Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LGMoses 05-30-07, 12:40 PM	Wooo, last night we played a module with some deadly traps in it. The rogue missed the trap check for the last and most deadly trap and we lost 2.5 characters. OUCH. I guess that was one of the mods I'd been hearing about with the deadly deadly traps!
_metz_ 05-30-07, 12:58 PM	Wooo, last night we played a module with some deadly traps in it. The rogue missed the trap check for the last and most deadly trap and we lost 2.5 characters. OUCH. I guess that was one of the mods I'd been hearing about with the deadly deadly traps! I won't lie, Having an 8th level rogue character, I like traps. It validates his existence as a proper trap finder (with so many undead/constructs/limited encounters where mod writers don't like traps around etc, poor rogues get a hard beat in LG compared to a home game) However I prefer traps that a rogue can find if they are reasonably skilled, not some of the more ludicrous traps I have seen in some mods... 1 vote for validating trapfinding core PHB class rogues! yay! 1 vote for not putting in traps that rogues can't deal with (e.g: non scaling ones)!
Timlagor 05-30-07, 01:04 PM	Good to hear ... though that does sound a bit excessively deadly. Are these Cores or more local?
Lomiat 05-30-07, 03:47 PM	I won't lie, Having an 8th level rogue character, I like traps. It validates his existence as a proper trap finder (with so many undead/constructs/limited encounters where mod writers don't like traps around etc, poor rogues get a hard beat in LG compared to a home game) However I prefer traps that a rogue can find if they are reasonably skilled, not some of the more ludicrous traps I have seen in some mods... 1 vote for validating trapfinding core PHB class rogues! yay! 1 vote for not putting in traps that rogues can't deal with (e.g: non scaling ones)! I completely agree. I think the adventures should be written so that if the party has a decent trap-finding rogue, they SHOULD have a better than average chance of finding and disabling the traps. In fact, the best traps should be stupidly easy if the party has a rogue and ridiculously lethal if they don't. (Well, okay, maybe not "ridiculously lethal" but certainly not the sort of things that the barbarian soaks up and the cleric immediately heals with an itsy-bitsy spell.) Furthermore, I believe that traps should split parties and set up subsequent encounters. And more often than not, they should be placed somewhere that makes sense -- rather than in the middle of nowhere, where even the trap-finding rogue wouldn't bother to search. Someone goes through the effort of creating the trap, supposedly, so you would think it would be designed to do something to aid that person (or bad guy), rather than just provide a 6-second delay along an adventuring party's walk. I think if more authors wrote good traps into their adventures we'd once again see a purpose for rogues -- other than as comic relief. (And yes, I know there are good combat rogues, but it seems the majority of them aren't very good trap rogues.)
GenghisBob 05-30-07, 05:43 PM	My Rogue goes, "I take 10 for search 48 for traps"...... He still has his rope around his waist so his body can be reocvered without puting other party members at risk... At his APL there should be no traps he missess ... but hey there are. it seems some writers think a Rog jacking his Search for 48 take 10 result is wrong or cheese. <Shrug> I know them. They should not expect mercy when i DM their PCs. last month we even had the take 10 hitting 53 but we still missed a trap. You just know missing a trap at those DCs means multiple save or die rolls.
Lomiat 05-30-07, 06:07 PM	My Rogue goes, "I take 10 for search 48 for traps"...... He still has his rope around his waist so his body can be reocvered without puting other party members at risk... At his APL there should be no traps he missess ... but hey there are. it seems some writers think a Rog jacking his Search for 48 take 10 result is wrong or cheese. <Shrug> I know them. They should not expect mercy when i DM their PCs. last month we even had the take 10 hitting 53 but we still missed a trap. You just know missing a trap at those DCs means multiple save or die rolls. Failing to find traps on a DC 53 Search check? That's obscene. It's the author's job to challenge a party and to reward good character builds and play. Any author can create a trap that's impossible to find and/or disable, but what's the point? I still think the campaign should feature a course: "Writing to Incorporate Rogues 101." ;) In the meantime, for those dedicated trap rogues looking to contribute something to the party, I guess there's always comic relief...
Britt 05-30-07, 06:26 PM	I almost always have traps in my mods, but they aren't tricky or deadly or anything... MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
wooti 05-30-07, 06:58 PM	There are rules in the DMG about the DC of search checks for traps. Writers that have a DC 40+ are usually ignoring the rules. Sure have the trap scale with apl but follow the rules please, and editors please check the authors maths.
JJeff 05-30-07, 09:02 PM	I have run a Core that the Search/Disable DCs of the traps are in the high 20s at APL 2 and progresses from there. I allowed innovative trap-disabling using furniture by the party to get across or the Level 1s would just ...*sigh*
DroidTrooper 05-30-07, 11:17 PM	The problem I see with traps is the great varience in potential bonuses. My first LG character was a rogue, and I really though if I had a high intelligence, max ranks in disable device, master work tools and a skill focus I should be suceeding on most disabling rolls. Instead I found that I would fail to disarm 75% of the traps I encountered. (ie they would require a roll of 16+). Over time I have learned two things. First, mod writers tend to expect you to make use of all the tools at your disposal (ie you really need to be getting an extra 10 ranks or so from meta orgs/spells/magic items). Second a great number of traps are intended to be bypassed entirely. So its more of the rogues job to find and indentify rather than overcome.
_metz_ 05-30-07, 11:53 PM	I almost always have traps in my mods, but they aren't tricky or deadly or anything... MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Bad Britt! I have seen some of your traps. Mean con poison...
GenghisBob 05-31-07, 12:04 AM	Second a great number of traps are intended to be bypassed entirely. This was once the case. Most traps are unavoidable now. Especially ones in Anti magic Fields. A mod in our region had 9+ Trap deaths at its con premier, most in the APL 12-16 game. The Lower APLs jsut lost TUs on another plane of existence. It is amazing how many people dont want to avail them selves of my Rogs Trap finding ability. "its ok, we got a BBQ", i slink up the back - 50' away and tag along. I also refuse to carry their bodies back, just cutting of a finger - no need to be encumbered for idiots.
clannagh 05-31-07, 03:14 AM	I also refuse to carry their bodies back, just cutting of a finger - no need to be encumbered for idiots. That could be amusing if they could only afford a raise dead rather than a resurrect .. "While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life."
GenghisBob 05-31-07, 03:27 AM	That could be amusing if they could only afford a raise dead rather than a resurrect .. Exactly, and that was my point :schemes:
_metz_ 05-31-07, 03:33 AM	This was once the case. Most traps are unavoidable now. Especially ones in Anti magic Fields. A mod in our region had 9+ Trap deaths at its con premier, most in the APL 12-16 game. The Lower APLs jsut lost TUs on another plane of existence. It is amazing how many people don't want to avail them selves of my Rogues Trap finding ability. "its ok, we got a BBQ", i slink up the back - 50' away and tag along. I also refuse to carry their bodies back, just cutting of a finger - no need to be encumbered for idiots. The annoying thing is the STUPID character insists on coming along right near you when investigating a trap, a maximized fireball goes off you evade it easily, but the other character dies after failing the save. And then they blame you for rolling a one on your disable device. I told said player that he should now learn why rogues exist and remember that in future, when a rogue says THERE IS A TRAP regardless of how much fun it is to roleplay a dumb barbarian type DON'T blame it on the rogue if you walk up next to him when he is taking it out, especially if the rogue told you to back off.
GenghisBob 05-31-07, 03:39 AM	The annoying thing is the STUPID character insists on coming along right near you when investigating a trap, a maximized fireball goes off you evade it easily, but the other character dies after failing the save. And then they blame you for rolling a one on your disable device. I told said player that he should now learn why rogues exist and remember that in future, when a rogue says THERE IS A TRAP regardless of how much fun it is to roleplay a dumb barbarian type DON'T blame it on the rogue if you walk up next to him when he is taking it out, especially if the rogue told you to back off. Dont have luck domain? 1 does not always mean failure. BBQs should know better. They do get trap sense, so should appreciate the danger.
Madfox11 05-31-07, 04:11 AM	I prefer traps that don't hurt PCs directly... the types of traps that destroy treasure or important evidence. Most of the the time that hurts the PCs more without resorting to the save-or-die type of traps. Although I also like the new encounter traps, except that they also can be disabled without a rogue. Mind you, the last trap I created did kill one or two PCs, even though a good searcher looking in the right place would have found the switch to disable the trap. I mean, the villain had to pass it without being flayed alive...
_metz_ 05-31-07, 04:12 AM	Dont have luck domain? 1 does not always mean failure. BBQs should know better. They do get trap sense, so should appreciate the danger. Nah it just happened that I failed by ten (it was a very hard trap) therefore set it off. I had a 7th level rogue at the time. Maxed DD. lets you know how crazy the DC was.
GenghisBob 05-31-07, 05:24 AM	Nah it just happened that I failed by ten (it was a very hard trap) therefore set it off. I had a 7th level rogue at the time. Maxed DD. lets you know how crazy the DC was. Ahhh.. DC28 is the usual for a CR5 Fire ball Trap. Not overly high for that APL. and DC 28 to find it. SO not really Crazy. Traps arn't meant to be eazy to disable at the apl. You did have a good chance to do it though. 7 ranks +2 meta org + 2 MW tool + 2 int = +13 bonus so 15 to succeed or 11 not to trigger the trap. Tactile Trap smith becomes very useful as does guidence, most rogs at 7th level have 18 dex so that would be 13 + 2 dex + 1 guidence for 12 needed. 40 percent for success or 60 % not to trigger the trap. Not every one can affford a level dip for cleric /wizard for Detect magic, but i find detecting magic and then working out the school and strength i can pretty well work out the DC needed and my % chance of success. It can increase your chance of succeeding or at least taking percautions. having some one able to cast heroism for Bonus to skill tests, bards to sing competence songs... All help jack the chance of success. IT is easier to find traps as you can purchase +12 bonus though eyes of minute seeing, Lens of detection and a MW Search tool. There is not a lot you can purchase to jack your disable device, although there maybe in the new MIC. Cleric DIps really come into their own with a Luck Re Roll and your own detect magic and Guidence. (and bonus to Fort saves) Or if your a CHarisma Rogue you can always try and UMD Dispel magic. GB
_metz_ 05-31-07, 05:47 AM	I was fine with dealing with the trap. I know my roguing. :) The character was level 8, just only had 10 ranks in DD. DC was in the 30s. I have about a plus 16 or 17 (can't remember off the top of my head not at home) Rolling a 1 means I set it off, I expected it, thats ok, was just griping that other characters shouldn't pester the rogue whilst they are doing their thing, especially IF the rogue is a trap finding one. I would like to add the BBQ player stated 'most traps aren't dangerous' and then got whacked by something dangerous
LGMoses 05-31-07, 12:18 PM	Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining about traps in mods or anything. I'm saying that my entire group just learned the importance of having a competent rogue around :D The lvl 1 rogue that missed the dc 26 trap finding role is now just a memory. I like deadly traps in the game once in a while. It just killed 2 peple in the blink of an eye and nearly killed our level 2 paladin was all that surprised me. What really did it was where it said pit trap on the top and I didn't notice it till halfway in that it was a SPIKED PIT TRAP! And ofcourse at this moment my players all had to roll the lowest they've ever rolled(a 1 on a tumble check to reduce fall damage even) and I had to roll straight 6's and 5's for fall damage, all spikes got to hit and their attack rolls ranged from 15-19 with +10 to hit. Then I rolled fairly high for their damage. The second level paladin that fell in just barely survived and that was with the help of second wind card and stuff like that. It was a really fun game. Now all my players have sworn to be very very careful should they return to that region. It was a good mod and I congratulate the writer: Ron Lundeen on a job well done. I dare not say anymore though for revealing which still active mod it was. Keep up the good work Ron
_metz_ 05-31-07, 12:30 PM	Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining about traps in mods or anything. I'm saying that my entire group just learned the importance of having a competent rogue around :D The lvl 1 rogue that missed the dc 26 trap finding role is now just a memory. I like deadly traps in the game once in a while. It just killed 2 peple in the blink of an eye and nearly killed our level 2 paladin was all that surprised me. What really did it was where it said pit trap on the top and I didn't notice it till halfway in that it was a SPIKED PIT TRAP! And ofcourse at this moment my players all had to roll the lowest they've ever rolled(a 1 on a tumble check to reduce fall damage even) and I had to roll straight 6's and 5's for fall damage, all spikes got to hit and their attack rolls ranged from 15-19 with +10 to hit. Then I rolled fairly high for their damage. The second level paladin that fell in just barely survived and that was with the help of second wind card and stuff like that. It was a really fun game. Now all my players have sworn to be very very careful should they return to that region. It was a good mod and I congratulate the writer: Ron Lundeen on a job well done. I dare not say anymore though for revealing which still active mod it was. Keep up the good work Ron I know that trap, and I agree, great module. :)
JohnduBois 05-31-07, 09:35 PM	First, mod writers tend to expect you to make use of all the tools at your disposal (ie you really need to be getting an extra 10 ranks or so from meta orgs/spells/magic items). Maybe I'm pet peeving here, but it really irks me to see comments like this imply that "writers" (as though there was a group that writes that doesn't also play) are out to get people or are in some way cheesing things out so that only the best survive. This especially peeves me as, on at least a monthly basis, I discuss with one or more of my authors (sometimes in a designing exercise, sometimes in a more direct editing context) what kind of "technically legal" material should or should not be allowed, usually ending with a discussion of whether or not our PCs would mind running into things of this nature. If you're going to make this type of generalization, please at least do us the favor of providing a concrete example of what you refer to. This way, we can engage in a discussion of specifically what is irritating you rather than framing matters in terms of "writers" versus "players". Thanks.
DroidTrooper 05-31-07, 11:21 PM	I appologize. Referencing mod writers was a mistake. The reference should have been to the mechanics of D&D traps. The difficultly with traps is that you can search with a take 20. You can only disarm with a 10. Thus if you needed to be taking 20 while searching, you probably want to have +10 (from additional sources) before making your disable roll. All of this has little to do with the writers, other than possibly selecting the more difficult traps from time to time (and those are the ones we remember.) Should you find a difficult trap then you should probably set about trying to bypass it. Trying to disarm it may be challenging even for someone with skill in that area.
just_be_glad_now 06-01-07, 11:34 AM	Droidtrooper wrote: "Should you find a difficult trap then you should probably set about trying to bypass it. Trying to disarm it may be challenging even for someone with skill in that area." And therein lies the oddity with the game mechanic. In my experience, about 90-95% of traps can be sprung with the bag o tricks animal wandering a safe 45 ft ahead. Then, it is almost always more effective to simply circumvent the trap rather than risk blowing the roll. The only real exception is magic traps at high APLs, where if one has a rogue built for disable device he can disable traps with a nice safe take 10 (and more importantly, you know the DC beforehand because it is tied to nothing but the spell level.) Considering the above, you might as well throw out the rogue entirely. just_Be_glad_now
solbergb 06-01-07, 12:09 PM	We played a mod recently with several fairly inventive traps that in places put characters in real danger. We appreciated our rogue, even though he had to do "combat disabling" for some of it. Luckily his dice were hot. We could have managed without the rogue, but we would have been badly mauled and might have lost a character or two.
Jesse Heinig 06-02-07, 09:33 PM	I'd just say my favorite uses of traps are ones where the characters are already under pressure - the picture of the water-filling room in the DMG with Alhandra trying to find a way out as the skeleton lurches toward her comes to mind - so you can give them reasonably low DCs but the characters can't take 10 or 20 unless they have the appropriate mastery-type abilities. Then the rogue gets to spend a couple rounds hoping to score high enough to disable the trap before the party gets killed by the encounter. The aforementioned picture is actually kind of an ideal one: The skeleton(s) may be normally too low to be a real threat to the party, but the trap adds an environmental problem (fighting in difficult terrain/water that becomes worse over several rounds). Way cooler than "You hit a trap in the middle of the empty hallway and . . . "
Shieldhart91 06-03-07, 12:15 AM	We need more traps. Especially if they're tiered to a riddle.
ezreal2001 06-03-07, 02:04 AM	Maybe I'm pet peeving here, but it really irks me to see comments like this imply that "writers" (as though there was a group that writes that doesn't also play) are out to get people or are in some way cheesing things out so that only the best survive. This especially peeves me as, on at least a monthly basis, I discuss with one or more of my authors (sometimes in a designing exercise, sometimes in a more direct editing context) what kind of "technically legal" material should or should not be allowed, usually ending with a discussion of whether or not our PCs would mind running into things of this nature. If you're going to make this type of generalization, please at least do us the favor of providing a concrete example of what you refer to. This way, we can engage in a discussion of specifically what is irritating you rather than framing matters in terms of "writers" versus "players". Thanks. I remember one trap which was dual symbols of death stuck behind a door, apparently so that it couldn't be detected untill after the door was opened. I asked the writter about that one since it struck me that since opening the door effectively activiated the trap then a successful search check on the door would detect the trap - I was told in no uncertain terms that this was not the case and that I shouldn't listen to players trying to cheese their way out of the trap by using rogue skills, although they could use suitibly high level spells go figure.
awroe 06-03-07, 03:31 AM	We need more traps. Especially if they're tiered to a riddle. Only if the author found the correct answer to the riddle - in one riddle-based encounter we came up with a better answer than the author and got attacked because it wasn't the one in the module.
awroe 06-03-07, 03:35 AM	It just killed 2 peple in the blink of an eye and nearly killed our level 2 paladin was all that surprised me. What really did it was where it said pit trap on the top and I didn't notice it till halfway in that it was a SPIKED PIT TRAP! Given the author (bit of a giveaway as to the module), I think I know which one you're talking about - in which case the party should hardly have been surprised about its existence since they'd seen quite a few previously :) It's been great fun the times I've run the module as the players come up with ingenious ways of bypassing the traps.
cycloptic_squirrel 06-03-07, 03:53 AM	I remember one trap which was dual symbols of death stuck behind a door, apparently so that it couldn't be detected untill after the door was opened. I asked the writter about that one since it struck me that since opening the door effectively activiated the trap then a successful search check on the door would detect the trap - I was told in no uncertain terms that this was not the case and that I shouldn't listen to players trying to cheese their way out of the trap by using rogue skills, although they could use suitibly high level spells go figure. Wow. I temporarily lost my faith in module authors. Thank goodness for well written mods. In my view, if it's a trap, a high enough search check should be able to find it before it goes off unless extreme measures are taken - and even then it should just bump the DC most of the time. I don't think a simple door would really add anything.
ezreal2001 06-03-07, 04:48 AM	Droidtrooper wrote: "Should you find a difficult trap then you should probably set about trying to bypass it. Trying to disarm it may be challenging even for someone with skill in that area." And therein lies the oddity with the game mechanic. In my experience, about 90-95% of traps can be sprung with the bag o tricks animal wandering a safe 45 ft ahead. Then, it is almost always more effective to simply circumvent the trap rather than risk blowing the roll. The only real exception is magic traps at high APLs, where if one has a rogue built for disable device he can disable traps with a nice safe take 10 (and more importantly, you know the DC beforehand because it is tied to nothing but the spell level.) Considering the above, you might as well throw out the rogue entirely. just_Be_glad_now Actually what you're highlighting are the all too common "isolated random damage" traps which only serve to waste time as the gm sorts out the applicable damage to the party and party sorts out the applicable spells to resolve the situation. End encounter - End problem. Bit of a yawn really. What I prefer is traps as part of a greater whole. For instance simple noise makers such as explosions which alert the people next door. Or it could be something more subtle. And the Boss monster at the end of the level will probably be better prepared. The list goes on. And yes a crunchy party probably wouldn't have too much difficulty dealing the gaurds - but the steathly party should be able to maintain the element of surprise while the crunchy party will be slowed by one or more unnecesary bonus encounters.
Lupo 06-03-07, 05:49 AM	I remember one trap which was dual symbols of death stuck behind a door, apparently so that it couldn't be detected untill after the door was opened. I asked the writter about that one since it struck me that since opening the door effectively activiated the trap then a successful search check on the door would detect the trap - I was told in no uncertain terms that this was not the case and that I shouldn't listen to players trying to cheese their way out of the trap by using rogue skills, although they could use suitibly high level spells go figure. yea, a clear case of an author cheese weaseling ;) if it is a trap, a rogue MUST be able to search for it and find it - sometimes with an ridiculous DC but still possible. reading the description of symbol of death and looking up the burst description clearly shows that a rogue should be able to open the door a tiny little bit and peek around the edge - best done with a mirror - find the symbol, activate it and be totally save from it :) so far the worst thing any of my characters was "trapped" with was the dreaded "bubbling oil" in nine lives, something like 5d6 fire and my character a second level halfling druid *shudder* my druid survived barely, my wolf animal companion was just crispy :D ciao martin m. ps: so far i haven't any rogue type character in my stock, but my next one will be an arcane trickster, combining maxed rogue skills most of the levels with spellcaster progression that only lacks two levels.
Haro 06-03-07, 06:31 AM	Actually what you're highlighting are the all too common "isolated random damage" traps which only serve to waste time as the gm sorts out the applicable damage to the party and party sorts out the applicable spells to resolve the situation. End encounter - End problem. Bit of a yawn really. What I prefer is traps as part of a greater whole. For instance simple noise makers such as explosions which alert the people next door. Or it could be something more subtle. And the Boss monster at the end of the level will probably be better prepared. The list goes on. And yes a crunchy party probably wouldn't have too much difficulty dealing the gaurds - but the steathly party should be able to maintain the element of surprise while the crunchy party will be slowed by one or more unnecesary bonus encounters. I wrote a scenario that featured a trap that some players may have felt isolated and random (and in fact I was given feedback to that degree). The reason for putting it in, apart from making perfect environmental sense, was to throw up somewhat of a red herring if they failed to detect it. Failure took them directly to an area that PCs avoiding/disabling also would get to, however, failure meant that clues were lost and what they found may very well take on a different meaning. It meant it was harder to get to the heart of the situation, so by avoiding the isolated and random trap, the PCs were rewarded in ways they would never really know since they only get to play the scenario once. Joe
Southernskies 06-03-07, 06:57 AM	I remember one trap which was dual symbols of death stuck behind a door, apparently so that it couldn't be detected untill after the door was opened. I asked the writter about that one since it struck me that since opening the door effectively activiated the trap then a successful search check on the door would detect the trap - I was told in no uncertain terms that this was not the case and that I shouldn't listen to players trying to cheese their way out of the trap by using rogue skills, although they could use suitibly high level spells go figure. That one was instant TPK for most parties; we didn't open the door, but still triggered the trap (tunnelled in the side of the chamber via spells). Luckily it could only get the druid, who easily made their save, instead of the entire party getting nuked. It was writer vindictiveness for the most part. The same writer had a sphere of annihilation in another LG game.
Haro 06-03-07, 10:06 AM	That one was instant TPK for most parties; we didn't open the door, but still triggered the trap (tunnelled in the side of the chamber via spells). Luckily it could only get the druid, who easily made their save, instead of the entire party getting nuked. It was writer vindictiveness for the most part. The same writer had a sphere of annihilation in another LG game. If you are referring to the two sequential regionals that I think you are Brendan, then they most definitely came from two different authors. The trap was scary but I felt there was plenty of warning signs to suggest nastiness. IIRC the area wasn't critical to the scenario being successfully completed either. That being said, it was a very, very tough trap and liable to kill at least one PC at many tables... The author told me that he had forgotten to explicity write in that an NPC was willing to cast True Resurrection for the party in certain instances. Joe
_metz_ 06-03-07, 10:32 AM	I Know a current mod that has a very sneaky trap indeed. Lets just say: Nystuls, Aura. on other side of door. Door won't open but you 'can' sunder it. (Its actually easy to sunder) Cannot unlock it. Cannot bypass without the password. We got the password, but I know a few groups that just tried a sunder and - boom. But the password was a good part of it, but if you didn't get it, no rogue was getting you past that trap.
Timlagor 06-03-07, 04:49 PM	A Rogue can always* find a trap before triggering it. A Rogue can always* disable a trap once it's found. There should be no 'ifs' or 'buts' about that. In the case of the one on the back of the door (which I haven't played): - the Rogue can find it before oepening the door (just like any other trap on a door) - if the PCs open the door wide and never close it again then they probably don't trigger the trap at all! I nerfed the "chain enervation" trap when I ran it too: Illegal traps simply shouldn't be allowed to work illegally. * Subject to a sufficiently good skill result
LGMoses 06-03-07, 09:01 PM	yeah, we had a few dm's around our area saying we couldn't disable traps on the other side of doors/INSIDE of chests, etc. Just stuff like that to make trapfinding disabling harder. In the end, people just get tired of dying because the trap is impassible and just don't play.
LeeShort 06-03-07, 11:31 PM	And of course there was also [mod still in play], where searching for traps set the trap off -- because it wasn't a trap, it was an "un-trap". Players are pretty much damned if they do, damned if they don't. Given the realities of LG -- namely, that there just isn't the staff to edit out everything like this -- I can't say I'm a big fan of seriously deadly traps. I strongly prefer the approach that ezreal mentioned -- tying the traps in to the encounters. More than 25% of my characters have trapfinding and disable. But the realities of mustering being what they are, I very regularly play without trapfinding in the party. Finding an approach that makes trapfinders valuable but isn't unreasonably deadly to parties without trapfinding is pretty much the only reasonable course of action under the circumstances.
Timlagor 06-03-07, 11:35 PM	..and one that positively penalises trapfinders is just absurd.
LGMoses 06-04-07, 01:59 AM	i think a few deathtraps every now and then is a good thing, but these unsolveable "Un-traps" are the ones you have to watch out for. Lets face it, there are people out there who think because a traps on the other side of a door you can't find it. That needs to be edited out. Other death traps such as spiked pit traps in hallways noone ever goes down, yeah thats fine. And the danger of traps is what makes rogues so valuable, and so difficult to play to higher levels. Its going to take real skill as a player to get a high level pure rogue. If u have a high level straight rogue, I commend you. Rogues are usually in danger due to their being at the forefront of the party searching/scouting and The rogue class has always been about making use of all the other classes stuff to your best advantage. Rogues are about using not only their skills, but their magical equipment and their mundane equipment. So the rogue class requires skill, imagination, and cunning to play, not just the ability to role really high on a search check.
AOSOL 06-05-07, 10:39 AM	I'm the regional trap hound in the party so I was MADE to have the most incredible search and disable device bonuses possible. By far the worst trap I ever dealt with was a monstrosity of cheesy writing, It went a little something like this: -50 degree water and in anti magic zone so I had to make fort save DC 37 and make a search/disable device check 32. It was total BS. I managed to disable the traps but died from the 3rd fort save. :banghead:
awroe 06-05-07, 11:33 AM	-50 degree water and in anti magic zone Um, wouldn't -50 degree water become ice? Unless the pressure was huge...
Lupo 06-05-07, 02:09 PM	Um, wouldn't -50 degree water become ice? Unless the pressure was huge... depending on your thermometer scaling :) but yes, most common scalings - Celsius, Fahrenheit or even Réaumur would have H2O in solid state at -50°. even with loads of salt (NaCl) the melting temperature can hardly be below -20° Celsius or 0° Fahrenheit - ok, with 150 g CaCl2 per 100 g water one can go down to -55° C but the mixture can hardly described as "liquid". nevertheless one can have super-cool liquid water that will instantly freeze to a solid block when a small crystallization nucleus is provided, the temperature of such supercooled liquid water can go down to -42.2° C (-43 °F). ok, you need really, really, really clean water, distilling it several times and special containers. anyway, the moment anyone or anything touches the surface, sneeze close to it, clap ones hands or do such a silly thing as jumping into it the liquid will freeze to a solid block, it or he will become trapped in a block of ice and look like a fly in amber :P hey, this would make a really cool trap, wouldn't it???? :D end of "fun with thermodynamics lesson" :D ciao martin m.
solbergb 06-05-07, 02:13 PM	Maybe it was actually a pool of liquid nitrogen? If you drop a frozen rogue off a 10 story building it will sometimes flash green when it shatters..... (ok we did it with a pumpkin at Caltech....)
AOSOL 06-12-07, 10:35 AM	[QUOTE=awroe;12615938]Um, wouldn't -50 degree water become ice?QUOTE] I said the same thing, It's what we call bad writting.
smerwin29 06-12-07, 10:57 AM	I nerfed the "chain enervation" trap when I ran it too: Illegal traps simply shouldn't be allowed to work illegally. Just to be clear, check out page 42 of the DMG 2. The "chained enervation" trap is in there, and there is a footnote that clarifies that the trap does not really chain the enervation spell, but it works in a similar way. Assuming that the DMG 2 is a legal source, then that trap is not "illegal."
KarmaInferno 06-12-07, 02:45 PM	yeah, we had a few dm's around our area saying we couldn't disable traps on the other side of doors/INSIDE of chests, etc. Just stuff like that to make trapfinding disabling harder. In the end, people just get tired of dying because the trap is impassible and just don't play. Is it within ten feet? Yes? Then there is a chance to find the trap with that search check. It might not be a very good chance, granted. But there's always a chance. -karma