Rogues and the Alarm Spell

[rrealm]

* Perhaps there is a supernatural or quasi-magical aspect to the Rogue's trapfinding ability? I think not, but it could provide sufficient justification for a 'handwaving'.

* Perhaps a Rogue can (with a check of 26 or better) move smoothly and precisely enough to encapsulate the point of emanation with a thrown piece of weighted cloth, say and prevent its line of effect?

* Or slip in past 'waves of abjuration' to reach (and disable) the point of emanation. Like Catherine Zeta Jones weaving in and amongst security system lasers in that otherwise awful 'Entapment' Movie. Hmmmnnn... Did anyone but me just experience a very pleasant flashback? Piffany would NOT approve...

* Perhaps a Rogue can disrupt the abjuration by cleverly interfering with it (just not enough to set it off), causing the spell to collapse on itself? Not unlike how resonance and standing wave patterns can collapse a structure of steel and concrete... Hmmmn... With a check of 10 better than the DC the Rogue just temporarily disprupts the pattern - allowing it to reform behind after the party has bypassed it...
​

Any other thoughts?

A'Mal

I'll go with the idea of a rogue having the capability of moving in such a fashion to not set off the spell similar to narrowly avoiding “abjuration lazers” for lack of a better phrase. I’m still not certain I would allow a rogue to disable it but I would allow a rogue to walk through the affected area. I also would go with the idea of allowing the rogue’s party to pass through the affected area provided the rogue made the DD check by +10.

 

[Amal Shukup]

I'll go with the idea of a rogue having the capability of moving in such a fashion to not set off the spell similar to narrowly avoiding “abjuration lazers” for lack of a better phrase. I’m still not certain I would allow a rogue to disable it but I would allow a rogue to walk through the affected area. I also would go with the idea of allowing the rogue’s party to pass through the affected area provided the rogue made the DD check by +10.

Sure. As a DM, it is completely within your authority to make whatever house rule you wish.

Just recognize that you're making a House Rule, because the RAW clearly indicate that Rogues can both discover AND disable Spell Traps.

My 'beat the DC by 10 or more' comment in my previous post was an attempt at a possible explanation for the Rogues clearly described ability to bypass traps without neccesarily disabling them (leaving them fully operational behind him) by beating the DC by 10 or more - I'm not trying to add a new ability or anything...

A'Mal

 

[RigaMortus]

I haven't been keeping up with this discussion so I'm not sure if this was mentioned or not, but...

I don't think the Rogue needs to "target" or "work on" the point of origin of the Alarm spell in order to disable it. An entire area is warded, the point of origin is just that, the point at which the spell was centered. But an entire area is warded and if the Rogue can next to any part of that warded area, and rolls high enough, he should be able to disable/by-pass the thing.

On the other hand... Is the Alarm spell really a trap? What is the definition of a trap? It doesn't harm or otherwise adversely affect the person(s) that triggers the spell. I don't think you should use the term "trap" so losely. Isn't an ambush effectively "a trap"? Does this mean, if a Rogue makes his spot check and sees people lying in wait, he can use Disable Device on them and bypass them? I know that makes no sense, as well it shouldn't, but an ambush is essentially a "trap". What about a spell that is triggered by the Contingency spell? Is that a "trap"? Assuming it has some sort of adverse effect on the person or thing that triggers it. The point is, Alarm may not necessarily be a trap.

 

[Scion]

you really need to read the rest of the thread rigamortus

 

[Gaiden]

I have only read pages 1-3 so forgive me if this has already been stated.

It seems to me that the entire debate over alarm vs. trap is one of semantics. Granted they are two different things and have separate definitions. I am not about to argue that they ought to be considered the same thing. The alarm spell is clearly distinct from the bladed pendulum swinging from the ceiling to cleave you in two when the bell tolls.

However, I return to this being an argument over semantics. Given my above example, it certainly also could not be denied that the alarm spell is intimately connected to that swinging pendulum. In the same way that the alarm spell is not the trap, neither is the arm of the bladed pendulum, nor the chain connecting it to the ceiling, nor the releasing hook, etc. The alarm spell is certainly PART of the trap though. It is the trigger, or ironically, the "alarm". Arguing that the trigger is not a trap is a meaningless debate because it is absolutely true. However, arguing that the trigger is not part of a trap is as nonsensical as arguing that the bladed pendulum is not part of the trap. If you are unconvinced, ask yourself this: "How is the trap supposed to work and would it work if the alarm spell was disabled?" If your answer to the latter question is no, then there is no legitimate justification for not including the trigger of a trap as part of that trap as a whole. Again, to argue otherwise is semantics.

Hopefully, I have been succinct enough to move on to how to actually handle the alarm spell. I foresee several possiblilities:

1.) Deal with the paradox just like you do when you allow freedom of movement to work underwater and not have the character sink or "fall" to the bottom of the ocean. In other words, don't worry about the physics of such a situation and just say that it happens. Works for me .

2.) Allow the DD skill to be used, in this case in place of UMD, to bypass the trigger of the alarm spell by acting as a dimunitive or smaller creature to get to the center of the emanation. I say use DD because it would be unbalancing to require a rogue to have UMD to disable this particular trap when DD is supposed to cover his skill at such things. YMMV (what does that mean anyway - I know it is appropriate to use there - I have been toying with different acronyms and have decided upon your mood might vary - but I don't think that is right - I want to say it stands for something along the lines of you might move to disagree - but the whole V vs. D thing just isn't working for me).

Anyway

3.) Allow the rogue to disable a section of the spell - effectively change the AoE almost like an AoE DM when funcitoning on duration AoE spells like blade barrier for example.

Hope that is helpful

 

[RigaMortus]

Ok, ok... It took me all day, and I read this entire post (of course, retaining all of it is another matter). Anyway...

I definitely agree that an alarm is a trap and it can be detected by a rogue (and only a rogue) but I question how or why the spell can be disabled (not including passwords, waiting around, or dispel magic spells, or the like). There are no material components to manipulate like a glyph or some other magical traps. What is the rogue to do? Wave his hand around 20’ from the source and make the alarm go away because of air vibrations?

Let's look at Use Magical Device. With this skill, you can "emulate" a certain race, class or alignment. What exactly does this mean? Well MY interpretation is that you "trick" the Magic Device into thinking you are that certain race/class/alignment. You never actually transform yourself, you just use "trickery". That is how I see a Rogue bypassing an Alarm spell, since it has no visible components to it. They use Disable Device, and if they beat the DC check, Disable Device emulates the fact that they know the password to bypass the trap. They never actually know or figure out the true password, just as with UMD they never actually turn into that race/class/alignment. They simply emulate it. So there is my "logic" behind a Rogue bypassing a magical trap with no visible components.

 

[RigaMortus]

2.) Allow the DD skill to be used, in this case in place of UMD, to bypass the trigger of the alarm spell by acting as a dimunitive or smaller creature to get to the center of the emanation. I say use DD because it would be unbalancing to require a rogue to have UMD to disable this particular trap when DD is supposed to cover his skill at such things. YMMV (what does that mean anyway - I know it is appropriate to use there - I have been toying with different acronyms and have decided upon your mood might vary - but I don't think that is right - I want to say it stands for something along the lines of you might move to disagree - but the whole V vs. D thing just isn't working for me).

On the flip side (and I know I basically just agreed with you and said the same thing in my post, but...)

Bypassing a Trap is harder to do than disabling it. If the Alarm spell is a DC 26, the Rogue needs a DC 36 to bypass it. And if he is able to make that DC, is he able to confur the benefit of bypassing it to his party as well?

I see bypassing an Alarm spell as basically "emulating" the password to the Alarm. And every person would have to do this. But since only the Rogue can DD, only he can bypass it, leaving his friends behind. Oh well, magic, it's just weird...

 

[Dr_Rictus]

1.) Deal with the paradox just like you do when you allow freedom of movement to work underwater and not have the character sink or "fall" to the bottom of the ocean. In other words, don't worry about the physics of such a situation and just say that it happens.

Well, as has been pointed out before, it's not actually water resistance holding you up, so the notion that freedom of movement would make you sink is based on a misunderstanding of the physics involved anyway.

But that is, of course, beside the point.

 

[Amal Shukup]

Bypassing a Trap is harder to do than disabling it. If the Alarm spell is a DC 26, the Rogue needs a DC 36 to bypass it. And if he is able to make that DC, is he able to confur the benefit of bypassing it to his party as well?

Yes.

A rogue who beats a trap’s DC by 10 or more with a Disable Device check can study a trap, figure out how it works, and bypass it (with her party) without disarming it.

NOTHING in the rules suggests that magical or spell traps are to be treated any differently than mechanical traps... (Edit: Except that ONLY Rogues can discover/disable them - not just anybody with the Search and Disable Device Skills)

Interesting idea with respect to 'emulation' being the method Rogues use to 'disable' Magical Traps.

So, whether a DM prefers the classic 'it just works', my 'disrupting/avoiding magical waves through subtle interactions', or your 'emulation' explanation of the process for 'flavor' purposes, they should be able to get past any conceptual problem associated with Rogues discovering/disabling magical traps and just let the rules work the way they are written.


A'Mal

 

[Majere]

Actually, the mechanics of defeating an alarm spell are very simple.
The alarm spell can be set to not activate if someone speaks a password.
To bypass the spell, or at least get close enough to disarm it the rogue only has to decifer the magical eminations and discover the password. Or something close enough to the password to allow him to close down the spell.

Most computor programmes are have "backdoors" put in by programmers so they can hack into their own programmes. For me spells are a bit like computor programmes, someone takes an amount of raw energy (amount determined by spell level and type determined by spell school) and "programmes" it to do something. Thus, most spells have a "backdoor" and this is what rogues exploit.

Thats my explanation anyway.
Better than hand waving IMHO

Majere