Does the Trapsense ability, for a Rogue, come into play in this situation?

[knifespeaks]

*double post*

 

[DanMcS]

After failing to notice the trap, allowing a reflex save sets a precedent for the same rogue to receive a reflex save when touched by an the caster of the same spell in combat - since he avoided it once with reflex, why not again? I would think that allowing a reflex save is an arbitrary ruling, not vice versa.

No it doesn't. In combat, it's a completely different effect; the opponent is making a touch attack. There's already a chance of success or failure there.

Traps are interesting in game because they're a challenge. Will the party detect them? Will they be able to disarm them? If it goes off, can they avoid it? If the trap is undetectable, undisarmable, or unavoidable, then it's not interesting at all. At that point, your party is going to say, ok, let's find the guy with the most hit points and send him up to set it off, because there's no chance of not getting hurt. They're not going to be interested in your trap, they're going to be bored, and since we're gaming to have fun, boring the party is the worst sin the DM can ever commit.

For instance, the worst traps in gaming history are those that give the party no chance of success. Which one is it, the Tomb of Horrors maybe, that opens like this? There are two doors, if the party goes through the door on the right they all die instantly, if they go through the door on the left the adventure continues. Who the heck comes up with this crap? The DM goes to the effort of getting the group interested in the adventure, and then if they make the "wrong" choice, without any information available to them at all that there is a wrong choice to make, game over, roll up new characters.

 

[knifespeaks]

Look at it this way - the 'touch attack' of the trap has already succeeded - the rogue and the spell were in contact. So, why allow a reflex save for one and not the other?

The 'hit or miss' in both had already occurred (hit roll in the case of a caster, search roll in the rogue's case). Allowing a reflex save for one and not the other is arbitrary.

 

[DanMcS]

Look at it this way - the 'touch attack' of the trap has already succeeded - the rogue and the spell were in contact. So, why allow a reflex save for one and not the other?

The 'hit or miss' in both had already occurred (hit roll in the case of a caster, search roll in the rogue's case). Allowing a reflex save for one and not the other is arbitrary.

Traps don't make touch attacks; a spell delivered by a touch attack is being directed by a thinking being. The rogue has a chance to avoid the spell by dodging the wizard's touch attack.

A trap like this one is magical or mechanical, and goes off in response to a condition, usually opening the door or something. There is no touch attack being made, just the effect discharging. The rogue should have a chance to avoid the damage, in this case, a reflex save to drop the handle.

It's not at all arbitrary. It's not two different ways of avoiding the same spell, it's two different ways of avoiding two different effects (a trap vs a touch-attack spell).

 

[knifespeaks]

/snip

For instance, the worst traps in gaming history are those that give the party no chance of success. Which one is it, the Tomb of Horrors maybe, that opens like this? There are two doors, if the party goes through the door on the right they all die instantly, if they go through the door on the left the adventure continues. Who the heck comes up with this crap? The DM goes to the effort of getting the group interested in the adventure, and then if they make the "wrong" choice, without any information available to them at all that there is a wrong choice to make, game over, roll up new characters.

Based on that, I ca see we are from 2 different ends of the spectrum. An intelligent monster doesn't place traps for people to get past - they are placed, in that example, to KILL.

What you are saying is that all the cliched James Bond-type methods of killing the spy once he has been captured by the arch-criminal are logical and intelligent. You know, where the explosives are on a timer, just long enough for him to get free?

I am one of those who just shakes his head at the 'amazing escape' after watching it for the tenth time and simply wonders why the arch-crim doesn't just shoot him in the head....

 

[Nail]

I'm always in the minority around here, so make of this what you will

No worries, mate!

Also, traps don't exist for players to simply get past. They are placed by intelligent enemies to WORK..

You're mixing some things up. Let's try again.

D&D is a game. It has to be fun for all involved.

Part of the fun comes from world verisimilitude. That is, the world has to seem real. So those traps need to seem like they make sense and were put there for a leathal purpose.

Also, the game has to provide players with the opportunities to interact. Putting in traps that allow no save or attack roll....might be construed as foiling this second goal.

IOW: Yer not putting the trap there 'cause it'll work. Yer puttin' it there cause it'll be fun.

That said, it's allowable, using examples from Core rules, to put in traps that don't allow saves or have attack rolls. From a design standpoint, most of your traps should not be of this type.

BTW: did you give more XP for the no save traps? I should hope so.

 

[Scion]

I would have given a save with a penalty (between -4 and -8 depending on the handle). In essence, someone very good at dodgeing traps would've taken half damage (possibly none) but most people would take the full brunt of it.

The rules have already been stated and they are not terribly clear on which way it should normally be handled (there are cases on both sides in essence). So I thought I'd just toss in what I would do

But, if for some reason I did want to make it no save then it would definately increase the CR of the trap at least slightly.

 

[DanMcS]

Based on that, I ca see we are from 2 different ends of the spectrum. An intelligent monster doesn't place traps for people to get past - they are placed, in that example, to KILL.

What you are saying is that all the cliched James Bond-type methods of killing the spy once he has been captured by the arch-criminal are logical and intelligent. You know, where the explosives are on a timer, just long enough for him to get free?

I am one of those who just shakes his head at the 'amazing escape' after watching it for the tenth time and simply wonders why the arch-crim doesn't just shoot him in the head....

Yes, I call my end of the spectrum, "fun". The monster places the trap to kill. The DM places the trap for the party to encounter and be challenged by, because that's why you got together with your buddies to game. Do not confuse the two roles.

If you, as the DM, are placing stuff to kill, you're doing it wrong. You're the DM, you can kill the party at any time, but that is neither fun nor challenging. The fun comes when the party has a chance for success and feels like they have accomplished great things getting through your adventure.

There's a reason the writer doesn't just kill off James Bond ten minutes into the movie. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of the villain. If you don't understand that, you probably shouldn't be DMing.

 

[Bladesong]

It is always entertaining to read opposite ideas on one subject. Since they are both largely opinions, here is my two-cents: It was detectible and able to be disarmed. The rogue was not successful at one or both. At that point (if he detected it but was unable to disarm it), if it was a glyph (for instance) he would probably have told a spell caster that it is "magically trapped" and that he "could not disarm it" so the caster would probably be using Dispel Magic at this point. If the rogue could not find it and/or could not disarm it a small amount of damage (and I would say 3d6 is a small amount) to an individual who activates it is no big deal; it was his choice after all.
That having been said, I would not use a similar effect that would kill out-right or could do enough damage to kill out-right without a chance to at least reduce it to non-fatal levels.
For those of you who would have given him a save... I suppose you could give the rogue (just because he is a rogue) a REF save to pull his hand off of the sphere of annihilation he just decided to grab because he is a "dextrous and mighty adventurer (or whatever I read earlier)", but that just seems silly. Any character, no matter how experienced can still do something stupid whether they mean to or not or even know it or not.

 

[knifespeaks]

Yes, I call my end of the spectrum, "fun". The monster places the trap to kill. The DM places the trap for the party to encounter and be challenged by, because that's why you got together with your buddies to game. Do not confuse the two roles.

If you, as the DM, are placing stuff to kill, you're doing it wrong. You're the DM, you can kill the party at any time, but that is neither fun nor challenging. The fun comes when the party has a chance for success and feels like they have accomplished great things getting through your adventure.

There's a reason the writer doesn't just kill off James Bond ten minutes into the movie. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of the villain. If you don't understand that, you probably shouldn't be DMing.

Well, see this is where we differ - when I DM, I play the monster. If the monster has the wherewithal and the initelligence to design traps that kill, then they kill.

this is not the same as 'the DM killing the players'. This is the players being in situations where death is a very real possibility. The trap you speak of, in the module, is easily avoided by casting Augury - what happens if we go left? and what happens if we go right?

If the players are neither careful enough, nor smart enough to think their way through things, then I see no reason to give them ANOTHER chance to avoid death.

Sorry, but my way is fun