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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Someone" data-source="post: 3044340" data-attributes="member: 5656">That´s OKThat´s false. That was derived logically from the OP and or course some base assumptions, assumptions that were in my opinion more reasonable that your own counter-assumptions. Since you didn´t try to demonstrate that your assumtions were more reasonable, I understand you conceded it. You tried instead to refute my argument stating that, since my assumptions were, well, assumptions, they were not a neccesity and therefore dismissable, wich I took for a joke from your part until you insisted.First, I´ll say that I pretty much agree with your assumptions, and that you´re making a lot more than the ones you´re posting here; that the rogue´Search skill was relatively high; that they didn´t need desperately a escape route; that the monk´s health was good, that the party indeed had a rope and other means to operate the lever other than manually... I could go on. However, I´ll refute you using your own arguments. You can´t use those assumtions because there are other logical possibilities; some of them:No since he could use "the" to indicate one particular rogue. English is a flexible language and the original poster had no obligation to use "one of the rogues" or "one of the monks" and still be correct. Maybe he´s no so fluent in English after all, or was late, and he       didn´t thought that using "the" he could be inducing confusion. You can´t assume there were only one rogue and one monk.It´s a extended practice, but not obligatory. The rules do not force anyone to play characters of the same level, and circumstances like level draining, dieing and being raised, dieing and creating another character, and spending XP on spells and item creation will create parties with characters of different level. You can´t assume they all were of the same level.No, from your point of view. The monk could have been cursed, or have very low abilities, or just be of lower level, which all are common circumstances. You can´t assume he had the highest saves.See above.Non sequitur. From the premises a) every action has a cause and b) searching for traps is an action, you can just conclude conclude that searching from traps had a cause, not anything about what that cause was. Surely, if as you told me many times, installing a killer trap must not have the purpose of killing, searching for traps must have a large number of causes other than the desire of finding traps.As I´ve demonstrated, there are a number of other logical possibilities (I mean they are not impossible a priory, not that they are more plausible than your assumptions) which you´ve used to infer if that player´s playstile is right or wrong and therefore they theserved to die or not. Which is a red herring since the OP asked if the trap was fair, not if the players did well.Yet, when I did exactly the same and also used a number of assumptions, also the most plausible based on the OP, about the DM's playstyle and how he designed the dungeon, you dismissed it saying I was basing my case on assumptions. I´d like to know if you changed your mind, or just want to win the argument no matter what.</blockquote>

Verification