Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[Raven Crowking]

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.

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. Easy example: "I wish that this trap can never be found by non-magical means."

 

[ThirdWizard]

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?

There is a base asssumptions that is conflicting here, where the general danger of a lever is a scale from 1 (never dangerous) to 10 (always dangerous). Games I've always played in have fallen between 2-3. Obviously, you have a different take.

Problem is, we have no idea where the scenario presented falls. I came into the thread with the assumption that it falls somewhere around where my experiences lie. Since the poll seems to fall more into the "unfair" votes, I'm not particularly inclined to change that assumption.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Rule 0 does, indeed, allow the DM to produce a trap that cannot be detected by a rogue with a sufficient Search modifier.

According to Rule 0, it would have to be stated during character creation that this were possible.

 

[Raven Crowking]

According to Rule 0, it would have to be stated during character creation that this were possible.

Quote that one for me, friend.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

That is one thought, if the lever is the trap then they found it without a roll. How would they know it is a trap though? All the mechanisms for it are buried in the wall, so the thief cannot see it. If one lever dispensed puppies, and the one next to it despensed death, how would a thief detect that one is a trap?

 

[I'm A Banana]

From either a role-playing (ala Kamikaze Midget) or meta-gaming standpoint, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Once again, using a point to launch into a codification of my own:

What I would hope to accomplish by the "invisible pink unicorns" example is to show that assuming things exist when evidence suggests that they do not is a level of paranoia that is unrealistic to expect from players.

If townsfolk mention invisible pink unicorns killing people in the dungeon, but there is no evidence for such, one must take be prepared to go through rather extreme precautions against invisible pink unicorns?

It's not that it's assured. It can't be assured safety. The PC's did not treat it as assured safety -- they took into account the idea that the rogue may not detect the trap.

So they did not conclude that there must be no trap. They may have concluded that there probably isn't a trap, which is a reasonable and realistic expectation for the players and characters to have. Just like it would be reasonable to conclude that invisible pink unicorns are not killing adventurers who go into the dungeon, either. Heck, this is a fantasy world, the PC's may have even been walking around with see invisibility active and having the animal companion constantly use Scent to sniff for unicorns (comprable to having the rogue check for traps and the monk pull the lever).

It's not the existence of the trap in general that is unfair. It is the existence of the invisible nonsensical inevitable death trap that is specifically unfair. Just like it would be unfair to have invisible (and also scentless and unable to be precieved via see invisibility) pink unicorns that then killed the characters. Would you then blame the characters for not, say, recruiting an NPC to go into the dungeon first while they stayed away? Or for being stupid to act as if the invisible pink unicorns were not an immediate and deadly threat?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Quote that one for me, friend.

Okay.

0. Check with the Dungeon Master

Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to know what character types the other players are playing so that you can create a character that fits in well with the group.

This is located under the Character Creation Basics. Rule 1 is Ability Scores, Rule 2 is choose a class and race, etc. Rule 0 is checking with the DM to learn how his or her game differs from the RAW.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That is one thought, if the lever is the trap then they found it without a roll. How would they know it is a trap though? All the mechanisms for it are buried in the wall, so the thief cannot see it. If one lever dispensed puppies, and the one next to it despensed death, how would a thief detect that one is a trap?

If it is a magical trap it needs line of effect to the PC to be affected. Rogues can find magical traps. The rogue should be able to find that a magical trap is present.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There is a base asssumptions that is conflicting here, where the general danger of a lever is a scale from 1 (never dangerous) to 10 (always dangerous). Games I've always played in have fallen between 2-3. Obviously, you have a different take.

Problem is, we have no idea where the scenario presented falls. I came into the thread with the assumption that it falls somewhere around where my experiences lie. Since the poll seems to fall more into the "unfair" votes, I'm not particularly inclined to change that assumption.

I agree that there is a conflict of base assumptions.

The base assumptions were brought up previously:

"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). (emphasis added)

"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.

Now, obviously, you might not include traps as encounters, or you might not include those encounters into the percentage that are overwhelming. But, in terms of fairness, the base guidelines in the rules assume a certain number of encounters that should be avoided. You can, of course, claim that these are always combat encounters, and never obvious pull-the-lever-type traps or magical wards that you cannot bypass, but this assumes again a world built for the convenience of the PCs, and resultantly defines as unfair anything which is not built for the convenience of the PCs.

Remember, we are talking about fair, not ideal.

Is it fair that the PCs can assume that any trap in an area which seems reasonably obviously trapped is detectable by said PCs?

Is it fair that the PCs can assume that any trap they encounter, if they set it off, is liable to be survived by the person setting it off?

I would say that neither of these assumptions is fair to make, and that claiming something is unfair because those assumptions fail is, itself, grossly unfair.

Despite delericho's postings, the game has ample means to create traps that your particular group of PCs cannot find by Searching. Your experience may lead you to believe that levers are unlikely to be dangerous within the context of a particular world, DM, or subset of DMs, but it would be unwise to assume the same of every game you might ever become involved in.

If I was trying to prevent people from stealing my Doodad of Awesome Might, I could well throw in a final gambit to catch the lucky but foolish. If my PC got caught by such a trap (and, oh, I have been in the past) I would accept it as my fault rather than the DM's. Of course, I don't expect the DM to mollycoddle me or hold my hand, either.....

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is located under the Character Creation Basics. Rule 1 is Ability Scores, Rule 2 is choose a class and race, etc. Rule 0 is checking with the DM to learn how his or her game differs from the RAW.

Please note that players are to check with the Dungeon Master during character creation. It notes that "Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules" but it does not state that these rules have to be supplied to you, nor does it state that the DM must tell you all house rules at the time of character creation.

(New monsters are house rules, for example, and you'd hardly expect the DM to tell you about those.)

RC