Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Soultpp" data-source="post: 6940128" data-attributes="member: 6822710">Actually no, someone did not suggest such a trap should have 'a specific cost' in fact what he did was find the nearest equivalent trap from the DMG and modify it slightly for flavor.  I did not question that there was a cost, but how he arrived at it.  He said that he copied it from a similar trap but admitted that he did not believe there was any specific logic to it. He even suggested hand waving the cost at the same time.  I will agree that I did state that I would look at lowering the cost, if possible, but even if I were to follow the trap making rules directly from the DMG the trap I had suggested would be far cheaper as it would likely be a CR 1 trap, roughly equivalent to a pit trap in damage and effect, if not less.Most of the traps in the DMG would take a lot of painstaking setup so a higher cost is accepted and expected.  Some of them have costs that are listed that are completely illogical, as I've pointed out a few already.I acknowledged that spell equivalents could unbalance the game yes.  I also agreed that having them in unlimited use would be bad.  I disagreed with your perception that my idea was without such strict uses though.  I also wish you'd stop referencing fireball as I do not agree it is an equivalent effect.  If you must reference a spell, burning hands would be the closest in similarity. I mentioned the lack of balance not to excuse further unbalancing at all, just stating a fact.  And you are right, many do try to re-add balance, often by banning core classes like wizards.As far as 'agreeing on costs,' I never disagreed with them and Delericho even suggested I could ignore them as I said.  He merely provided one single example of a trap that could be similar to what I was asking, though I even said then that it was far stronger than what I had in mind. Again, I questioned only the reason behind the costs suggested, not that they existed in the first place.  I agreed to skill checks from the get go actually, before you ever mentioned them even. My only initial question to you on that subject was your choice of skill and the high level of your chosen check number, not why they should ever be used.  You never browbeat me into that, nor did anyone. No arm twisting at all here.As for the mechanics, I merely asked why it should be assumed that nothing is allowed if there is not specifically a rule already for it, which is what you seem to be implying?  If the RAW covered everything, house rules would never be needed.I'm not interested in power gaming here and never was.  I was only interested in the possibility of an idea for a one time flashy effect that would 'look cool' as it were and be a little useful in an extremely specific circumstance if I was lucky.  Perhaps I got caught up in the debate/argument and lost focus on this aspect a little, I've already admitted your aggressiveness was making me feel defensive after all, that I needed to 'fight back' as it were.At this point though, I am thinking of scrapping the whole character concept before I ever start playing the character. I just can't think I'll enjoy it now as I'll always flash back to this argument and that will just sour everything I am doing.</blockquote>

Verification