Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Soultpp" data-source="post: 6939908" data-attributes="member: 6822710">I will start with the last one first and say yes, you are right, its my DM I need to convince.  And since I had serious doubts even before your tone made me a tad defensive, I had already resolved to show him this thread, including all arguments.  He said, before I ever brought it up again, that he thought you were exaggerating your position and was amazed at how you went to great length to prove your position. That being said, wizards unbalance the game already, the core game is horribly unbalanced to begin with.  That isn't an argument for the trap idea, I may just give up on it for now.I was not trying, even once to say that the idea did not come with costs, never.  I in fact said on numerous occasions that it was in fact MORE costly than fireball in numerous ways both practical and tactical.  No I did not price it based on the traps listed in the DMG because I don't see any logic to them for one thing.I may have said that it started at a slightly higher average dmg than burning hands initially, but as you said the size is not your issue, the lack of any scaling doesn't seem to matter either.  Because it isn't limited by some arbitrary spell slot system which only restrains a wizard at the lowest possible levels from becoming godly, you claim that makes it unbalancing despite increased effort and resources required to create or even discover such a thing that I have said at every point exist.As far as scope or scale goes, I could do more for less just grabbing a crossbow for the character: Better damage, father range, no skill, and not fixed to a predefined location, nothing but an attack roll. Again, this was about flavor, not function.I never said that I should be able to do anything without anything.  If the DM required some sort of research first fine, that would happen through the campaign.  Most DMs I know would just assume that such things were left for down time honestly. Some may or may not allow such things in to the background.  You obviously would not, that is clear. My entire point on the observations in background for the basis of the idea was that it was possible, not that I was trying to avoid any and all restrictions in its implementation.As far as skill checks go, I agreed to them.  I believe that this would require one.  My disagreement was on the number you chose and your logic behind it. I did not actually argue for its removal or even actually directly for its reduction, I merely pointed out that most of the 'modifiers' you proposed could, and only could be reduced or eliminated by time and research not that they would.Okay yes I may have argued for the possibility of this existing.  I never once said 'without cost', never. I also agreed with the idea of skill checks.  Even if you had never mentioned the fact I would have expected some kind of checks, at the very minimal several Craft(Trapmaking) checks as it was being prepared. A different skill than you think, but still a skill.  This isn't a spell, so spell research has no baring on this.  Dwarven trap makers building defenses against invasion would never research spells for their quite clever non-magical traps.In point of fact, you have been ignoring one of the biggest limiting factors this idea has for this whole time.  Location.  It cannot happen outside of a very specific setting.  Magic of any type is far more mobile barring a few specific 'trap spells'.  In actual fact, my opinion on the cost is that this is up to the DM to decide.  If my DM said, it would cost the same as 'X' trap in the DMG in order for me to use it, then that's the end of it.  I personally don't agree with some of the costs, but it is the DM who decides that and I'm sure most would likely follow the DMG, so be it.I have not exactly argued against limiting factors at all, in fact I've on several occasions insisted that there were in fact more of them than for spells.  I may have brought up points that I felt countered your arguments, but that is all I did.But as far as 'developing this trap'...  You haven't ever really given any help in actually developing anything, just tried to argue against the idea existing.  We wouldn't be in this debate if you had been offering assistance in the construction/mechanics.  Even if you had just found a comparative trap in the DMG and posted it like delericho did as a guideline, we probably would not have needed to debate anything.As of this moment though, I don't think I am going to pursue the trap for the foreseeable future.  It just really is not worth any more effort in even thinking about. I also do not know if I will come back here much in the future. I have not felt particularly welcome through out this.</blockquote>

Verification