I voted no because that trap is nonsensical. What purpose does it serve? How does the legitimate owner reach the treasure? How is the trap even reset once triggered? Who goes through all this trouble of lifting a stone block weighting tons up just to maybe poison intruders and that only when they cut the rope themselves?
D&D General Is this a fair trap?
R_J_K75
Legend
I think from a game standpoint there should be at least a chance for the players to overcome it. But yeah realistically who the hell is going to design a trap and ask themselves beforehand if its fair?
Laurefindel
Legend
traps are, by design, meant to be unfair!
That being said, i'm not an expert on the ecology of gelatinous cubes, but this thing gotta have to eat once in a while. It's stuck in its hole and can't move around, so either enough adventurers fall for the trap and keep the gelatinous cube, hum, gelatinous, or someone is feeding it.
Likewise, the rope's coating would most likely need to be re-treated, or the rope would need to be replaced once in a while.
And if the cube is invisible, someone needs to cast invisibility on it, and permanent invisibility is expensive. So is the treasure left as bait for that matter...
The budget version would probably imply a fake treasure and take advantage of a particularly translucent cube, but it may still refract light in such a way that could betray its presence, like a body of water. One way or another, there should be rather obvious tell-tale signs for an avid trap-finder.
So my reaction as a player would be "come-on, who though of that!" As long as the adventure includes someone who could think of that, or has a believable way of hiring someone who can built it, i'd say its fair game. In a way, it would make sense that someone who can capture a gelatinous cube for a trap possesses a anti-corrosive gel to cover the rope with, or, you know, yourself (and other gelatinous-wrangling gear, such as it is). Which would be a nice treasure by the way. Perhaps the "catch on fire" thing is more of a design flaw than a wanted property; watch thoses torches while you're covered in anti-cube goo!
That being said, i'm not an expert on the ecology of gelatinous cubes, but this thing gotta have to eat once in a while. It's stuck in its hole and can't move around, so either enough adventurers fall for the trap and keep the gelatinous cube, hum, gelatinous, or someone is feeding it.
Likewise, the rope's coating would most likely need to be re-treated, or the rope would need to be replaced once in a while.
And if the cube is invisible, someone needs to cast invisibility on it, and permanent invisibility is expensive. So is the treasure left as bait for that matter...
The budget version would probably imply a fake treasure and take advantage of a particularly translucent cube, but it may still refract light in such a way that could betray its presence, like a body of water. One way or another, there should be rather obvious tell-tale signs for an avid trap-finder.
So my reaction as a player would be "come-on, who though of that!" As long as the adventure includes someone who could think of that, or has a believable way of hiring someone who can built it, i'd say its fair game. In a way, it would make sense that someone who can capture a gelatinous cube for a trap possesses a anti-corrosive gel to cover the rope with, or, you know, yourself (and other gelatinous-wrangling gear, such as it is). Which would be a nice treasure by the way. Perhaps the "catch on fire" thing is more of a design flaw than a wanted property; watch thoses torches while you're covered in anti-cube goo!
Considering the only effect of the trap is the mold you can achieve the same thing by having a fake door which opens up to a 1ft deep alcove full with mold.
I voted “yes”, but I use traps from Grimtooth’s Traps in my game, so take that for what it’s worth.
Update: put trap description in spoiler tags
My favorite incident is the time I used a trap where there appeared to be a pit of spikes, but it was an illusion. If you walked around the pit, the floor would spring you into the ceiling, which was an illusion of a ceiling covering spikes. The PCs determined that the floor was an illusion and made their way past it. While trying to trick some ghouls in the room beyond the trap, they forgot about it, one of them walked back along the sides of the pit, and got sproinged into the ceiling. 
The trap was Illusions by Pat Mueller from from the original Grimtooth’s Traps.
The trap was Illusions by Pat Mueller from from the original Grimtooth’s Traps.
Update: put trap description in spoiler tags
Last edited:
Not in 1980 or before. From the AD&D PHB, p 70:
The spell remains in effect until it is magically broken or dispelled, or the magic-user or the other recipient cancels it or until he, she or it attacks any creature. Thus, the spell caster or recipient could open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, etc., but if any form of attack is made, the invisible creature immediately becomes visible, although this will allow the first attack by the creature because of the former invisibility.
B/X and OD&D have the same rule for the duration of Invisibility.
R_J_K75
Legend
If its made permanent wouldnt the creature become invisible again on its next turn after attacking?
Li Shenron
Legend
None of those explanations should IMHO be a concern for the players. If I play the game, I take whatever is coming and try to beat it. Sometimes I fail, and some of my characters even died sometimes, but I keep playing, I don't start contesting the economy behind a trap. If the players feel something is/was too difficult to beat, they're right to bring it up to the DM, who has the responsibility of keeping a reasonable level of challenge (too hard or too easy spoils the fun). But I do not accept players who argue the "logic" of a story element at the table, as if such players would be capable of doing a perfect job... most of the times they are just resenting the fact that they weren't able to to win. Off the table, sure go ahead, we've been here 20+ years already indulging in theorycrafting after all.
Besides... I wish that I would react with a "who though of that!" more often when playing, that would be amazing.
That's Roger Musson's take on it. He's envisaging that the cube sits a foot or so below the lip of the pit, and that it's not easy to stab/hack down low like that.
I guess so. Invisibility is listed as a legitimate combo with Permanency, but there's no explanation of what that means given that Invisibility is in any event permanent until dispelled or broken.
Similar Threads
- Poll
