Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Soultpp" data-source="post: 6939080" data-attributes="member: 6822710">As I have been busy these past few days with school, I only now got a chance to return to reply.Rather than firing off another quote fest I am just going to try to sum things up in a shorter form.  (Okay in the end, I failed in making this short)I did agree that it is similar to a fireball in much the same way that any sudden burst of flame is similar to another.  The scope and effect and even the actual appearance are only superficially so though.You are attempting to use logic traps against me here and it is not going to work because while I agreed that it is superficially similar I do not agree it is the same thing as replicating a magical effect with non-magical means.I must also suggest that, to research such magic in the first place, the original creators of the spells needed to be inspired by something, a natural explosion of some kind seems logical.As for the skill check, your description of the various modifiers is faulty in a very large regard.  You are inferring massive amounts of fore-knowledge about the character's background and pre-game experience.  Not every single adventurer starts on a farm, neither do they all start uneducated. What I had or had not planned with the actual background of the character was never discussed beyond the scope of this one trap idea.  Now that being said, some of those modifiers may apply, some may not.  It is entirely by your presumptions that this is even based around a Spellcraft check to begin with. Then there is the fact that most, if not all of these modifiers could not be mitigated or in some cases eliminated with adequate investigation. You are also labeling this a 2nd lvl effect when it most closely resembles burning hands which is a 1st lvl effect.  So in the end, it still feels like an arbitrary number, a punishment for doing something you don't think should happen.At least we can agree on at least one point, I would never attempt to do anything that the DM did not agree with, and that includes background information, which I always discuss with my DM, especially if there is anything in it that is unusual.  I have been known to offer him 7-10 page short stories detailing the backgrounds of my character and there has been at least one instance where he did not accept what was there, and that's fine.Dissuade me from what?  Attempting to make this trap, or talking to my DM about something that he has every right to make the final judgement on as to whether it is a viable option?  I did not say that I still intended to craft the trap, only discuss the possibility with my DM.I do not think that you are specifically picking on me no, but I do think that you are looking at everything I say with a biased viewpoint and so of course I am going to fall into your pigeonholed expectations of my motives.There are no rules saying it can, but at the same time no rules saying it can't.  I am not using this statement to justify anything, I am just stating a fact to add to yours. The rules neither support, nor deny either of our positions.  As for your excersise in reductio ad absurdum using plutonium, that is something that would be up to a DM to stop from happening.  Though unless the DM already exposed the caster in question to plutonium, or allowed the caster to have had research into or contact with it in the past said caster can't know of it to create it.  So the creation of plutonium in a campaign would be a DM failure as much as anything else.  Theoretically it could prove to be an interesting campaign though.As for a character researching things: they want to learn about how it works in an attempt to replicate it is is the usual reason.  There are countless 'tinker gnomes' and 'gadgeteers' in the RPG universe as well as sages and numerous other researchers trying to learn about the world around them.  My question is, why wouldn't they?And every little detail of the background was done with rolls.  This is background information, not part of the actual campaign.Now I can't refute your agricultural facts as I have no knowledge in that regard. I will go over some points, and yes I'll use quotes for this part just for simplicity's sake.This is true in theory.  For most people it would be just a threat of starvation.  Of course this presupposes that this is the only grainery, it is a significantly large grainery and the character in questions was directly tied to the food stored within in a very tangible fashion.  A street urchin (not necessarily my character just an example of one type amount several) that saw something like this may or may not tie the actual explosion to his/her food source.Again, this is supposition on your part and the very fact of HAVING skill ranks would counter your arguement here to a degree.  I am not arguing for 'high-school' education, though some cultures tend to be quite educated in certain D&D settings.  However, having skill ranks in a craft skill presupposes training and knowledge in the methods used to create and invent things within the purview of said skill.First, let me say that while I understand and accept that the rules state that one needs some type of spellcasting to use alchemy, I have seen an example in D&D literature (again only literature, not rulebooks) wherein a non-caster was quite proficient with alchemy.  That being said, it could be argued that a basic knowledge gained as an assistant to an actual alchemist could be enough for something like this, assuming that at least part of the research was aided, if not primarily undertaken by said alchemist, maybe it was he that was investigating and his 'brat assistant' just capitalized on it to figure out a new trick.  I would think that such a line of reasoning would be up to a DM to arbitrate and I accept that probably not every DM would agree, that's fine and their right as DMs.10) Every attempt, failed or otherwise, is destroying several meals  worth of food, in a world far different from our own.  Food is neither  plentiful nor cheap.  The "It's only flour" world is very modern and  very western.  Again, supposition as to the nature of the experiments, some of the experiments may not have used actual 'flour'.  As far as trade goods go though, flour is among the cheapest on the list I have at 2 CP per pound with raw wheat at half that.  A pound of flour would be used up in a very short amount of time as that is about 4 cups worth and it takes more than that for a loaf of bread.  I think even a minor alchemist would believe that such a minimal cost is worth it for a bit of experimentation.It ignores nothing.  It may assume that the person or persons doing the experimentation are not concerned with the larger connotations of the incident, a common occurrence in closeted researcher types.  Perhaps it was caused by an enemy plot to affect the regional food supply, perhaps triggered by something else, but that's for 'bigger people than me' to deal with.Well true enough, it has not been settled in fact, because it cannot be.  We are not there and cannot witness this.  The most we can do is agree or disagree that it could happen in theory.  I believe it could.As a matter of fact, for this trap one would be expending more resources for less effect as compared to fireball which you keep referencing.  Spells are restricted per day unless they require extra restrictions, but otherwise that is it.  A sorcerer for example, can on getting it, cast a 6d6 fireball a minimum of 3 times per day, every day, forever for free, a wizard gets it sooner though with less uses but again per day, every day and usually they have something more effective they would rather memorize.  The trap can't match that.  A Lv 1 caster can cast burning hands a minimum of 1/day for a wizard or 3 per day for a sorcerer, and that's just core classes and not taking into account bonus spells and again for free.  The trap MAY be able to match that rate for a short time, by then that burning hands spell will likely be stronger than it as it scales with the caster which the trap does not.  Not to mention the trap costs infinitely more and is entirely dependent on the threat coming to it. Balance-wise, it looks like the casters beat out my idea by a mile.As for the cost of traps listed in books, do you not realize how arbitrary some of THOSE are?  Look at the CR 1 trap, Doorknob Smeared with Contact Poison as an example.  It is listed as 900 GP, the Carrion Crawler Brain Juice used in it costs 200 GP...  Do you really think it takes 700 GP to smear some goo on a doorknob? The prices are not listed there in any form of 'balancing' act either.  I could personally duplicate a Camoflauged Pit Trap myself with enough time, a single shovel, and some large grass. Do you really think that it would cost me $1800 (GP) to do it?  Apart from the shovel, most of the 'materials' there are effectively without cost, as could any character with any amount of upper body strength.  This would be a bit different if made in stone, but still theoretically still similar in concept adding in a pickaxe for chipping the stone and a wheelbarrow for carting it away or else there would be a lot of loose rock to hint to passers that something isn't right.  These can be done by hand by a Lv1 commoner whereas the lowest level spell I can find to possibly duplicate the feat is the Lvl4 shape stone (looking only at arcane).  Now with magic it is infinitely faster than by hand, but at least with the dirt version of the pit trap, it would still only take a few hours or so for a reasonably fit person to dig, gravediggers do this for a living in fact, though not quite as deep as the trap version. This is an example of magic and non-magic being able to achieve the same ends, like you are accusing me of attempting to do.Now then, on to the fact that you are stuck on this being a supposed 'magical trap'...  Why does fire have to be magical?  Why?  This is the biggest point I can't understand in your arguement.  It is just because it makes it undetectable by detect magic?  That Doorknob trap certainly can't be, nor can the Camoflauged Pit Trap. And although they'd be nearly naked, it is theoretically possible that a 1st lvl character could have a jar of the brain juice.One final point here is that the whole 'dust' aspect was purely for flavor, it was never meant to require even a fraction of the thought you've given it.As for this, I said that I would likely discuss it with my DM.  Discuss, not 'press for it'.  In doing so, I would bring in all arguements, even yours, for and against the idea so that he could make up his own mind on the subject, if he decided that the idea was unique and original and interesting for role playing, that would be his decision.  Likewise if he agreed with you that it would be horiffically game breaking to have a one time trap that just happened to use dust to cause a very minor burst of fire that affected one or two monsters, then so be it I would think up something else.Am I still considering talking to him about it?  Probably, but I have never fully decided in my own mind whether to do so or not as yet.  Why is it so wrong for me to even talk to my DM about it in your eyes?I must admit that a part of me, a smallminded and overly defensive part, really wants to do it just because of your vociferousness in trying to argue against it.  I am trying not to let that petty side rule my judgement however, but I am quite honestly trying to understand just how this is so game breaking an idea, when everything I see tells me the opposite is the case.  I want to understand your position and for some parts of it I do, for replicating actual spell effects in non-magical means...  Well yes there are many spells that should never, or could never, be duplicated that way.  There are others that already are duplicated, to no great balance issues that I can see.Part of my issue with your argument is that I can't see what balance issues it would upset.  It does damage equal to your average sword with the only exception that it may hit a second target and is fire, not slashing damage.  Further more there is every possibility that a spot check will detect it and make it that much less likely to work. Would you argue as much against a flaming ball of pitch being lobbed by a catapult?</blockquote>

Verification