Is this fair? -- your personal opinion

[delericho]

Then why did the Rogue search for traps on the lever in the first place?

I must agree - it's entirely reasonable that there's a trap on the lever. (Well, except that building that trap in that location, under those conditions is itself just utterly stupid - see my post at the bottom of page 12 for a long explanation of just why that is.)

A trap is an "encounter" just like any other encounter. It has a CR and you get XP for overcoming it. A level appropriate encounter is, on average, supposed to consume 1/5 of the party's daily resources.

It's supposed to have that potential, but it's not a given. If the party successfully sneaks past the Ogres guarding the prison, they've used 0 of their daily resources but have defeated the challenge, so get XP. If they trick the Ogres into thinking they're needed elsewhere, they've used 0 of their daily resources but have defeated the challenge, so get XP. If they somehow persuade the Ogres to betray their employers, they have not only used 0 of their daily resources but have actually added to them, and have defeated the challenge, and so gain XP.

If the Rogue detects a trap and disarms it, the party have used 0 of their daily resources, it is true, but they have defeated the encounter, and should gain XP for it. A trap that, if triggered, will kill a PC 95% of the time is of a CR at least Average Party Level +2... even if it is detected at DC 10.

A CR appropriate trap which is automatically detectable by the Rogue character taking 20 consumes close to 0 of the party's resources.

That's why you put your traps in places the Rogue is unlikely to look for traps, so that using the character's ability becomes a matter of good play, rather than a cheap and easy way to gain XP. The trick is to put the traps in places where the Rogue is unlikely to think to look but which, in hindsight, are obvious. A big lever in an otherwise empty room with a secret door is not such a location.

 

[Nightfall]

shenanigans! shenanigans! shenanigans! shenanigans!

 

[delericho]

You're assuming the creatures populating the dungeon at the time the PCs entered and took the MacGuffin were the ones that placed the trap.

I dealt with this about 10 pages ago.

It is highly unlikely that the original builders of this dungeon placed only this one trap in the whole complex. It is further extremely unlikely that this trap is so significantly more difficult than any of the others that they placed.

Therefore, it is highly likely that the entire dungeon contains traps such that this is a very dangerous place to live. If the place is dangerous to live, it is further unlikely that creatures to whom the dungeon is so deadly will live there. If they have a choice, they will live somewhere else. If they have no choice, they will probably die.

As far as I can see, the only possible reason you would see low-CR creatures living in a dungeon with high-CR traps is if some special immunity comes into play (perhaps the BBEG who built the place used a tattoo to protect his followers, and that has become part of the traditional tribal markings of the Orcs who now live there; perhaps the trap only affects the living, and the inhabitants are all undead. But that's contextual information we just do not have. Furthermore, it should be a strong exception, and far from the norm.)

Furthermore, if the dungeon has more than one high-CR trap, the party will know that they are not dealing with a level-appropriate dungeon. And, as I've said about a dozen times, I have no problem with this trap in a non-level-appropriate dungeon... PROVIDED THE PCS KNOW ABOUT IT.

It is entirely possible that the trap was constructed long ago by other inhabitants of the dungeon and that the very reason the trap is located in an out-of-the-way, unused portion of the dungeon is because the current inhabitants know about the trap, do not know how to defeat it, haven't figured out a way to open the secret door without turning to dust and simply avoid that area because it is very dangerous.

Then the inhabitants would have marked the room somehow (perhaps a honking big skull and crossbones in red paint?) to remind themselves not to pull the lever by mistake or when drunk.

I can see the possibility that the current inhabitants didn't know about the room, perhaps because they haven't gotten this far into the dungeon, or it was behind secret doors that they haven't found yet. In which case it's true that such a marking would not exist. However, in that case I still think that this trap is out of place. It makes absolutely no logical sense to have nice easy traps in one part of your dungeon and then to suddenly rank up the deadliness of the traps in one area. If you can build that sort of a trap, you really should be using it in all key locations, not just one.

And, finally, I refer you again to my post at the bottom of page 12, which explains at length that only a damn fool would build this trap in this location.

 

[delericho]

shenanigans! shenanigans! shenanigans! shenanigans!

Um, why do you care if this thread has reached 14 pages without a conclusion? Surely if you don't like it, you don't have to read it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again, you're making a playstyle assumption. What makes the wilderness close to a dungeon that the party has partly cleared a "mind-bogglingly obviously dangerous" place, or a lever a "mind-bogglingly obviously dangerous" object? Some players may have been conditioned by their DMs to view them as such, but it is certainly not the case for everyone.

Not at all. When asking if something is unfair, one assumes that we are talking about some form of objective analysis. The OP does not ask, "Is this unfair in your campaign? One can easily imagine that something is unfair within the context of a particular group dynamic but this does not make it unfair in and of itself.

"DM is giving a setup the PCs have seen hundreds of times that was relatively safe with a few precautions" is a playstyle assumption. There is no assumption inherent in the OP, and it is safer therefore to follow the assumption that you do not know the playstyle and act accordingly.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Amazing, we´re building a module here. From the initial OP, we deduced now that the bad guys that got the McGuffin didn´t build the dungeon, but ocupied it after the original inhabitants left it. The bad guys group found a room with a lever, but before doing anything else, they called the group´s spellcaster (they had an spellcaster) who using his mojo determined that the level could be problematic, and left without interacting with the lever, investigating the room at all, or leave any trace of doing any of the above. Then proceeded to just forget the room.

IF the bad guys with the McGuffin didn't build the dungeon, THEN they migrated to it. This assumes a reasonably large number of bad guys, such as a splinter of an orc tribe. It is not unreasonable to assume that said orcs had some form of adept, witchdoctor, or (un)holy person with them. There is not requirement for a PC class character, nor really any requirement for the character to be over 1st level.

IF one of our hypothetical orcs pulled the lever, THEN they presumably learned it was bad mojo soon enough. However, we may also assume that these orcs (used to dwelling in such places) were capable of following the line of reasoning that I and others demonstrated. Oddly enough, there are some who would have us believe that the bad guys are wise enough and clever enough to use traps in all kinds of fiendish ways, but neither wise nor clever enough to leave a known trap alone.

IF this investigation took place, THEN it could well have taken place long enough ago that the ashes mingled with the general dust of the place. Or, even, it might be true that the orcs collected the ash both (a) to preserve the trap for unwary adventurers that get so far -- "I know where there's a secret door that leads to untold riches! Come this way!" -- and/or (b) for proper disposal of the dead. Although PCs seem content to leave thier corpses strewn about (unless they are planning on restoring them to life), that isn't the norm for intelligent beings. Somewhere, some orc has a sack with Grandpa's ashes (which the PCs earlier mistook for a magical dust, and are still wearing in their hair).

These people apparently live in a world where a trap´s purpose isn´t to protect your things, but to have your revenge on intruders, and built where it´s difficult to find them (Raven, you can´t seriously believe that)

Again, I'd hate to walk barefoot in your house, or try to make a midnight snack. Mousetraps are left in the middle of oft-used walkways and the pantry doors are electrified. The alternative (putting the mousetraps where mice are likely to go, but you are not; using the mousetraps to entice and kill mice instead of simply trying to defend the food) is apparently a foreign concept.

We are also setting aside, apparently, the fact of the secret door. Since this room seems to be a portal from one complex to another (or one area to another), it could be what is beyond the secret door (if anything) that the trap protects.

Again, no evidence whatsoever that the trap is illogical, and the only issue is fairness. I would say that a trap which catches over half the intended victims is, perforce of its effectiveness, logical.

Moreover, crying on one hand that the trap is ineffective because of placement or components, while crying on the other hand that the trap is unfair because it is too effective, is self-contradictory and throws both premises (ineffective and unfair) out, at least insofar as the reasons given go.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is highly unlikely that the original builders of this dungeon placed only this one trap in the whole complex. It is further extremely unlikely that this trap is so significantly more difficult than any of the others that they placed.

Agreed.

What this means is that any creatures colonizing the area are either somehow immune to the traps (vermin, for example, do not pull levers) or smart enough to discover/disable/work around what traps there are. Or, as you say, they would probably die. In fact, the PCs should eventually be able to tell which areas are likely to still contain traps simply because the current inhabitants do not use those areas. An otherwise empty room would be a dead giveaway (pun) well before the dungeon was cleared.

Even goblins could survive in such a place, if there were safe areas and paths (which seems likely), they had the numbers to withstand initial losses of exploring the place (and the rewards were high enough), and the inhabitants have enough intelligence to memorize the safe places/routes by adulthood. Canny inhabitants would intentionally lure invaders toward the deadlier traps. Careful observation of the inhabitants would, in fact, allow the PCs to bypass most (if not all) of the traps.

It is logical, following this reasoning, to assume that the party will know or should know that they are not dealing with a level-appropriate dungeon (depending, of course, on what you view as level-appropriate ).

However, the assumption that the inhabitants would have marked the room somehow to remind themselves not to pull the lever by mistake or when drunk is not well founded IMHO. The likelihood is higher that they would confine drunkeness to certain safe areas. After all, presumably you accepted the dangers of those traps initially because they afforded you a certain level of security. Any system that would warn invaders removes this benefit. Placing warnings on traps is only advantageous if the "trap" is intended as a warning itself, to modify or prevent certain behavior (as a security camera does, or the note that an alarm will ring if you use the fire exit).

It is also true, in real life, that people can, have, and do live in all sorts of dangerous situations where knowledge of the dangers renders the inhabitants to take a fairly casual attitude about them. People cross the road in traffic all of the time. When I roamed the woods as a young kid in bear, lynx, and timber rattler country, the admonitions I received were all verbal, and this was an area where there were bears living quite near.

Pre-literate and early-literate peoples often can demonstrate impressive oral memory. Admonitions about the traps would probably take the form of a system of taboos: Do not pull levers, stay away from the Room of the Howling Jackal, in the Hall of the Dead God, you must take three steps to the left for every three steps forward, then three steps to the right for the next three steps, and so on. In some cases, the common inhabitants may no longer know what the taboo safeguards them against.

Taken in isolation, the trap is obvious. If you assume, instead, that the trap is part of a "fair" complex (rather than simply assuming it is there for no reason, which is a condition not existent in the OP), then it is perhaps even more obvious. Which, agreed, makes this less than ideal as a trap...but a trap which, I would argue, as a direct result of being less ideal is also more fair.

RC

 

[dragonhead]

if you roll 19 and fail that bad, then depends on the lvl, if they are above 6, then yes, death is a part of the game, if below that, then no, that trap was too advanced for a low lvl party.

 

[Raven Crowking]

if you roll 19 and fail that bad, then depends on the lvl, if they are above 6, then yes, death is a part of the game, if below that, then no, that trap was too advanced for a low lvl party.

Out of curiosity, why is this OK above 6th level, but not below? Is death not part of the game at, say, 3rd level?

RC

 

[delericho]

Out of curiosity, why is this OK above 6th level, but not below? Is death not part of the game at, say, 3rd level?

Yeah, I would have put the level significantly higher - there comes a point where character death changes from a matter of a new character to a matter of getting a ressurrection, which is an inconvenience, and which hurts, but where it is a much smaller issue than previously.

The would make the 'fair' level what? A PC cleric can cast Ressurrection at 13th level, but I would expect the party to have access to that sort of magic rather earlier. Perhaps 11th or so would be my changeover point.