panicking a bit too quickly ;)
TWG_Prometheus 03-27-07, 09:22 AM	I'm not sure I see what the problem is. An Alarm spell cast as a daily spell isn't a trap. No problem. A trap that uses an Alarm spell is a trap. No problem. Getting close enough to it to disable it without triggering an Alarm may be tricky but that's what Alarm is for. Rogues and other trapfinders aren't meant to have Immunity to Traps simply by maximizing or otherwise monkeying their Search and Disable Device skills, and Alarm does what it does. Arguing that the 20th level Rogue doesn't stand a prayer against Alarm is inane as well. If they really haven't invested in the right magic items to beat Alarm by their level and/or don't travel with an Arcanist that can handle that task, then they deserve to be detected by a 1st level spell. A grey bag of tricks can handle alarm if you trigger it with a summoned monster and flee the scene or otherwise set up an ambush before the baddies arrive. Two Alarm spells set together may or may not be Searchable, but that doesn't make them a trap. No problem. Incidentally, there's no way on earth Alarm could trigger an avalanche and be viable. As pointed out above, if Alarm could do it, (unlikely) the avalanche would just slide down on its own before long.
Mommy was an Orc 03-27-07, 10:01 AM	Rogues and other trapfinders aren't meant to have Immunity to Traps simply by maximizing or otherwise monkeying their Search and Disable Device skills, and Alarm does what it does. Arguing that the 20th level Rogue doesn't stand a prayer against Alarm is inane as well. If they really haven't invested in the right magic items to beat Alarm by their level and/or don't travel with an Arcanist that can handle that task, then they deserve to be detected by a 1st level spell. A Rogue 10 or so can disarm an Energy Drain/Alarm trap without the use of magic items. If you want to argue that it should be harder for them to auto-disarm high level spell traps that someone paid over 124K to install, you've got my sympathy. That doesn't mean a 1st level spell cast by a Wizard 1 should stop them.
Southernskies 03-27-07, 10:29 AM	Wonderful...now I've given that set of corrupt writers in LG the perfect means for slaughtering a party. :mad: Without regard for their APL. "It isn't a trap!" *sigh* Already seen this in a regional adventure... not pretty. The original purpose of the post is really regarding the trigger mechanism of magical traps. Traps have a trigger mechanism that varies by type; some touch, some triggers are built into the spell (sepia snake sigil, explosive runes etc), some use another spell as the trigger (alarm, true seeing). The problem here is that if you can no longer find the alarm spell that is the trigger for the trap (which has a 20 ft detection range) then being able to search for the trap itself is irrelevant, as the alarm has already triggered it by the time you get within 10 ft to make the search check (probably wiping out a large chunk of party resources or TPK at higher levels). There are ways around an alarm trigger (invisibility works fine there), but you have to find it first and the useful spells (such as detect magic and invisibility) don't last all day.
Madfox11 03-27-07, 01:12 PM	The problem here is that if you can no longer find the alarm spell that is the trigger for the trap (which has a 20 ft detection range) then being able to search for the trap itself is irrelevant, as the alarm has already triggered it by the time you get within 10 ft to make the search check (probably wiping out a large chunk of party resources or TPK at higher levels). Even if an alarm spell is used as the trigger, that still does not extend 20 ft. away from the trap as is written in the DMG...
Zanzibax 03-27-07, 01:15 PM	Already seen this in a regional adventure... not pretty. The original purpose of the post is really regarding the trigger mechanism of magical traps. Traps have a trigger mechanism that varies by type; some touch, some triggers are built into the spell (sepia snake sigil, explosive runes etc), some use another spell as the trigger (alarm, true seeing). The problem here is that if you can no longer find the alarm spell that is the trigger for the trap (which has a 20 ft detection range) then being able to search for the trap itself is irrelevant, as the alarm has already triggered it by the time you get within 10 ft to make the search check (probably wiping out a large chunk of party resources or TPK at higher levels). There are ways around an alarm trigger (invisibility works fine there), but you have to find it first and the useful spells (such as detect magic and invisibility) don't last all day. Apparently...if an alarm spell is incorporated into a trap, it's detection range drops to 10' and it becomes detectable as a trap. If someone wrote it up as you say...it's wrong...
Mommy was an Orc 03-27-07, 04:12 PM	Even if an alarm spell is used as the trigger, that still does not extend 20 ft. away from the trap as is written in the DMG... The option is to shrink the alarm size - it isn't mandatory. 'can have', not 'has' or 'must have'
Samwise 03-28-07, 01:33 AM	The option is to shrink the alarm size - it isn't mandatory. 'can have', not 'has' or 'must have' Yes it is mandatory: DMG page 68, Trigger, Proximity, 2nd paragraph "Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger can have an area that's no larger than the area the trap is meant to protect." The "that's no larger" part makes it a hard limit. And I expect if you had a trap with a larger area than the alarm spell normally covers, it would actually mean the size would be larger.
blood_kite 03-29-07, 11:02 AM	The option is to shrink the alarm size - it isn't mandatory. 'can have', not 'has' or 'must have' Yes it is mandatory: DMG page 68, Trigger, Proximity, 2nd paragraph "Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger can have an area that's no larger than the area the trap is meant to protect." The "that's no larger" part makes it a hard limit. And I expect if you had a trap with a larger area than the alarm spell normally covers, it would actually mean the size would be larger. I would like to provide an example of why saying the alarm spell will always have a 20' radius when incorporated into a trap is bad: Burning Hands Trap: CR 2; magic device; proximity trigger (alarm); automatic reset; spell effect (burning hands, 1st-level wizard, 1d4 fire, DC 11 Reflex save half damage); Search DC 26; Disable Device DC 26. Cost: 500 gp, 40 XP. Burning Hands Trap: CR 3; magic device; proximity trigger (alarm); automatic reset; spell effect (burning hands, 5th-level wizard, 5d4 fire, DC 11 Reflex save half damage); Search DC 26; Disable Device DC 26. Cost: 2,500 gp, 200 XP. As soon as your within 20' of the trap it goes off, and makes a cone 15' long. Now useful only as a deterent.
Mommy was an Orc 03-29-07, 11:52 AM	I would like to provide an example of why saying the alarm spell will always have a 20' radius when incorporated into a trap is bad: As soon as your within 20' of the trap it goes off, and makes a cone 15' long. Now useful only as a deterent. Actually, neither of us are saying that. I'm saying that you have the option to set the alarm radius to something other than 20', but 20' is still an option. 'Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger can have an area that's no larger than the area the trap is meant to protect.' is not: 'Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger must have an area that's no larger than the area the trap is meant to protect.' 'Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger has an area that's no larger than the area the trap is meant to protect.' 'Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger has the same area as the area the trap is meant to protect.' There's obvious reasons for doing this - if you have a Wail of the Banshee trap, you don't want it going off when only the 1st rank of a group of tomb robbers moves within 30' of it. You want them to move closer, then kill them. Also, you can bypass Sam's interpretation easily enough - you make a Permanent Alarm spell and set the trap's trigger to the sound of the alarm spell. Now the radius of the alarm is 20', but the radius of the trap is actually zero. Now no pure Rogue can detect the trap without the use of magical devices.
Samwise 03-29-07, 01:42 PM	Actually, neither of us are saying that. I'm saying that you have the option to set the alarm radius to something other than 20', but 20' is still an option. 'Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger can have an area that's no larger than the area the trap is meant to protect.' is not: 'Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger must have an area that's no larger than the area the trap is meant to protect.' 'Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger has an area that's no larger than the area the trap is meant to protect.' 'Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger has the same area as the area the trap is meant to protect.' Actually, it is the first. Can have = is allowed to have. It is not the other two because it is possible to want the trigger to activate only after people have gotten closer so that more are within the area of effect. There's obvious reasons for doing this - if you have a Wail of the Banshee trap, you don't want it going off when only the 1st rank of a group of tomb robbers moves within 30' of it. You want them to move closer, then kill them. That is the reason the area is not absolutely set to the area affected by the trap. No, the obvious reason it can not affect a greater area is game balance. If the limit didn't apply, you wouldn't be able to detect the trap before setting off the trigger, and you would be able to set up summoning traps that could never be disarmed. Also, you can bypass Sam's interpretation easily enough - you make a Permanent Alarm spell and set the trap's trigger to the sound of the alarm spell. Now the radius of the alarm is 20', but the radius of the trap is actually zero. Now no pure Rogue can detect the trap without the use of magical devices. Except that isn't in the rules for designing traps. If you want to change those rules as well, then ask WotC to change them. Until then, that doesn't work. As such, I'd put it in the same category as trying to use a magic mouth as a trigger - you can't.
Hariman 04-02-07, 07:05 PM	Agreed (w/Madfox11)... An alarm spell incorporated into a trap is detectable and able to be disabled because you're not trying to detect and disable the alarm spell -- you're detecting and disabling the trap in which the alarm spell is incorporated. That's why a trap still has a Search and Disable Device DC... Ding ding... Traps that rely on the alarm spell have DCs to find them. The fact that the alarm spell (And isn't a trap) is used doesn't automatically negate that it is part of a TRAP. So the search and disable device DCs stand unaffected. But rogues will still set off alarm spells that call the guards.
KarmaInferno 04-03-07, 07:00 PM	Yes it is mandatory: DMG page 68, Trigger, Proximity, 2nd paragraph "Unlike when the spell is cast, an alarm spell used as a trigger can have an area that's no larger than the area the trap is meant to protect." This actually means that the FAQ ruling about not being able to detect the Alarm spell that's being used as a trigger still applies. It's just that as part of a trap, the alarm spell no longer has the range it normally has, so you can get close enough to detect and disable the trap without coming into range of the Alarm. So, you have a trap with an Alarm spell trigger protecting a square. The rogue actively searching comes within 10 feet of the trapped square, and assuming a high enough roll, detects it. The rogue can now disable the trap. The Alarm trigger is not affected by the disarm, but the trap itself no longer works. Rogue crossed the formerly trapped square. The Alarm trigger goes off, but to no avail, as the trap is non-functional. -karma
_metz_ 04-04-07, 02:53 AM	get a wand of summon exploding badgers... But seriously, if alarm is part of a trap, then it becoems able to be searched and disabled, technically. Ts jsut it covers too big an area... I love/hate alarm...
JJeff 04-04-07, 04:46 AM	So. now it comes down to what constitutes "Part of the trap". A trap that triggers when someone comes into the alarm range - Part of trap An alarm that just alerts some one to your prescence - Not part of trap An alarm that alerts an invisible servant, which has been given the instruction to pull a simple level at the sound of the alarm going off, thus activating a trap to go off on the PCs - .... Errr.....