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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3049103" data-attributes="member: 18280">Obviously.Now I disagree.  For a deadly trap to be objectively fair, there has to exist the means to handle the trap, and there have to be sufficient clues to denote a trap.  A nusiance trap would not have the same standards.Not remotely.(1)  How is making a Search check objectively better than Taking 10 or Taking 20?(2)  By what means do you determine that one should be able to assume that the check will locate any trap that might be within the area searched?(3)  If you don't bother to maximize your check, why would it make any difference who makes the check in regards to the highest possible Search check?(4)  Should the Aid Another action be performed?(5)  What if the person with the highest possible Search check is not a rogue?  In this case, the individual cannot detect certain traps.Done.(Though, of course, you will say not done.   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> )Not at all.You are essentially claiming that fairness only exists within the context of a certain playstyle.  In other words, you must have A + B to determine whether or not A is fair.  I do not believe your proposition is true.  You seem to draw this conclusion because a given thing that I might say is fair would not be fair within the context of your playstyle.  Nonetheless, it is obvious that A can be fair, and B can be fair, without A + B being fair.  You are, essentially, making the claim that if A + B is not fair, A (trap/incident) cannot be fair....but somehow B (playstyle/context) can be (or else what could be the source of your feelings of insult?).RC</blockquote>

Verification