Rogues and the Alarm Spell

[jgbrowning]

To clairify,

Not all things that qualify as traps are able to be disabled, say like the use of the Canae tactic, because that is a trap that's not dependent upon a mechanical/magical change of state based upon pre-set design. However, in the case of a mechanical/magical alarm that changes state when a particular pre-set action occurs (bells ring when tripwire is touched, alarm rings when certain area is entered) such a contrivance can be disabled because it has a set pattern of functioning that can be interrupted. That's a trap, even if all the trap does is spray silly string on someone or sound an alarm.

The torch you're describing isn't a trap because it does nothing: it doesn't change according to set circumstances. Were the torch to flash, brighten, or extinguish when someone enters the area, that would be a trap that a rogue could get by.

I don't want you to have the wrong idea about what I think about traps. Traps have to be mechanical/magical. Traps have to have a set response to certain circumstances. Traps have to be able to function independent of an sentient observer's presence even if that means they function poorly, such as an alarm spell when no one's close enough to hear it.

Anything that is mechanical/magical, with a set parameter under which it reacts, that doesn't require intelligence or a traditional D&D creature (golem, undead etc), that's used to hinder a particular action is probably a trap.

I think that's a workable definition so far, but I'm sure it could be better.

joe b.

So let’s say an NPC has a magic shop. He has a good door, but he’s worried about someone picking the lock. He gets a smith to build a needle trap into it. (1). Then, he sets an ever-burning torch above the door so nobody can linger there without being seen by the city guards who pass buy frequently (as in, there is no cover for hiding). The guards have been told that if the light is ever off, they should assume someone has broken in. (2)

So, number one is clearly a trap. Is your argument that number two is a trap also? Should the rogue be able to use his disable device to get past the torch? Does he somehow create darkness is he can hide? Does he use his skill to turn invisible? Can he do it from the parameter of the light? 20’ away? 40’ ??

It’s starting to sound like you think anything that has a consequence is a trap.

Let’s say there is an iron golem in an alcove of a hallway. He has been told to always stare at the hallway in front of him. If you walk by the alcove, it will get a chance to see (and kill) you.

Is that too a trap? Can a rogue bypass this with his disable device skill? It’s starting to sound like the skill should be ‘bypass any dangerous situation caused by location whatsoever’.

Silly

-Tatsu

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I'll chip in with the correct majority and say that alarm is definitely a trap. It meets the dictionary definition of 'trap', and can also align with the D&D definition of a trap. I have my 3.5 DMG open to page 68 where it discusses "elements of a trap". From the DMG:

"All traps - mechanical or magical - have the following elements:

Trigger - Yep. Proximity.

Reset - No Reset, one of the 4 options.

Bypass (optional) - None.

Search/Disable DC - Magic Trap, 26.

Attack Bonus/Saving Throw - "Occasionally a trap will use both of these options, or neither."

Damage/Effect - Yes, there is absolutely an effect. The effect is that the spell's caster is alterted to an intruder's presence. This meets all definitions of the word 'effect'.

Challenge Rating - According to the tables on pages 74 and 75, I've come up with 3.

I think it's pretty safe to say that an alarm spell is a trap. Now the question is, can you disarm it? I would say yes, using the RAW, they can. From the DMG: "Magic traps may be disarmed by a rogue (and only a rogue) with a successful Disable Device check (DC 25 + spell level).

This seems pretty clear to me, I don't know what all the fuss is about.

 

[Thanee]

I'll chip in with the correct majority and say that alarm is definitely a trap.

Sneaky.

While I agree with you in general, Caliban is definitely right, that by the rules Alarm is not a trap, as it is not declared as a trap in the spell description.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Amal Shukup]

Sneaky.

While I agree with you in general, Caliban is definitely right, that by the rules Alarm is not a trap, as it is not declared as a trap in the spell description.

Bye
Thanee

Caliban is definitely NOT correct in this assertion. His beliefs as to whether Alarm functions as a trap lie in the realm of the subjective (we'll have to agree to disagree). However, 'By the Rules', it is absolutely not required that Alarm identify itself as a Trap. Persistent Image, for example, is not described as a trap despite being explicitly cited as a potential Spell Trap on pg 67 of the DMG.

The DMG and SRD are absolutely specific in defining 'Spell Traps' as any spell that functions as a trap. There is no requirement that the spell must identify itself as a trap in its description.

In fact, the opposite is true: the SRD and DMG indicate that the normal rules for discovering/disarming a trap apply to any spell functioning as a trap unless the Spell Description explicitly states otherwise.

The relevant sections were cited in previous posts.

So, to reiterate: If one believes that Alarm (and/or Magic Mouth, Persistent Image, Programmed Image et al) are (in the way they are applied) functioning as a trap, then the rules are 100% clear on how they are to be treated.

Several of those spells can be used in non-trap applications, but if one believes that they simply cannot BE traps (on account of they're 'alarms' and don't bodily 'catch' or injure a Rogue directly like 'real' traps), then I feel that they are, well, simply wrong and can figure out/invent their own rules at their leisure.

A'mal

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, Caliban is of course right, that the Alarm spell is no trap within the rules, all trap spells are specifically declared as such.

This is a bit of a silly arguement - for starters the rules never say "these are the only magical traps that can be searched for and disabled".

No, that's not a trap. That's an alarm. There is a difference, as I've pointed out repeatedly.

I really like this style of arguing - the 'put your fingers in your ears and declare that everyone else isn't listening' school of logic...

I already pointed out that there is at least one published example of a trap which does nothing else but trigger an alarm, a trap which can be searched for, and which can be disabled.

Rogues have the ability to disable spell traps. Where does it say that they can disable spell alarms?

And of course a rogue can disable a mundane alarm, because there is a physical device to disable. That's what the disable device skill is for. However, there is nothing to disable with the Alarm spell. Nothing.

Once again - if there is no line of effect from the origin of the alarm spell to the triggerer, then the spell isn't triggered, which means that placing an object so it surrounds the point of origin of the alarm spell would quite effectively disable it.

Every spell trap in the book has a physical component that the rogue can disable (rune, glyph, symbol, etc). The Alarm spell does not.

This is a bit of a misleading arguement. You're saying "all X's have a Y" and inferring that all X's covers what we're talking about.

Since part of our arguement is that the alarm spell IS an X, the claim that all X's have a Y has any effect on the arguement is a little spurious.

A physical trap catches someone in the physical sense. The second definition for "catching" you refer to wouldn't apply to a traps. Traps aren't intelligent, they can't "discover or come upon" anything. "To discover or come upon suddenly" is referring to a person doing the discovering.
...

You keep trying this one, and you can't overcome the basic fact that there is already precedence for 'traps' which raise an alarm, and which can be searched for and disabled.

So what you're saying is:

Rogues can disable alarms
Rogues can disable spell traps
Rogues cannot disable spell traps which trigger alarms.

Oh, and that you've not really got any reason why the third statement is true.

Either come up with an actual arguement, or give up.

 

[Tessarael]

As an evil wizard, I devise this trap where the party will probably attempt to fly over a large pit. At the high point of flying over the pit I place an anti-magic field of some type. This is definately a trap. However, one of this type should not be able to be disarmed by the party rogue.

Note that the anti-magic field is not triggered - it is permanently present. Traps have a trigger. That said, if the party is searching they will find the anti-magic field, and they'll find it before they all fall into the pit (they may find it by one of them falling as he wanders into the area).

Another thing to note is from the SRD description of the Search skill: "Active abjuration spells within 10 feet of each other for 24 hours or more create barely visible energy fluctuations. These fluctuations give you a +4 bonus on Search checks to locate such abjuration spells."

This seems to imply that a Rogue with the search skill can find an abjuration spell. Whether that spell be Alarm or Antimagic Field. So I will argue that a Rogue can find an Alarm spell's area before triggering it.

Now can a Rogue disable an Alarm spell? As written, there is no Disable Device DC on Alarm. Many people argue that's a mistake, and I am inclined to agree with them. However, strictly according to the rules, I think Thanee is right: it walks like a trap, it quacks like a trap, but it doesn't have a trap label so the warranty is void and you can't disable it.

Also note the SRD description of Disable Device. "Spike growth and spike stones, however, create magic traps against which Disable Device checks do not succeed." It's entirely possible that Alarm simply cannot be disabled. However, one could of course avoid the affected area.

 

[Caliban]

Either come up with an actual arguement, or give up.

Hmm.. I thought I said earlier that it looks like it was an "agree to disagree" situation. I guess that's not good enough for some people, they just have to "be right" and if you can't accept that, they start the personal comments.

I've tried to make valid arguements, and refute opposing arguements. Some people find them convincing and some don't. That's fine with me, but apparently that's not good enough for you. You don't want let anyone have an opposing opinion, or an honest disagreement.

I'm not going to "give it up". So what exactly are you going to do about it? What empty ultimatum are you going give me next? What authority do you have to back up this command of yours?

Sheesh.

I'm getting really tired of the attitudes people have been displaying on this thread.

 

[Amal Shukup]

As written, there is no Disable Device DC on Alarm.

As written, assuming that Alarm is functioning as a trap (which I and others maintain it most assuredly is), the DC is 26. Straight up black letter from the SRD and DMG.

The designers did not 'make a mistake' not assigning a specific DC to each spell that could concievably be used as a trap, they created a general rule that applies to ALL spells that can be used as a trap (unless that spell specifies something different.)

MAGIC TRAPS

Many spells can be used to create dangerous traps. Unless the spell or item description states otherwise, assume the following to be true.

* A successful Search check (DC 25 + spell level) made by a rogue (and only a rogue) detects a magic trap before it goes off. Other characters have no chance to find a magic trap with a Search check.
* Magic traps permit a saving throw in order to avoid the effect (DC 10 + spell level x 1.5).
* Magic traps may be disarmed by a rogue (and only a rogue) with a successful Disable Device check (DC 25 + spell level).

Also note the SRD description of Disable Device. "Spike growth and spike stones, however, create magic traps against which Disable Device checks do not succeed."

An excellent example of where the Spell Description "state otherwise". The fact that Alarm does not state "this can't be detected/disarmed" PROVES (to my mind) that it can be...

A'Mal

 

[Caliban]

True, the bell effect (be it audible or inaudible) does no damage to the triggerer. But that's the same as a holy water trap would do no damage to any non-undead/non-evilish type creature or a fireball trap does no damage to one immune to fire, or an arrow trap does not damage to a creature immune to piercing weapons. Yet holy water, fireball, and arrow traps are most definitely traps.

No, that is not a valid counterpoint. Something having immunity to the effect of a trap is not equivalent to there not being an effect generated.

A disableable component is not required to disable a magical trap. Ala permanent images ala fire trap.

Fire trap has a physical component to it. It requires a 1/2 pound of gold dust to be sprinkled on the object, and point on the object to the the focus of the spell. It would make more sense if it was a glyph or whatever, but the spells aren't always consistent.

Neither does permanant images although the DMG explictly states it can be used as a trap. Hell, the DMG explictly states that it can be used as a trap that confuses. Which also doesn't fit your definition of trap having to cause direct harm.

Straw man arguement. That's not my definition of trap.

And the DMG says a high level wizard can create a permanent image to conceal dangers or confuse invaders.

That means the Permanent Image itself isn't a trap, it's a component of a trap (concealing a floor pit for example).

Even if it is, what exactly are you disabling? I think that once you have detected it as an illusion, you just ignore it, or you automatically make your save.

Sepia snake sigil also isn't stated to be a spell trap but it's listed as a CR 4 trap in the DMG.

Your right it is. Thanks for pointing that out, I thought it odd that that spell wasn't called a trap in the spell description. I think this is an oversight in that particular spell, since it definitely has a direct effect on anyone who triggers it.

This is why I think the DMG lists how to deal with spell traps, because not all spell traps will have the spell trap discription in their text.

I think they are all supposed to, but obviously at least one doesn't. But mainly, I don't think Alarm qualifies as a spell trap.

Points rebutted, and to restate.

And your rebuttals have been refuted. Probably not enough to actually change your mind though. Just as your rebuttals weren't enough to change my mind.

It's OK if you disagree with me. Just don't be a jerk about it.

 

[Caliban]

An excellent example of where the Spell Description "state otherwise". The fact that Alarm does not state "this can't be detected/disarmed" PROVES (to my mind) that it can be...

A'Mal

I really don't think the spike growth spell is relevent to this discussion.

Spike Growth is a spell trap with an obvious physical component (and an obvious physical effect) that cannot be disabled.

Alarm is a triggered spell with no physical components whatsoever, and that has no effect on the person who triggers it.

I do not believe the spells are equivalent on any useful level, and thus cannot be used to make judgements about the other spell.