Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Barak]

Absolutely, assuming that by "the extreme crazy stuff" you mean "the stuff that would be unfair in virtually any fair context imaginable".

I also agree with Slife's response to your post.

Well I think we agree on the extreme crazy stuff. IE Slife's example.

So, going on that, and given the info we got from the OP, would you agree that while perhaps fair, it wasn't fair to put the trap there, given the fact that the monk missed his save with a 19?

 

[Raven Crowking]

You'll forgive me for not reading your critiera.. do you happen to remember what post number it was so I can see what you have to say?

I think it was 535.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well I think we agree on the extreme crazy stuff. IE Slife's example.

So, going on that, and given the info we got from the OP, would you agree that while perhaps fair, it wasn't fair to put the trap there, given the fact that the monk missed his save with a 19?

Not in this case, no. I don't think that the OP is in league with the sun being in a 10 x 10 room.

I note that the party thought that there was a trap, they had cleared the dungeon but did not take time to Take 10 or Take 20 (within the wording of the OP), they then simply pulled the lever, and they seemed to believe that there was still reasonable grounds to believe that a trap was there (which is why the monk pulled the lever).

We don't know what grounds there were to believe that there was a trap there, but I and others have written out painstaking lines of reasoning that would apply to any situation where a trap was at all likely.

The objection to this trap, therefore, seems to lie on:

(1) A Search check didn't find it. This is not sufficient reason in my book for a trap to be unfair.

(2) It required a very high save. Again, this is not sufficient reason in my book for a trap to be unfair.

and

(3) Failure to make that save was lethal.

The combination of (2) and (3) could certainly contribute to a trap being unfair if there was reason to believe that a party had no way to discern that a trap was probably there (not so in this case) and it was demonstrable that reasonable prudence could not locate/disarm the trap (again, not so in this case).

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

Well, I would certainly agree with that.

You would? Now I'm confused again.

Wouldn't an objective criteria apply to all games?

What are the tests supposed to do?

If the tests are supposed to measure the knowledge and capabilities of 2nd grade students, then (1) and (2) would seem to be part of (3).

If the tests are designed to measure understanding of particular material, then I would say any of the above would work if you were measuring on a curve, and (3) would be the best choice if you were not. It might be true that "trick questions are intrinsicly fair" but that does not make them appropriate for all contexts.

Interesting. See, the problem I have is the assumption that trick questions are intrinsically fair not being tested, so to me 1 and 2 are opposite to 3. He's made a choice about what is and what is not fair without actually finding out what is and what is not actually fair objectively (scientifically).

On the curve, I disagree. What if he finds that the main result of the trick questions is that it lowers the results of the students who know the material best and raises the scores of the students who know the material the worst? That would make using trick questions on 2nd grade tests unfair and nullify the results of any test that was to use trick questions, even on a curve.

However, by not doing any research, he is unable to realize that he is actually allowing his bias to show through and that he has accidently approved a very unfair test practice thinking it is actually fair. By not doing the research to back up how his claim works in pracitice, he has failed to achieve his goals of defining what is fair.

I'm sure my analogy is very transparent.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I note that the party thought that there was a trap, they had cleared the dungeon but did not take time to Take 10 or Take 20 (within the wording of the OP), they then simply pulled the lever, and they seemed to believe that there was still reasonable grounds to believe that a trap was there (which is why the monk pulled the lever).

I still don't see how "The rogue searches the door and lever for traps" means he didn't take 10 or 20...

 

[wayne62682]

I still don't see how "The rogue searches the door and lever for traps" means he didn't take 10 or 20...

Sorry to diver the topic but: Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you couldn't take 20 when searching for traps, because there's a penalty for failure (namely, setting off the trap). Or was that only for Disable and you technically cannot trigger a trap while looking for it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

You would? Now I'm confused again.

Wouldn't an objective criteria apply to all games?

Well, yes, but only in the broadest possible sense. The Core Rules, for example, create objective criteria for all D&D 3.X games, but not every game will use all of the Core Rules, and many games will use additional rules. Objective criteria apply to all games as a basis of comparison.

Each individual game or group of games is a subset of the whole. Each subset may have special conditions that need to be taken into account, just as each game may have special rules that need to be taken into account. Without some object of comparison (such as the RAW in terms of individual games and house rules), there is no way to talk intelligently from one subset to another.

(This is actually a common, albeit IMHO fallicious, complaint about earlier editions.)

Interesting. See, the problem I have is the assumption that trick questions are intrinsically fair not being tested, so to me 1 and 2 are opposite to 3. He's made a choice about what is and what is not fair without actually finding out what is and what is not actually fair objectively (scientifically).

Without actually trying trick questions (i.e., experimenting), how do you know whether or not your subset group (2nd graders) will be capable of understanding them?

On the curve, I disagree. What if he finds that the main result of the trick questions is that it lowers the results of the students who know the material best and raises the scores of the students who know the material the worst? That would make using trick questions on 2nd grade tests unfair and nullify the results of any test that was to use trick questions, even on a curve.

All right. I can see your point here. Granted.

However, by not doing any research, he is unable to realize that he is actually allowing his bias to show through and that he has accidently approved a very unfair test practice thinking it is actually fair. By not doing the research to back up how his claim works in pracitice, he has failed to achieve his goals of defining what is fair.

I'm sure my analogy is very transparent.

However, it does not apply, because your hypothetical tester believes that because something is objectively fair it is therefore fair in relation to each subjective subset, and does not take the needs of that subset into account. I am saying, and have said repeatedly, that even two things that are objectively fair can, in combination, become unfair, as an objectively fair encounter (T Rex) can become unfair when combined with an objectively fair scenario (1st level dungeon....or room full of 2nd graders ).

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry to diver the topic but: Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you couldn't take 20 when searching for traps, because there's a penalty for failure (namely, setting off the trap). Or was that only for Disable and you technically cannot trigger a trap while looking for it?

I believe that's only disable....and then, of course, you can be reasonably sure you failed or succeeded after Taking 10. (I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.)

ThirdWizard, the use of a skill does not imply that one has Taken 10 or Taken 20, therefore "The rogue searches the door and lever for traps" does not mean Took 10 or 20. You can say that it doesn't mean he didn't (sophistry, I cry!), but then I would have to ask: If you agreed that the OP stated explicitly that the rogue did not Take 10 or Take 20, would it alter your opinion at all?

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

Sorry to diver the topic but: Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought you couldn't take 20 when searching for traps, because there's a penalty for failure (namely, setting off the trap). Or was that only for Disable and you technically cannot trigger a trap while looking for it?

That's just Disable Device. You can't set off a trap by rolling poorly on a Search check. Thank goodness, because that would be a lot more dead PCs in my game, I think!

If you roll, the DM makes the check without you seeing the result, so that's why most people will take 20 on these things. If you roll at the wrong time and get a 2 or 3, then things can go bad fast.

You never know if you fail a search check based on the check alone.

However, it does not apply, because your hypothetical tester believes that because something is objectively fair it is therefore fair in relation to each subjective subset, and does not take the needs of that subset into account.

Hmmm...

What group of gamers does your trap fairness test fall into?

ThirdWizard, the use of a skill does not imply that one has Taken 10 or Taken 20, therefore "The rogue searches the door and lever for traps" does not mean Took 10 or 20. You can say that it doesn't mean he didn't (sophistry, I cry!),

I can claim that he did take 10 or 20 just as well as you can make claim that he didn't. In the end, we just don't know, and that's what I'm pointing out.

but then I would have to ask: If you agreed that the OP stated explicitly that the rogue did not Take 10 or Take 20, would it alter your opinion at all?

A fair question. Given that the save DC was so high, I don't think it would. Any trap with a DC high enough to kill a character outright with a roll of 19 will almost assuradly have a Search DC above what an equal level rogue can find, because they scale at the same rate.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, it's that last bit of Thirdwizard's that gets me. The fact that the trap is instant death. Pull the lever, die. (Ok, you might live if you roll a 20, but, that's bit of a cop out IMO). Even if the rogue discovered the trap, he still has a fairly high chance of dying since failing a disarm roll by 5 or more sets off the trap.

The trap is unfair since the party could do everything right and still die. We shouldn't be punishing parties for doing the right things should we?

If the save DC was standard, then I would have no beefs with this trap. The fact that this is instant death makes it unfair.