Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Soultpp" data-source="post: 6940771" data-attributes="member: 6822710">You failed to read the fact that I had agreed that we would never agree, you could have left it at that.  And yes I can to, and after this I probably will.Already you are misreading my statements.  I said 2 5' squares.  2 of them, not a single one.  That is what I said.  Good, bad, I'm not arguing that point any more, just clarifying what I actually said.I never talked about save throws because it never came up, that's all.  In most cases an area effect tends to favor saving throws over attack rolls, and I would likely have continued with that conventionAgain, I didn't 'ask' for a bull rush effect, I suggested it as an option.  I have never once made statements of fact as to how this should be, merely what it could be.I quoted another person's suggestion, one that I said was similar to what I was thinking, not 'exactly that'.I never said this was a no-hit-roll attack.  Not once.  This is again, purely your own assumptions on the subject. It is at most, comparable in power to alchemist's fire in that the damage is split between 2 targets rather than two rounds.  As for the 2 CP cost, that was an argument about research costs, not specifically about the cost of the trap itself as I had never truly set that with a specific cost.As far as it being 'greater than burning hands', again you are twisting my words, as you have been doing constantly in this thread.  I won't repeat myself again, because you will again just ignore it.Here I will flatly say that you are wrong because the 'rationalization' as you call it is not founded in 'mechanics'.  There are so many things that the mechanics do not cover that are still part of a world these are not just numbers on paper, they are supposed to be characters with thoughts and feelings and experiences that are not always just 'dice rolls and mechanics'. All of my arguments on background were not founded solely on 'mechanics'. You seem fixated on 'game mechanics' as the only possibility to such an extreme that I am quite astonished.Again, you are implying things here. I used flour as a possible example of 'dust' as the most likely source, but it was not the only one that could have been used and even using flour did not necessarily need to be the only factor in final costs.  My only real issue with the costs was in finding a practical number.  It is not only limited by the amount of flour that can be carried, which is a significant limiting factor considering how much an adventurer already needs to carry.  There are many other factors, such as location, that you never seem to pay attention to.  It seems exceedingly unlikely that an adventuring party would be in a situation where they could use the same location for multiple battles, even if they were the scorch marks from the initial use would add increasing bonuses to spot and avoid the trap (which would render it completely powerless).  The fact that traps are avoidable is something that most spells do not have as a limiting factor by the way.  A fireball flies to a specific point and bursts, anyone in that area takes damage whether they succeed on their save or not. (The exceptions are those with evasion of course) For most traps, they can be avoided before they are even triggered.Let us look at another example: setting up an ambush (which this is what the idea was for) by positioning boulders above where the enemies are going to me, rigged to fall when triggered by, say, a trip line.  This would require muscle, a wedge, and a trip line (and skill rolls of course).  Is this also unbalancing because it is not limited by spell slots and costs virtually nothing?</blockquote>

Verification