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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Amal Shukup" data-source="post: 1624838" data-attributes="member: 6291">Alarm is not a Trap?I find that position VERY unconvincing. Almost completely impossible to refute that statement on its merits because it hinges on a very subjective - and to my mind, extremely unconventional and narrow -  definition of traps. However, to paraphrase the points I made earlier:1. Spells can function as traps. The important thing here is their function. Spells do not need to be specially identified as a trap spell, they must simply function as one. 2. If they so function, then a Rogue can detect/disarm them using the mechanics provided... 3. UNLESS the Spell Description explicitly says otherwise. Alarm's Spell Description does not so explicate.  Ergo, when used to thwart the activities of the sneaky, it is a trap and can be detected and disarmed. There has been some debate on this point, arguing that nothing in the Alarm spell's descriptor specifically indicates that it is a trap. As I described in some detail several posts ago - with a citation from the SRD - this is in NO WAY relevant. To be excluded from the mechanics for discovering/disarming traps the spell descriptor must so indicate. That's the Black Letter/RAW. Any other interpretation is a House Rule. Imagined requirements for 'physical components' and such notwithstanding. (Permanent Image is identified as a potential spell trap on page 67 of the DMG, and it offers neither a 'physical component' to disable, nor anything in its description to identify itself as some exclusive class of 'trap spell'.)Moving on...The ONLY counterargument with substance is the assertion that the Alarm spell does not function as a trap. If the function of the Alarm spell were not a 'trap', none of the above would apply because the Rogue's ability to discover/disarm spell traps is predicated on the spell's functioning as a trap.To my mind Alarm obviously DOES function as a trap, and a number of posters seem to agree - JGBrowning has made a number of cogent arguments on this point.I will not continue the subjective argument (edit: okay, upon reflection, it appears I am, in fact, continuing this subjective argument <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />), but will provide this quote for your consideration as to a trap's function: - Emphasis mine.No, FFG is not a core source, but I think their functional definition is a good one for the purposes of gaming.I will also point out that Rogues are not required to take Ranks in Disable Alarm or Disable Annoyance. Disable Device is intended to cover a wide - in fact, 'inclusive' - range of applications. In the case of Rogues, that ability has been specifically extended to apply to Magical and Spell traps. I feel that arbitrarily granting a 1st level spell with the ability to thwart an entire Class' core function based on a very narrow definition of the word 'trap' is a disservice to your players and flies in the face of the preponderance of evidence.All of that said, If a DM feels that a spell is not functioning as a trap, then it is certainly within their purview to disregard the provided mechanics. It is not my place to try and dislodge a subjective opinion - just presenting mine, and interpretations of the rules as I think they're written.However, I think that the 'Alarm is not a trap'  position is sufficiently counterintuitive that players should be informed of it: Rogues in a world that can so easily thwart them would likely be aware of the Alarm spell, and should be given the opportunity (through cross-classing or UMD/wands etc) to prepare for the situation.A'mal</blockquote>

Verification