Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Lanefan]

Original poll question leaves out some background regarding the lever:

- do the PC's have reason to believe there's any more to the dungeon (e.g. suspicious holes in the map)?
- has the same adventure already had killer traps?
- has there been any prior warning here or elsewhere about the Lever of Doom?
- does this hypothetical game have the old spell "Find Traps" available and if yes, why was it not cast?

Regardless, I voted that it's fair.

Lanefan

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

How can it be a "red herring" if other posters have, in fact, taken the exact position that Papers&Paychecks is addressing?

It can be a red herring if "entitled" is misleading, by accident or on purpose.

 

[DonTadow]

Original poll question leaves out some background regarding the lever:

- do the PC's have reason to believe there's any more to the dungeon (e.g. suspicious holes in the map)?
- has the same adventure already had killer traps?
- has there been any prior warning here or elsewhere about the Lever of Doom?
- does this hypothetical game have the old spell "Find Traps" available and if yes, why was it not cast?

Regardless, I voted that it's fair.

Lanefan

I"m going to go on a limb and say we got everything. If the PCs had more warning about this thing the author would have mentioned it (if only to save face for his argument). If there were killer trapslikethis around that were undetectable and had previously killed party members I doubht any of them would be pulling levers ever again.

YOu did ring up agood point and this goes to my earlier comment that the DM failed in his description. Why werent there any indications that osmething was dangerious. Scorch marks, bones, blood spatter, left over equpement. Something should have been revealed during the thorough take 20 on search 20 minute investigation of the lever.

The DM seems to take for granted exactly whathappens during a take 20. this is not a quick glance. When someone takes 20 on a search they are investigating every area of that square or squares. The plus is it will at least reveal a clue if not the actual trap. At worst it wastes time. A trap allegedly that dangerious would leave some marks

 

[ThirdWizard]

How can it be a "red herring" if other posters have, in fact, taken the exact position that Papers&Paychecks is addressing?

Are you sure anyone has said that? I don't think anyone has.

It's the undetectability of the trap with the insanely high save that goes with it that is the problem. It isn't just one thing, its how everything works in concert in order to kill the PC. There are three main problems: search with high DC, save with high DC, no in-character warning. If one of these things were different, then it might be fair. If two were different then it probably would be.

I don't think anyone has been arguing otherwise. In fact, most people have not complained about the Search DC but of the save DC instead!

 

[Raven Crowking]

From either a role-playing (ala Kamikaze Midget) or meta-gaming standpoint, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When our rogue takes 20 on his Search check, all he knows is that, if there is a trap, it is beyond his skill to discover. At that point, the questions ought to be (again, from either perspective) "What is this lever here for?" and "Should we pull it?"

Now some meta-gaming questions enter the mix perforce:

"Is it safe to assume that any trap we encounter can be detected?" Not an assumption I'd make, and certainly not an assumption that a being living in an rpg world would make (unless those beings assume also that the world is devised for their benefit).

"Is it safe to assume that any trap we set off can be survived?" Again, the answer must be No. Either, from a role-playing standpoint, we remember that the world is not designed for our survival, or, from a meta-gaming standpoint, we remember that a certain percentage of encounters are supposed to be overwhelming.

So, we have good reason not to pull the lever. OTOH, fortune favors the bold, and sometimes so does the DM (or gods, if role-playing). So, should we pull the lever or not?

Well, it would certainly be simpler if there was some means in the game to "read the DM's mind," as it were. Some kind of spells to gain information, perhaps. Divination, we could call them. If there was some sort of low-level spell that could determine if an action would cause weal or woe in the near future, then life would be so much easier. But, alas, there is only one way to approach any challenge in the game......

(Needless to say, any lever protected against divination spells should be treated with great caution, even if the rogue finds nothing.)

RC

 

[delericho]

There are numerous instances of people declaring this trap "undetectable" as a result of the Rogue not find it and saying that is unfair.

Undetectable is an exaggeration and/or shorthand. Would you prefer "undetectable by the normally accepted means by which traps are generally detected within the game"?

In any event, I don;t recall seeing anyone claim the trap is unfair simply because the Rogue failed to find it by taking 20 on a Search. It's when you combine this with an extreme DC save and the insta-kill nature of the trap (that prevents Raise Dead, no less!) that we have problems.

There are numerous instances of people declaring that "taking 20" should reveal the presence of any reasonable trap as long as the Rogue is looking in the correct spot.

One person. Specifically me. And I placed the caveat on it "in a level-appropriate dungeon". I further noted that if the PCs were not in a level-appropriate dungeon then they should be aware (from their past experience in the dungeon) that they were not in a level-appropriate dungeon.

It's these little caveats that seem to keep getting missed, and they turn the "unfair" crowd from a bunch of extremist whiners into a reasonable position.

 

[delericho]

Ayup, and that's a common attitude. What it leads to, inevitably, is the expectation that all obstables can be overcome by rolling d20's. I think that's detrimental to the fun of the game.

Question: what is the Search DC of the trap?

If it has a DC, no matter how high, then the trap can be detected by rolling d20. In which case, that's not an unreasonable assumption - we're quibbling about the details, not the principle.

If the trap has no DC, and so cannot be detected by rolling d20, then we have another problem. There is no mechanism in the current edition for producing a trap that simply cannot be detected by a rogue with a sufficient Search modifier, and for good reason.

Which means that in producing this trap the DM has deliberately stepped beyond the rules in order to adversely affect (some might prefer 'challenge') the PCs. I would have thought expecting the DM to play by the rules of the game was a reasonable assumption to make, wouldn't you?

 

[Lanefan]

Question: what is the Search DC of the trap?

If it has a DC, no matter how high, then the trap can be detected by rolling d20.

Provided the searcher has enough skill; otherwise, it's still undetectable...no big deal.

If the trap has no DC, and so cannot be detected by rolling d20, then we have another problem. There is no mechanism in the current edition for producing a trap that simply cannot be detected by a rogue with a sufficient Search modifier, and for good reason.

That's a whole other debate, whether such a mechanism should exist. For example, a trap might exist that is undetectable by any rogue (say, DC = 1000, or infinity), but a simple Detect Magic will reveal something is fishy about that area...or lever...

Lane-"I find traps the old-fashioned way: I break 'em!"-fan

 

[Raven Crowking]

Question: what is the Search DC of the trap?

If it has a DC, no matter how high, then the trap can be detected by rolling d20. In which case, that's not an unreasonable assumption - we're quibbling about the details, not the principle.

Although PapersAndPaychecks may have said "What it leads to, inevitably, is the expectation that all obstables can be overcome by rolling d20's." I imagine that it's pretty reasonable to assume that he meant that it leads to the expectation that all obstacles can be overcome by the PCs by rolling d20s. His statement that "I think that's detrimental to the fun of the game" seems to be far more principle than details, to me. YMMV.

If the trap has no DC, and so cannot be detected by rolling d20, then we have another problem. There is no mechanism in the current edition for producing a trap that simply cannot be detected by a rogue with a sufficient Search modifier, and for good reason.

Which means that in producing this trap the DM has deliberately stepped beyond the rules in order to adversely affect (some might prefer 'challenge') the PCs. I would have thought expecting the DM to play by the rules of the game was a reasonable assumption to make, wouldn't you?

You are incorrect in your base assumption, sir. Rule 0 does, indeed, allow the DM to produce a trap that cannot be detected by a rogue with a sufficient Search modifier. Moreover, so would creative use of magic.

However, the simple expedient of setting the DC beyond the PC rogue's ability to detect it via Search accomplishes the same thing for all practical purposes. That Harry the Hypothetical Wonder Rogue can detect the trap is immaterial. If the rogue has a maximum bonus of, say, +8 to his check, then a Search DC 29 trap is undetectable by that rogue at that time. The DM presumably knows what the rogue's bonuses are, and thus can make any trap undetectable that she desires.

Which leads again into my earlier post. Neither the players nor their characters should automatically assume that a trap does not exist simply because they can't detect it.

It's the undetectability of the trap with the insanely high save that goes with it that is the problem. It isn't just one thing, its how everything works in concert in order to kill the PC. There are three main problems: search with high DC, save with high DC, no in-character warning. If one of these things were different, then it might be fair. If two were different then it probably would be.

If the trap were simply a square on the floor somewhere, then there would be no in-character warning. It is not. It is a big honking lever. You don't have to Search for the trap mechanism -- there it is! You have to activate it yourself to make it work. Searching for a trap using mundane means reveals nothing, but does that actually mean it's safe to pull the lever?

To me, the fact that it's a big lever that you have to pull removes completely "no in-character warning" and ameliorates almost completely the high Search DC. After those problems are removed, if you still need to worry about the save DC you're more than a bit naive. See previous post.

Me, I don't generally use these types of traps, but I have fallen victim to them from time to time. Does that make them unfair? Not at all.

RC

 

[delericho]

Provided the searcher has enough skill; otherwise, it's still undetectable...no big deal.

That's the very point I'm getting at, though. The poster I quoted seemed to be suggesting that there were (or should be) some problems that simply could not be solved with a d20. That suggests a trap that could not ever be found with a Search check, no matter how skilled the Rogue.

In practice, there is no difference between a Search DC of 21 + Rogue's Search modifier and a trap that has no DC at all. Philosophically, there's a world of difference, and I wish to know which it is.

The thing is, either there is a (too high) Search DC, in which case the problem can be solved by rolling a d20, or it cannot, in which case...

That's a whole other debate, whether such a mechanism should exist. For example, a trap might exist that is undetectable by any rogue (say, DC = 1000, or infinity), but a simple Detect Magic will reveal something is fishy about that area...or lever...

For the purposes of the matter at hand, it's irrelevant whether there should be such a mechanism or not. There currently is no such mechanism, and for good reason. By introducing such, the DM has stepped beyond the parameters of the rules.

And I'm inclined to feel that it is not unreasonable for the players to assume that the DM will stick to the rules.

I'm not suggesting that the DM must, or even should, stick rigidly to the letter of the rules - I'm a DM myself and would hold that to be absurd. However, I do stick within the bounds of what the rules would allow (so, I add new monsters, but I don't rule that all NPCs always hit, for example). And if I'm going to step beyond the limits of what the rules would allow (eg magic items giving Dodge bonuses) then I'll tell the players about the changes at the start of the campaign. And I would hold that it is unfair to do otherwise, since doing otherwise essentially means "the rules are for players only".