Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 3025075" data-attributes="member: 20239">Taking 20 being a "sure thing" in a "level appropriate dungeon" is metagame thinking.  Only game design strictures dictate that an entire dungeon is going to contain challenges within a certain range.  This is not true in the real world and it is also not true in most game worlds not based on the fairly new paradigm that PCs should only face challenges within ~3CR +/- of their average level.  From the character's perspective, an ancient dungeon inhabited by CR1/2 orcs could easily contain traps left over from a much higher CR inhabitant.  Only metagame thinking would dictate to the players that such a setup wouldn't occur because it would be disruptive to the assumptions made by the game.This is one way to play, and I understand that preference, but a preference for a game where failure to detect traps that are searched for is actually a possibility is OK too.  It adds a different level of challenge to the game that some people don't want to deal with.  Fine, I understand that.  But that type of play doesn't require metagame thinking and it certainly isn't inherently "unfair".Their assumptions that they did the RIGHT THING are based on metagame thinking.  In previous editions of D&D this wouldn't be considered the RIGHT THING because any search for traps always carried the possibility that the trap was simply missed.  In fact, I can prove that, in this instance, the PCs did NOT do the RIGHT THING by the simple fact that the trap was, in fact, there and killed a PC when activated.  Again, you may prefer a game where metagame thinking based on "level appropriateness" leads the actions of the characters, which is fine.  I don't have a problem with that.  But in a game based on different assumptions this trap makes perfect sense and is immenently fair both in-character and at the metagame level.I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.No, considered in that light it's just stupid thinking.  If you're admitting the possibility of a trap, then sending someone you actually care about to potentially set it off just because the numbers are on their side is ridiculously incautious.  Especially when it's extremely easy to substitute a proxy or just wait until further information is available about the potential trap.  Remember, there was absolutely no need for the party in question to pull the lever in this scenario.  They had accomplished their mission, they had a safe way out of the dungeon already cleared of challenges, they could have simply left (or waited and rested to gain the appropriate divination or conjuration spells).  Exposing the monk to risk simply because he's best able to survive most challenges is just silly when there are means available to expose NO ONE to any risk whatsoever.Your trap would be fair if detecting the trap indicated to the Rogue that the trap extended to both doors.  I would have given him that info on a successful roll because it allows the party to make better decisions.  At that point they might figure out going through the door they came in (which was safe at the time) might be dangerous now.  I would say that your trap is significantly harder than the one described in the OP's post because there is no option for the party to simply walk away from the encounter safely.  Once inside the room they MUST figure out the nature of the trap or face its consequences.  As I said before, I'd much rather face a trap where my own decision-making allows me to avoid a save rather than facing a trap where I must make a save but the DC is "level appropriate".  So while I wouldn't call the trap you designed unfair, I would say it's a much greater challenge for the party and would think twice about using that design (whereas I have no problem with the design of the original trap).</blockquote>

Verification