Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RtrnofdMax 09-21-07, 03:42 PM	I have only been playing LG since March, but I have run into only 5 traps in the 14 mods and 2 adaptables I have played. Two pit traps and 3 spawning traps. What's the point? I just played through an adaptable with three traps for over 12 hours of dungeon crawling. My scout and the rogue checked for traps for the entire first half, found two that couldn't be disabled, and then he fell into a pit at the beginning of the second half because we were so tired of the GM snickering at us for the the traps we didn't find, that we stopped looking. Is this par for the course?
Redfist 09-21-07, 05:29 PM	No - there are some mods with many traps. There are some mods with few. There are some mods with none. Keep playing - I'm sure you'll find more or at least, more will find you. ;)
RtrnofdMax 09-21-07, 05:34 PM	It's not Iambic but at least you rhymed.
UMiskatonic 09-21-07, 10:02 PM	The retired mod, Turns of the Spiral, had no monsters in it. Only traps and puzzles. That's an extreme case, but so be it. However, in LG, it'important that you can do more than 'find traps'. Find traps and shoot arrows is a much better job description.
mowaca 09-22-07, 09:52 AM	I have only been playing LG since March, but I have run into only 5 traps in the 14 mods and 2 adaptables I have played. Two pit traps and 3 spawning traps. What's the point? I just played through an adaptable with three traps for over 12 hours of dungeon crawling. My scout and the rogue checked for traps for the entire first half, found two that couldn't be disabled, and then he fell into a pit at the beginning of the second half because we were so tired of the GM snickering at us for the the traps we didn't find, that we stopped looking. Is this par for the course? The probability of a straight Rogue disabling a well-designed magical trap is very low - you can't take 10 until 10th level, no assists, virtually nothing that improves your check, and magical traps start at DC26. An average 6th level rogue, without magic, wil have 9 ranks, +1 int, +2 tools so you are rolling +12 to hit DC 31-34, usually with an automatic reset. Spells help, feats help, Bard/Marshals help, but still, its hard! (And everyone will hate you when you trigger the prismatic spray trap that you avoid with a reflex save and which kills the rest of the party.) Traps are puzzles; they give players something else to gain experience from than killing monsters. In D&D there usually is more than one answer to a problem, so if you think creatively you can usually be more 'successful'. Always ask your DM politely after a successful search check on a trap to tell you the trigger details - a pit trap would be something like ' location trigger'. The easiest way to deal with pit traps is to jump over them. Right about the time a straight rogue gets good at traps, PCs have so many magical tricks up their sleeves that they aren't very challenging, so they don't appear in adventures. I also guess 'traps' aren't high on the list of things to 'fix' in 4th edition - they'll probably remove traps completely because they don't appear in MMORPGs.
Timlagor 09-22-07, 10:13 AM	Rogues are much more combat-effective as meleers. 1) You can take 10 on disable device unless you are in a threatened situation -most people do not consider simply disabling a trap to be such a situation; doing so in a combat would disallow taking 10. You generally should take 10 on disable since if that sets it off you needed at least a 15 on the dice to disable it anyway. If that fails, you can then decide if you want to risk rolling anyway. 2) You can be assisted if there is someone else with Disable device (subject to spatial contraints but you can usually fit at least one person to assist in) 3) There are buffs that can help (eg heroism, inspire competence 4) MW Thieves Tools are an obvious buy though I grant you there is no common magic item 5) The rest of the party has no business being in range while you attempt to disable a dangerous trap 6) Not all traps need to be disabled at all -finding them is the important thing: and there are more easy ways to bump the search skill (in addition to being able to take 20 on that one). [and magic ones can often be Dispelled] There used to be very few traps in LG The Greyhawk Ruins is expected to contain a lot of traps Unfortunately the Dungeonscape "Encounter Traps" are being used by some authors and either run badly or badly written into the modules [and badly written in the boods to start with] such that they devalue the investment in searching. It is my considered opinion that a trained trapfinder shoudl always have a chance of finding a trap before he enters its zone of effect -if a door is rigged to slam closed on you then that should darn well be noticeable to the trained eye! All traps should also have findable triggers. I was really unim pressed by the encounter where the ceiling 'just happened' to fall in when you reach the middle of the 'room' and then block both immediately. The odds against that happening just as the PCs are passing are astronomical. </vent> Disable Device is one of onely two skills I would seriously consider taking Skill Focus in though (barring PrC requirements; UMD being the other ..though I suppose Concentration with a view to retraining it away later works too) Searching for traps takes up significant time for your characters but should not take up much time at the table. As a player I would do one of three things: - take 20 (2minutes per 5' square) - take 10 (6sec per 5' square) - take 10 and roll (12 sec per 5' square) I would either search everywhere or just suspicious places (such as around doors and chests) depending on time constraints and perceived risk. As a GM for a PC rolling for seraches over a large area, I would simply take one roll and apply it to the first trap (or other item of interest) that is actually present. [possibly taking the modifier from the player and roling secretly]
copper_wyrmling 09-22-07, 11:18 AM	Rogues are much more combat-effective as meleers. They have higher potential damage as TWF meleers, but archery is a lot safer. As someone who plays mostly spellcasters, in a lot of cases I'd prefer to see a well-built archer rogue on the table rather than a melee - the archer rogue requires more help setting up their sneak-attacks, but doesn't provoke rescue loops at anywhere near the frequency of the melee rogue who tumbles around to the far side of the big monster to flank. I've seen both done well though: one of my friends plays a L11 trapfinding+scouting+mobility-specialist rogue who also has a holy bow and all the archery feats, another friend has a L14 rogue who uses a spiked chain and staggering strike, and both are characters I'm delighted to have on the table. I do agree that rogues mostly do best using their feats to focus on a combat specialization. It is my considered opinion that a trained trapfinder shoudl always have a chance of finding a trap before he enters its zone of effect -if a door is rigged to slam closed on you then that should darn well be noticeable to the trained eye! Note that you can search for traps from 10ft away. A lot of people don't seem to realize this.
Mommy was an Orc 09-22-07, 12:20 PM	Rogues are much more combat-effective as meleers. Archers need more support. When they get it though...Distract Assailant is a pretty amazing spell for a Wizard to pick up, and with Unseen Seer around, the Archer can provide his own support - cast Blink, Greater Invis, and/or Distract Assailant. Disable Device is one of onely two skills I would seriously consider taking Skill Focus in though (barring PrC requirements; UMD being the other ..though I suppose Concentration with a view to retraining it away later works too) Tactile Trapfinder(Complete Adventurer) is almost always a significant improvement on Skill Focus(Disable Device) - if you're going to spend a feat on improving Search or Disable Device, that's the one to pick up. Most Rogues should have at least a +2 modifier advantage from Dex by 4th level or so and if you're taking this feat, you can dump Int a little. Not to mention, you don't need to be able to see the trap to disable it. Other than that, though, I agree with Timlagor. And if a DM is making you roll every square, just tell 'em you're taking 20. Search is an example of a skill that you can take 20 on in PHB. Really, though, the DM should abstract Search over large areas unless combat is in progress.
Lupo 09-23-07, 06:16 AM	I have only been playing LG since March, but I have run into only 5 traps in the 14 mods and 2 adaptables I have played. Two pit traps and 3 spawning traps. What's the point? I just played through an adaptable with three traps for over 12 hours of dungeon crawling. My scout and the rogue checked for traps for the entire first half, found two that couldn't be disabled, and then he fell into a pit at the beginning of the second half because we were so tired of the GM snickering at us for the the traps we didn't find, that we stopped looking. Is this par for the course? for some time there were near to no traps in modules, then suddenly some traps popped up that came out of the nowhere. the problem is that the "game mechanic" for rogues finding traps is not balanced for LG. a dedicated "trap searcher" might be able to find most traps and disable a good part of them BUT at the cost of a lot of actual playing time. for me i would be fine if a "trap finder" would get a free, immediate check every time he comes close to a trap, a trigger or a trapped area. some authors plutonized the whole "trap finding" by writing silly traps that are not findable or cannot be disabled by ANY means. an example is a symbol of death on the OTHER side of a closed door. and then deny any option to find it when a "trap finder" examines the door from this side, but have it going of the moment the door is opened a little bit. spell turrets are one of the most silly traps around - creating area effect spells a long distance away from the "trap" so far away that searching will be impossible. so "trap finders" have a hard time in LG for several reasons. and as some mentioned, APL 8 parties tend to have so many options to deal with them that a "trap finder" is not high of the list of "essentials" for a balanced party. ciao martin m.
Britt 09-24-07, 04:51 AM	I think people need to differentiate different types of encounters instead of lumping everything that is non-creature as a similar type of encounter. The ceiling collapse was not a trap, per se, but just something that happens that you have to deal with. It's much like an earthquake. If you are caught in an earthquake, you don't get to search for the 'trap' and disable it; it just happens and you have to figure out how to deal with it. I don't know of any tables that had any problems with it. They just used their resources to bypass the encounter, which was the intent of the encounter - minimal time, difficulty, and resource usage if you play smart and adapt instead of following typical strategies. Spell turrets are a different type of encounter that requires a different method for bypassing. Classical traps should be findable, but not everything is a classical trap. Pigeon-holing encounters into fights and traps will get you ****** off that things aren't following the 'rules'.
KarmaInferno 09-24-07, 02:00 PM	an example is a symbol of death on the OTHER side of a closed door. and then deny any option to find it when a "trap finder" examines the door from this side, but have it going of the moment the door is opened a little bit. This always bugged the hell out of me. You are searching a five foot cube, not just the door. The action is abstracted, so really what side of the door the symbol is on should be irrelevant. Perhaps the rogue used a mirror on a stick to see it. Or heard a faint humming of the spell. Or the slight visible energy distortion that abjuration spells can give off. Whatever. The Search roll determines the success or failure. It should at most increase the DC for finding the trap, but it should NEVER outright disallow finding it completely. -karma
Madfox11 09-25-07, 03:53 AM	a dedicated "trap searcher" might be able to find most traps and disable a good part of them BUT at the cost of a lot of actual playing time. How does trap finding cost playing time? It is all a matter of 'take 10/20' on the search and if you find something just roll those dice for Disable once (or 'take 10'). In fact, it is exactly the fact that finding and disabling a trap is seconds of game time that involve only one PC that have made the designers came up with the encounter traps. DMs and players who insist on rolling for every 5 ft. of movement do not understand why there is a rule to 'take 10' or 'take 20' in the first place...
Timlagor 09-25-07, 06:51 AM	I think people need to differentiate different types of encounters instead of lumping everything that is non-creature as a similar type of encounter. The ceiling collapse was not a trap, per se, but just something that happens that you have to deal with. It's much like an earthquake. If you are caught in an earthquake, you don't get to search for the 'trap' and disable it; it just happens and you have to figure out how to deal with it. I don't know of any tables that had any problems with it. They just used their resources to bypass the encounter, which was the intent of the encounter - minimal time, difficulty, and resource usage if you play smart and adapt instead of following typical strategies. 1) I agree that it's not a trap per se 2) I don't know of anyone having serious trouble with it either 3) As I mentioned the odds against it actually happening as described are ridiculous adn that is the source of my objection in this instance. - rock falls are extremely unlikely to happen at exactly the time the PCs are int eh right place - they are also extremely unlikely to block both exits simultanously (unless they are burying the whole room in rubble which didn't happen). - the behaviour of the lava didn't make much sense to me either but that was probably just poor description rather than bad physics. 4) My position isn't that this one should have been findable but that it shouldn't have been at all: there is no trigger so there is nothing to make it happen when the PCs are in (a very precise) position and different groups would certainly be arriving at different times. Any reasonable attempt to model the timing of this encounter would have the PCs completely miss it over 99% of the time. 5) I didn't really mean to lump that together with the "encoutner traps" from Dungeonscape which should be findable from ouitside the room because a rigged door is exactly the sort of thing a Rogue learns to find. Spell turrets are a different type of encounter that requires a different method for bypassing. Classical traps should be findable, but not everything is a classical trap. Pigeon-holing encounters into fights and traps will get you ****** off that things aren't following the 'rules'. If it's not a classical trap some thought should be put into how likely it is to actually happen as described -if it's the sort of thing you laugh at in bad films it won't fit into a good module.
Timlagor 09-25-07, 07:04 AM	the problem is that the "game mechanic" for rogues finding traps is not balanced for LG. a dedicated "trap searcher" might be able to find most traps and disable a good part of them BUT at the cost of a lot of actual playing time.[quote] It shouldn't take up a lot of playing time. Excessive time spent on this is almost always the GMs fault but the player can speed things up too. [quote]some authors plutonized the whole "trap finding" by writing silly traps that are not findable or cannot be disabled by ANY means. an example is a symbol of death on the OTHER side of a closed door. and then deny any option to find it when a "trap finder" examines the door from this side, but have it going of the moment the door is opened a little bit. I see no basis whatsoever for stopping the Rogue finding that trap. That's pure abuse of the rules (in addition to which it's a really stupid place to put a Symbol since the Rogue just has to open the door to negate it. Trapfinding is an abstraction. Anyone getting a 30 on a search check is clearly examining all sorts of extremely small clues and trapfinding is supposed to cover specific methods to find even the most fiendishly designed traps. If they were easy to find then you wouldn't need Trapfinding! The Rogue is not required to specify how they set about looking for the trap -that's something the PC does and it is deliberately abstracted to save play-time. spell turrets are one of the most silly traps around - creating area effect spells a long distance away from the "trap" so far away that searching will be impossible. If a spell turret is a trap then I maintain that the Rogue can find it without entering the area. so "trap finders" have a hard time in LG for several reasons. and as some mentioned, APL 8 parties tend to have so many options to deal with them that a "trap finder" is not high of the list of "essentials" for a balanced party. I think the main reasons we don't have a lot of trap-finders are that: - we are guaranteed two combats and trapfinders have to sacrifice some combat power; - ..especially with the number of uncritabble we encounter - traps used to be very rare indeed in LG and still aren't common (though I'd definitely want a Finder in CGR) - most traps aren't really deadly This has had the unfortunate result that GMs haven't thought about how to run traps as much as they might have and are therefore likely to get it wrong. A party with a specialised trapfinder really shouldn't have a lot of trouble with any traps they encounter -that's what investing in a good trapfinder gets you. I find it disappointing when authors feel that they have to "challenge" even the PC specialised in dealing with the challenge they are writing: let them feel good about their abilities instead.
awroe 09-25-07, 08:07 AM	If a spell turret is a trap then I maintain that the Rogue can find it without entering the area. Perhaps they notice how clean the area is (due to all the fireballs coming from the turret)?
copper_wyrmling 09-25-07, 02:15 PM	If a spell turret is a trap then I maintain that the Rogue can find it without entering the area. I don't think this is consistent with "You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched" (from the Search skill description). I suppose you could consider spell turrets as a giant trap covering the area within their true-seeing range - is that how you're thinking of them?
Lomiat 09-25-07, 03:24 PM	A spell turret isn't truly a D&D trap, given that it's practically impossible to disable with the skill without setting it off beforehand (save, theoretically, by a rogue with Hide-in-Plain Sight). However, rogues should still prove useful in encounters with spell turrets because in order to function, the turret needs a line of sight to at least one party member. Most rogues have good Spot scores (as well as Search) and should be able to notice the spell turret (and react) before it fires. Since spell turrets are otherwise stoooopid, that's how I think I'll rule them at my table (Spot vs. Hide, then Init.).
KarmaInferno 09-26-07, 01:44 AM	I don't think this is consistent with "You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched" (from the Search skill description). I suppose you could consider spell turrets as a giant trap covering the area within their true-seeing range - is that how you're thinking of them? Personally, I feel that the area covered by a spell turret should show SOME signs that it's a giant shooting gallery. Most spell turrets use rather explosive destructive spells to kill people with. While you might not be able to disable the 'trap' without getting all the way down to where the turret is, you should certainly have a chance to detect that this or that area might be dangerous. Thus a search check. Granted, nowhere does the rules say you have to immediately tell them "It's a spell turret". Just that the area they just looked at looks dangerous but they can't seem to be able to disable the danger from where they're standing. -karma
boolean 09-26-07, 04:49 AM	A spell turret isn't truly a D&D trap, given that it's practically impossible to disable with the skill without setting it off beforehand (save, theoretically, by a rogue with Hide-in-Plain Sight). One of the many annoying things about how poorly designed Spell Turrets are: they don't have a listed Spot modifier.
awroe 09-26-07, 01:05 PM	One of the many annoying things about how poorly designed Spell Turrets are: they don't have a listed Spot modifier. Hmm, good point. They're using True Seeing as if it were an Alarm spell (i.e. auto-detects anything within radius) except it needs LOS. Which does mean smokesticks are your friend...
JamesMaissen 09-26-07, 10:08 PM	Hmm, good point. They're using True Seeing as if it were an Alarm spell (i.e. auto-detects anything within radius) except it needs LOS. Which does mean smokesticks are your friend... Yep, and that you're dealing with a construct in essence, so it's beyond just dumb and into programmed stupidity. Once you know what you're facing it's not hard to avoid. In fact it's far easier to avoid and bypass (what I mean is at least pass by) than a trap of the same EL that auto-resets. -James
paigeoliver 09-26-07, 11:37 PM	A while back I went through every single year 5 core module and examined all the traps in the modules. I went with two possible assumptions for each trap. A tweaked out trapfinder that put just about everything into that attempts to find and disable the trap. The barbarian eats the trap. Statistically having the barbarian eat the trap was safer than having the rogue try to disable it, particularly below APL 10. Safest combo for particularly suspicious areas was to have the rogue take 20 on his search and then have the barbarian eat the trap. Rogues who don't SPECIALIZE in trapfinding? The effort alone will eventually kill you. Note, this problem is not new to 3.5, it has existed since the very beginning. From Basic D&D on forward, rogues who actually tried to deal with traps would die. Actually it was a lot worse in previous editions, just about every AD&D thief skill had a higher chance of killing the thief than succeeding unless you were about 13th level or so. Except that an AD&D thief that used his skills would never reach 13th level.
Mommy was an Orc 09-27-07, 09:41 AM	A tweaked out trapfinder that put just about everything into that attempts to find and disable the trap. The barbarian eats the trap. The problem isn't the Rogue. The problem is the mod writers attempting to challenge the tweaked out trapfinder instead of playing by the suggested rules. If mods required one DC 30 Diplomacy check with no aiding allowed or fail the mod, you'd get a lot of screams from parties. But as there aren't that many Rogues, doing things which stomps on them isn't going to attract that much attention. If you're following the suggested rules, it shouldn't be that difficult. Something a lot of mod writers seem to forget is that the highest DC for any of the suggested mechanical traps in DMG is DC 25 and that taking 10 is an option unless distracted by the equivalent of combat. A Rogue 5 with Tactile Trapfinder, a 20 Dex, 8 ranks, and Masterwork Tools is at +15. i.e. he should auto-disable most mechanical traps by taking 10. By taking 10, he won't trigger a DC 29 trap. And note the Rogue 5 with a 14 Int, 8 ranks, and MW tools won't trigger a DC 26 trap by taking 10.
Redfist 09-27-07, 10:14 AM	Something a lot of mod writers seem to forget is that the highest DC for any of the suggested mechanical traps in DMG is DC 25 and that taking 10 is an option unless distracted by the equivalent of combat. Table 3-13 in the DMG includes CR modifiers for mechanical traps going beyond 30. This is a rule, not just a suggested rule which really isn't a term at all. I'd agree that none of that sample traps show a high disable but that doesn't necessarily imply they shouldn't or can't. The table gives guidance for DCs 0-15,16-24,25-29,30+. Technically, you could have a disable device of 10000 and not suffer a CR increase beyond a DC 30 disable trap. That obviously seems wrong, authors should be careful in the 30+ range. Going over 40, for example, should have good justification. I don't think I've ever seen over 40 though. Upon reflection, I think going upto 34 isn't stretching things given that spell traps can go to 34 (25+spell level). If rogues are expected to disable those, they should be able to handle mechical traps of the same difficulties.
Mommy was an Orc 09-27-07, 11:53 AM	Table 3-13 in the DMG includes CR modifiers for mechanical traps going beyond 30. This is a rule, not just a suggested rule which really isn't a term at all. I'd agree that none of that sample traps show a high disable but that doesn't necessarily imply they shouldn't or can't. Rule doesn't just mean 'rule', it means 'norm' as well. The norm of DMG is that Rogues with a 14 Int, max ranks, and MW tools will find most traps by taking 20 and be able to take 10 safely when trying to disable them(or know not to take 10 because it is a spell) A check that Rogue needs a 14 on to Disable still falls into those boundaries. In other words, mod writers need a high expectation of people having an additional +5 modifiers to the roll to make it higher than that. But in LG, those +5 modifiers are extremely difficult to find - there isn't a default +5 Circumstance Magic Item. Skill Focus only goes up +3. Guidance gives a +1, but might not be available. Divine Insight(now closed) in combo with Imbue could break it, but not likely at all below APL 8 or even 10. Tactile Trapfinder can do it, but again, not likely to go above +3 above 14 Int until APL 10 or so. A Bard could help or a couple of additional Rogues, but that's uncommon in itself. When a writer goes over that 14, he's basically punishing the iconic Rogue for doing the smart thing if norms are followed - auto-setting off the trap. Upon reflection, I think going upto 34 isn't stretching things given that spell traps can go to 34 (25+spell level). If rogues are expected to disable those, they should be able to handle mechical traps of the same difficulties. That's completely wrong. Rogues aren't necessarily expected to disable spell traps - they're expected to find them and then know not to try to disable them unless they're a specialist.
mowaca 09-27-07, 11:56 PM	The problem isn't the Rogue. The problem is the mod writers attempting to challenge the tweaked out trapfinder instead of playing by the suggested rules. I agree - there a current adventure in our region with a heightened Phantasmal Killer trap at APL6, DC 33 Disable, EL 9, DC 21 will save. In a recent core adventure at APL 14 there's a heightened Phantasmal Killer trap, DC 32 Disable, EL 8, DC 20 will save. Um...yeah.
Madfox11 09-28-07, 04:06 AM	Who cares at a phantasmal killer trap at APL 14? Well, if you don't have a cleric with heroes feast I can see you might care, but not having a cleric with you at those APLs is dangerous even without phantasmal killer... I am not a big fan of traps, but that is not a lethal one, I have seen much much worse.
CSHunt68 09-28-07, 07:39 AM	Who cares at a phantasmal killer trap at APL 14? Well, if you don't have a cleric with heroes feast I can see you might care, but not having a cleric with you at those APLs is dangerous even without phantasmal killer... I am not a big fan of traps, but that is not a lethal one, I have seen much much worse. No, it looks like the comment is meant to point out that the APL6 trap is worse in all respects than the APL14 trap. Which is pretty silly. The APL6 trap should be easier, the APL14 trap much more deadly.
Mommy was an Orc 09-28-07, 07:57 AM	Yeah, although to my point earlier, the Phantasmal Killer with DC 33 at APL 6 isn't necessarily that bad. It is only if you're asked to actually disable it that there's a problem. There are plenty of ways that a Rogue could find that trap - a Rogue 6 has 9 ranks in Search, 14 Int = +11. All you need is a +2 for take 20 on Search. Elf, Lens of Detection, Goggles of Minute Seeing, Tactile Trapfinder, etc...Detect Magic will reveal it is 'strong' magic, which should tell the party to stay the heck away from it as that means a minimum of DC 32 for the Disable Device. i.e. while it sounds incredibly nasty, an iconic Rogue 6 could in theory deal with it - provided he wasn't expected to disarm the trap and he could be expected to have bought the correct item.
bitznarf 09-28-07, 11:48 AM	i.e. while it sounds incredibly nasty, an iconic Rogue 6 could in theory deal with it - provided he wasn't expected to disarm the trap and he could be expected to have bought the correct item. For my rogue it's not a problem of not buying the right item, it's one of not having access to the right item in order to buy it.
thorinXXX 09-28-07, 12:10 PM	Yeah, although to my point earlier, the Phantasmal Killer with DC 33 at APL 6 isn't necessarily that bad. It is only if you're asked to actually disable it that there's a problem. There are plenty of ways that a Rogue could find that trap - a Rogue 6 has 9 ranks in Search, 14 Int = +11. All you need is a +2 for take 20 on Search. Elf, Lens of Detection, Goggles of Minute Seeing, Tactile Trapfinder, etc...Detect Magic will reveal it is 'strong' magic, which should tell the party to stay the heck away from it as that means a minimum of DC 32 for the Disable Device. i.e. while it sounds incredibly nasty, an iconic Rogue 6 could in theory deal with it - provided he wasn't expected to disarm the trap and he could be expected to have bought the correct item. My 5th level arcane trickster wannabe has a +19 to her Search roll. She can find most traps taking 10. Disabling them is a different story with a mere +14. So, yes, dedicated trap rogues can find most traps as long as the player is meticulous. Once that trap is known it is easy to deal with. Why else would I carry scrolls of Summon Monster I on almost all of my charactes?
Rayous 09-28-07, 03:30 PM	the problem with the summon monster solution is most traps ive seen have automatic reset. All you accomplish is setting off the trap an additional time. In fact, almost all of the traps ive faced have been automatic reset, and ive faced: Ray of enfeeblement Bestow curse Pitfall (floor drops open, then recloses, ooze on bottom) several scythe traps 30 foot long disappearing floor to spike pit trap (no way of jumping that sucker) Spell turret, which i find rediculously stupid In fact, the only trap i have seen that wasnt automatic reset was a pitfall trap that stayed open so that earth elementals could push you into it and a fall trap created naturally via erosion and a storm. Im sure if mother nature could have payed the extra the erosion would have been automatically reseting :D
KarmaInferno 09-28-07, 03:30 PM	<poof> Huh. I wonder where I am now? Summoning always takes me to the weirdest places... OH HELL NO. NOT HIM. I... I have to RUN, GET AWAY. WHY AREN'T I RUNNING? I'm walking down this hallway. Why? My legs won't obey me. Wha? OH GOD, THE PAIN. :D -karma
ezreal2001 09-29-07, 07:31 AM	Yeah, although to my point earlier, the Phantasmal Killer with DC 33 at APL 6 isn't necessarily that bad. It is only if you're asked to actually disable it that there's a problem. There are plenty of ways that a Rogue could find that trap - a Rogue 6 has 9 ranks in Search, 14 Int = +11. All you need is a +2 for take 20 on Search. Elf, Lens of Detection, Goggles of Minute Seeing, Tactile Trapfinder, etc...Detect Magic will reveal it is 'strong' magic, which should tell the party to stay the heck away from it as that means a minimum of DC 32 for the Disable Device. i.e. while it sounds incredibly nasty, an iconic Rogue 6 could in theory deal with it - provided he wasn't expected to disarm the trap and he could be expected to have bought the correct item. Of course that's all moot when the writter decides that the trap's undetectible because it's on the other side of the door :(
mowaca 09-29-07, 10:33 AM	Yeah, although to my point earlier, the Phantasmal Killer with DC 33 at APL 6 isn't necessarily that bad. It is only if you're asked to actually disable it that there's a problem. There are plenty of ways that a Rogue could find that trap - a Rogue 6 has 9 ranks in Search, 14 Int = +11. All you need is a +2 for take 20 on Search. Elf, Lens of Detection, Goggles of Minute Seeing, Tactile Trapfinder, etc...Detect Magic will reveal it is 'strong' magic, which should tell the party to stay the heck away from it as that means a minimum of DC 32 for the Disable Device. i.e. while it sounds incredibly nasty, an iconic Rogue 6 could in theory deal with it - provided he wasn't expected to disarm the trap and he could be expected to have bought the correct item. In the regional example, you get 0 XP and 0 GP unless you trigger the trap. So no, you don't have to disable it. Rogues at APL 6 usually have great Fort and Will saves anyways ;) Edit: I haven't played this one in a while, so after thinking back I want to point out there were many other ways deal with this trap. But the party has to deal with it, and 'disabling' it usually results in a PC death in my experience. And its just so tempting when you find a little trap like this to disable it. My point with the APL6/AP14 example is magical traps designed correct are really difficult to disable, until you get good at disabling traps at which point they are kind of pathetic. Its just how that skill works in D&D 3.5. My evil wizard is really good at search, and casting dispel magic, unseen servant, summon monster 1, and jumping, and...
Mommy was an Orc 09-30-07, 08:39 PM	But the party has to deal with it, and 'disabling' it usually results in a PC death in my experience. And its just so tempting when you find a little trap like this to disable it. That's not the fault of the writer. No one is forcing the party to walk through a strong magic(i.e. 7th-9th level spell) trap - the Rogue should be able to find it at 6th, especially given it is a regional(i.e. there is probably regional access to a +5 or two). He should know it is a spell trap and that should tell him to let a caster of the party tell him what they see after casting Detect Magic. They should get the appropriate xp for figuring out a way around the trap.
mowaca 09-30-07, 09:19 PM	N/M
mowaca 09-30-07, 09:19 PM	That's not the fault of the writer. No one is forcing the party to walk through a strong magic(i.e. 7th-9th level spell) trap - the Rogue should be able to find it at 6th, especially given it is a regional(i.e. there is probably regional access to a +5 or two). He should know it is a spell trap and that should tell him to let a caster of the party tell him what they see after casting Detect Magic. Right, the correct tactics for this particular encounter ares to try everything else and the kitchen sink, *except* disable device. In my opinion, that's best way to deal with magical traps in LG.
JamesMaissen 10-01-07, 10:02 AM	Right, the correct tactics for this particular encounter ares to try everything else and the kitchen sink, *except* disable device. In my opinion, that's best way to deal with magical traps in LG. Some skill DCs have higher curves than others. Traps are just one of them. Sleight of Hand, Decipher Script, and Use Magic Device are others. At low levels disabling a trap is very risky. But rather than have simply random DCs, there are reasonable ways of understanding how tough things are. A trapfinder has several plateaus that they reach.. finding traps that they can encounter by taking 20, then by taking 10, then disabling by taking 10. Each are achievable.. and by certain levels you should expect to be past certain of the plateaus to call yourself a trapfinder for that APL. -James
Redfist 10-01-07, 02:03 PM	That's completely wrong. Rogues aren't necessarily expected to disable spell traps - they're expected to find them and then know not to try to disable them unless they're a specialist. This seems specious to me. Why is it the expected norm that Rogues can disable mechanical traps yet not spell traps? It seems to me as though this perception is totally based on the disable DCs typically found with mechanical -vs- spell and not based on the fact that rogues "just aren't supposed to disable spell traps". I see no text (even flavor text) in the books that implies that Rogues are masters of ONLY mechanical traps and should avoid spell traps. It might be an intelligent conclusion based on DCs, I don't disagree with that. In other words, it seems to be a metagame conclusion, not a class thematic conclusion. This conclusion seems to be "spell traps are hard, thus don't try to disable them". If that's the case, I don't see why some "mechanical traps are hard, thus don't try to disable them". If it's merely based on observed DCs, perhaps the rogues just haven't run into the harder mechanical traps often as they are more rare.
JamesMaissen 10-01-07, 02:22 PM	This seems specious to me. Why is it the expected norm that Rogues can disable mechanical traps yet not spell traps? It seems to me as though this perception is totally based on the disable DCs typically found with mechanical -vs- spell and not based on the fact that rogues "just aren't supposed to disable spell traps". I think it's just another tier of mastery. It's like casting while riding (or other vigorous motion), casting defensively, casting in a grapple, mobile spellcasting (via feat), and mobile casting defensively. If your concentration score is just +10, then casting defensively is a decent risk. Later on when it's +20 then you'll always cast defensively (upto 6th level spells). There are somethings that you grow into is all. Spell based traps are very hard for novice rogues to find, let alone disable. Disabling is typically harder than finding (even though the DCs are the same) and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't see a problem with the lay of the land being this way. -James
Mommy was an Orc 10-01-07, 02:49 PM	This conclusion seems to be "spell traps are hard, thus don't try to disable them". If that's the case, I don't see why some "mechanical traps are hard, thus don't try to disable them". Because while Rogues do have a mechanism for determining how difficult a spelltrap is to disable, they don't have one for mechanical. Making mechanical traps difficult means that Rogues die a lot more frequently than they ought to do so.
Fakegoatee 10-03-07, 10:03 AM	Because while Rogues do have a mechanism for determining how difficult a spelltrap is to disable, they don't have one for mechanical. I can think of three such mechanisms: 1. Spell trap Disable DC = Search DC. 2. *Detect magic* can tell you the aura strength and so the minimum save DC (26 for faint, 29 for moderate, 32 for strong). 3. Spellcraft (DC 20+spell level) can identify the spell in the trap (if the person making the check can "see or detect the effects of the spell" and the DM rules that seeing its aura via *detect magic* qualifies). The first method requires a cooperative DM (who will tell you the Search DC on the trap you just took 20 and found), and the other two will typically require the rogue to either be a caster or have help from one. Is there a more reliable method that I don't know about?
Mommy was an Orc 10-03-07, 10:27 AM	I can think of three such mechanisms: 1. Spell trap Disable DC = Search DC. 2. *Detect magic* can tell you the aura strength and so the minimum save DC (26 for faint, 29 for moderate, 32 for strong). 3. Spellcraft (DC 20+spell level) can identify the spell in the trap (if the person making the check can "see or detect the effects of the spell" and the DM rules that seeing its aura via *detect magic* qualifies). The first method requires a cooperative DM (who will tell you the Search DC on the trap you just took 20 and found), and the other two will typically require the rogue to either be a caster or have help from one. Is there a more reliable method that I don't know about? Yes, that's the basics of it. A Rogue should know whether or not he's dealing with a mechanical or spell trap - and if he is, he asks any caster in the party to cast Detect Magic. In some cases, you might also be able to narrow it down by taking 10 and 20. A Rogue with a Search of +19 will find a 5th level spell by taking 20, but not by taking 10 as an example. Remember, take 20 is in essence rolling 20 times and assuming you get a 20. If the DM isn't willing to let you know the DC, you can always roll a bunch of times until you 'find' it, though that's going to be adversarial.
amysrevenge 10-03-07, 11:12 AM	I can think of three such mechanisms: 1. Spell trap Disable DC = Search DC. 2. *Detect magic* can tell you the aura strength and so the minimum save DC (26 for faint, 29 for moderate, 32 for strong). 3. Spellcraft (DC 20+spell level) can identify the spell in the trap (if the person making the check can "see or detect the effects of the spell" and the DM rules that seeing its aura via *detect magic* qualifies). The first method requires a cooperative DM (who will tell you the Search DC on the trap you just took 20 and found), and the other two will typically require the rogue to either be a caster or have help from one. Is there a more reliable method that I don't know about? No, there isn't a more reliable method for knowing DCs for magical traps than what you have mentioned. But the original poster is saying that there is no way to know the DCs for MECHANICAL traps, while there is one (or more, as you have alluded to) to know the DCs for magical traps. Mike
RtrnofdMax 10-03-07, 11:27 AM	But the original poster is saying that there is no way to know the DCs for MECHANICAL traps, while there is one (or more, as you have alluded to) to know the DCs for magical traps. We are so far from what I originally posted about, but that's have the fun of posts. It's like telephone or operator, you start with one thing and you end up with a debate about something (sometimes) related.
Mommy was an Orc 10-03-07, 11:42 AM	We are so far from what I originally posted about, but that's have the fun of posts. It's like telephone or operator, you start with one thing and you end up with a debate about something (sometimes) related. It isn't that far off actually. The general point is that most Rogues should be able to avoid the situation you described in your original post - you take 10/20 religiously as a standard operating procedure - Search is the example skill for taking 20 on in take 20. If you're under time pressure, you take 10 on Search and roll 1-4 times while taking 20 on obvious trap locations. If your DM is reasonable, you don't actually roll for every square, you do it when you come up to a trap with the metagaming assumption being that if you fail to notice it, you trigger it. When you find a trap, you either: Don't try to disarm it and find some other way around it(spelltrap and your disable device will set off most likely spell traps if you take 10) Try to take 10(mechanical trap or you've got at least a +19 or so Disable Device) Roll(you have to get past it and neither of the other methods worked) The reason being that you can easily get into a 5000 die roll situation otherwise or die, which eats up game time and annoys everyone else.
amysrevenge 10-03-07, 05:45 PM	We are so far from what I originally posted about, but that's have the fun of posts. It's like telephone or operator, you start with one thing and you end up with a debate about something (sometimes) related. Sorry... I didn't mean original poster of the thread, I meant original poster of the text that that dude replied to. :P
Redfist 10-03-07, 06:04 PM	I guess I'm just not convinced that if a rogue acheives a certain modifier that he should feel as though he's near guaranteed to always disarm traps. I like the fact the various facets of the game are still plagued with chance, challenge and danger. A fighter who achieves a +19 on their to hit roll doesn't know if he'll land a hit (ACs can go very high). A cleric who acheives a high modifier on their turn checks doesn't know if he'll turn an undead (HD and other factors can make it 'near impossible'). A wizard doesn't know if he'll penetrate a creature's SR. I don't see why a rogue should be assured that he'll avoid setting off a trap simply because he's acheived a high modifier (+19). Monsters with uber high AC are rare. Undead with uber high HD are rare. Monsters with uber high SR are rare. I don't see why there can't be mechanical traps with high DCs... (although rare) ESPECIALLY given that the rules allow for them. *shrug* Put me in the camp of "respectfully disagree" and ignore me I guess.
Hariman 10-03-07, 06:48 PM	Some skill DCs have higher curves than others. Traps are just one of them. Sleight of Hand, Decipher Script, and Use Magic Device are others. At low levels disabling a trap is very risky. But rather than have simply random DCs, there are reasonable ways of understanding how tough things are. A trapfinder has several plateaus that they reach.. finding traps that they can encounter by taking 20, then by taking 10, then disabling by taking 10. Each are achievable.. and by certain levels you should expect to be past certain of the plateaus to call yourself a trapfinder for that APL. -James That's what makes Kobold Trapfinder Rogues so cool. (If they rake the alternate class features.) At level one, assuming +3 to both Dex and Int, you get +9 to disable and +11 to search. By level 3, that goes to +13 to disable and +15 to search. At level 8 the kobold bonuses peak at +6 and the bonuses will be +20 to disable and +22 to search. Before magic items. Without feats. BUT, if you want to be a trapFINDER, you only need to crank your Search skill checks. There are other ways to disable traps, other than a rogue using disable device. Bypassing traps is also possible.
Mommy was an Orc 10-03-07, 08:27 PM	A fighter who achieves a +19 on their to hit roll doesn't know if he'll land a hit (ACs can go very high). I don't see why a rogue should be assured that he'll avoid setting off a trap simply because he's acheived a high modifier (+19). A Rogue with a +19 who needs to disarm a DC 30 trap won't succeed with a take 10. They need to roll a 11 to succeed(50%), 7 to not set it off(20%), and anything else sets it off. But the take 10 lets them know that their odds aren't that great - at best, if a take 10 fails, but doesn't set it off, they've got a 37% chance of setting it off. On the other hand, a trap with a DC 35 means the Rogue needs to roll a 16(25%), 12 to not set it off(20%), and there's a 55% chance of setting off. In essence, about a 70% chance of failure if they decide to not take 10. So in other words, you're saying you don't see a problem with a Rogue having a 70% chance of failing a particular encounter if they do the 'dumb' thing and 100% chance of failing an encounter if they're 'smart' about it... A Fighter who might miss one swing isn't being penalized to that extreme.
Redfist 10-03-07, 09:44 PM	Who said anything about failing an encounter? Setting off a trap doesn't mean you get 0 XP for it. It means you take damage (or whatever affect the trap has). More specifically, what I'm saying is that I think it's odd for a rogue to believe that disarming traps is essentially a sure thing. Adventuring is about the unknown and the associated risks. On rare occasion (I keep stressing RARE but no-one seems to notice) I think it's a GOOD thing that obstacles are more challenging than PCs assume. It keeps you on your toes. Scenario A: "Don't worry fellas, I have a 99.9% of disabling every trap out there. In fact, why don't you all just go to town to buy some bread. When you come back, I'll have this sucker disabled." -vs- Scenario B: "Ok - I found a mechanical trap. Cleric, please be ready with that healing or delay death. Wizard, do you have any buffs you can give me? Stand back everyone, this could get messy." I prefer to play in the world of Scenario B whether we're talking about rogues, fighters, diplomacy monkeys, clerics, whatever. I think counting on sure things takes the mystery out of the game and thus the fun. Like I said, you don't need to agree with me. This is my opinion.
Hariman 10-03-07, 11:59 PM	Who said anything about failing an encounter? Setting off a trap doesn't mean you get 0 XP for it. It means you take damage (or whatever affect the trap has). More specifically, what I'm saying is that I think it's odd for a rogue to believe that disarming traps is essentially a sure thing. Adventuring is about the unknown and the associated risks. On rare occasion (I keep stressing RARE but no-one seems to notice) I think it's a GOOD thing that obstacles are more challenging than PCs assume. It keeps you on your toes. Scenario A: "Don't worry fellas, I have a 99.9% of disabling every trap out there. In fact, why don't you all just go to town to buy some bread. When you come back, I'll have this sucker disabled." -vs- Scenario B: "Ok - I found a mechanical trap. Cleric, please be ready with that healing or delay death. Wizard, do you have any buffs you can give me? Stand back everyone, this could get messy." I prefer to play in the world of Scenario B whether we're talking about rogues, fighters, diplomacy monkeys, clerics, whatever. I think counting on sure things takes the mystery out of the game and thus the fun. Like I said, you don't need to agree with me. This is my opinion. I agree that the element of uncertainty is a good thing. BUT, the element of uncertainty can be skewed so far that failure is more likely than success. It seems some authors (SOME, not all.) are overcompensating for high skill rolls by making Disable Device DCs so hard that only tweaked out characters even have a chance. OR the DCs don't scale with the APL. (DC 35 for the entire adventure, regardless of APL.) Either way, it's not as fun as traps balanced against the APL. It's not fun because even my Kobold Trapmaster would have trouble with a DC 35 trap at APL 6. And he's well above the norm already. Heck, a DC 34 trap is a spell based trap fueled by a 9th level spell. APL 6 is probably a little early for something with a save that starts at 23. So, a balance is needed. Either scaling DCs (cool and balanced) or adjusting the traps by APL (also balanced, but a not cool amount of work.) is good.
Lomiat 10-04-07, 12:03 AM	Who said anything about failing an encounter? Setting off a trap doesn't mean you get 0 XP for it. It means you take damage (or whatever affect the trap has). More specifically, what I'm saying is that I think it's odd for a rogue to believe that disarming traps is essentially a sure thing. Adventuring is about the unknown and the associated risks. On rare occasion (I keep stressing RARE but no-one seems to notice) I think it's a GOOD thing that obstacles are more challenging than PCs assume. It keeps you on your toes. Scenario A: "Don't worry fellas, I have a 99.9% of disabling every trap out there. In fact, why don't you all just go to town to buy some bread. When you come back, I'll have this sucker disabled." -vs- Scenario B: "Ok - I found a mechanical trap. Cleric, please be ready with that healing or delay death. Wizard, do you have any buffs you can give me? Stand back everyone, this could get messy." I prefer to play in the world of Scenario B whether we're talking about rogues, fighters, diplomacy monkeys, clerics, whatever. I think counting on sure things takes the mystery out of the game and thus the fun. Like I said, you don't need to agree with me. This is my opinion. I think we're with you when it's a question of whether or not we enjoy the element of chance in our d20 sessions. However, I think the matter of contention is that when the rogue needs the buffs and the cleric's help to be sure to handle the trap safely, it's better just to let the barbarian run blindly (idiotically) into it, howling and screaming for all the bad guys to come hit him in the face, because he's ready for it, soak up the damage and walk back to the cleric and say 97 hps, please. When the traps just do hp damage, the hp damage exceeds what a typical rogue can survive, the DCs are too high for a rogue to find, and the traps don't trigger additional encounters and create problems with ramifications beyond the initial hp loss (in other words, a typical LG trap -- at least through Year 5): There's no point to have the rogue. The rogue class is made useful and "iconic" in a party **if** A) mods feature traps B) the traps adjust the way entire combats function, drastically impacting the difficulty of an encounter/adventure C) the traps can be located/disabled D) it's not so difficult to locate/disable these traps that an average rogue with max skill ranks is going to fail a majority of the time In other words, rogues in LG have long been playing in 2/3rds of their mods in the equivalent of a world in which the wizards and clerics find themselves stuck in anti-magic all the time. When they have a chance to cast their spells, wild magic surges and forces them to make caster level checks that require them to roll nat 16s on their dice (or higher) or have their spells explode in their faces for (PC level + 2)*d6 of damage. They've been playing in the equivalent of the world in which all barbarian fighters find themselves perpetually stuck in the subtle investigative mods, and when the fights finally break out, they're with reach/grapple monsters who have Will save effects to disable melee combatants (or rust monsters!).
Redfist 10-04-07, 01:08 AM	Once again... I'll stress my continual usage of the word RARE. I think rogues who tweak out their disarm should be successful for the majority of their disarm attempts. However, if the ***RARE*** mechanical trap proves to be too hard of a challenge - that retains the danger aspect that I find appealing to the game. If all mods feature mechanical traps with uber high DCs, then it starts to leave the realm of RARE. I'll repeat it... RARE :)
Mommy was an Orc 10-04-07, 08:16 AM	Once again... I'll stress my continual usage of the word RARE. I think rogues who tweak out their disarm should be successful for the majority of their disarm attempts. However, if the ***RARE*** mechanical trap proves to be too hard of a challenge - that retains the danger aspect that I find appealing to the game. And that danger aspect exists - the ability to take 10 on a mechanical trap does not ensure success. It means you either easily disarm a non-complex trap, you have a 37-62% chance of failure when you reroll, or it goes off. I think a 62% chance of having a trap going off will more than sufficiently retain a sense of danger for the non-supertweaked Rogue while still preserving a 37% chance of failure for the tweaked Rogue. What you're actually advocating that there should be mechanical traps that have a 70% or greater chance of failure, with no way of knowing if they're that difficult, or you, the player of a non-rogue, won't find the game sufficiently appealing. And that 70%+ chance of failure means the Rogue has to do something extremely suboptimal, especially if it is rare. In practice, the 70% failure traps turn into 100% failure traps unless you're expecting horrendous DCs for some reason.
Redfist 10-04-07, 11:24 AM	Like I said. You're free to disagree with me. I'm perfectly fine with that. The rules allow for DCs higher than you're advocating and even give guidance on how to increase CR when doing so. I think it's silly, however, that the last step is "30+". They should have either capped the DC somewhere above 30 (say 35?) OR given better direction of CR bumps as you go beyond. A disable DC of 1000 is obviously ridiculous but should imply a CR different than a DC of 31 unless of course the intention was really "30+ is practically unsolveable". Perhaps that falls into the realm of "just a little bit pregnant". :D My primary point of pointing out what the rules allow is really to combat the notion that authors are being mean/stupid/evil/thoughtless when designing within the rules system. The DMG states that a DC of 30 warrants a CR bump of +2 and that DCs in the range of 25-29 warrant a CR bump of +1. Why would they list those ranges if they never intended anyone to use them? Perhaps it's for the same reason they included monsters which are immune to spells. Perhaps not every class is meant to be able to tackle every obstacle and thus need to lean on other party members... in the rare cases. Perhaps it's one of the design points which helps make D&D a team activity - not for soloists.
Mommy was an Orc 10-04-07, 12:42 PM	The DMG states that a DC of 30 warrants a CR bump of +2 and that DCs in the range of 25-29 warrant a CR bump of +1. Why would they list those ranges if they never intended anyone to use them? Because no one has said you can never use those ranges. There are APLs where it is appropriate to make more difficult traps because the iconic Rogue might be expected to auto-disarm normal ones. The problem isn't the ranges; the problem is making a trap where the typical Rogue needs to roll a 15 to succeed. Basically, APL+21 should be the highest DC with a slight nudge up at APL 10+.
Redfist 10-04-07, 01:27 PM	I understand that that is your opinion. However, I also respect the fact that authors have the ability to use their own opinion and judgement when creating their mods and that those opinions can conflict with yours and not necessarily be worthy of labelling theirs as inappropriate. I've read over mods where I disagree with some of what was done, but I don't label their efforts as wrong or thoughtless. I simply accept that they did things differently than I would have. I like to assume the best of people's motives unless proven otherwise. Perhaps the author had good intentions behind his/her reasoning rather than assuming that the author was thoughtless or somehow negligent.
Mommy was an Orc 10-04-07, 02:51 PM	I understand that that is your opinion. However, I also respect the fact that authors have the ability to use their own opinion and judgement when creating their mods and that those opinions can conflict with yours and not necessarily be worthy of labelling theirs as inappropriate. It is highly inappropriate. Rogues do not have good saves. Only a poorly played Rogue can possibly succeed and even then the odds are grim. It is basically designed to punish people for taking 10, despite it being the only intelligent play choice given the vast majority of traps. The only real question is whether or not the writer is consciously punishing players or doesn't understand the mechanics of Disable Device. It is writers like those that result in all the various contortions LG'ers go through to provide a trapfinder who isn't actually a Rogue X build.
Redfist 10-04-07, 03:38 PM	It seems obvious at this point that the conversation won't evolve so I'll step out. I'll remain on the side of respecting people's right to their own opinion without labelling them for having one. My last post...
Mommy was an Orc 10-04-07, 04:04 PM	I'll remain on the side of respecting people's right to their own opinion without labelling them for having one. There are inappropriate encounters for LG and claiming we can't say it is inappropriate because that's somehow labelling the author is beyond politically correct. You can differ with me if you like about what is appropriate and what is not. But just as a APL+7 encounter is inappropriate for LG, so is an encounter that pretty much every intelligently played and built Rogue will auto-set off. Especially if such an encounter has a significant chance of killing the Rogue for doing it. Which in case it isn't clear, is what you're advocating as being challenging fun.