Seeking Practical Advice on...Symbol Spells

[Shadowdweller]

The Scenario is this: A high-level party is wandering about the stronghold of the BBEG necromancer. The party realizes that it is a place of evil, but do not yet know the nature or abilities of the BBEG. The necromancer, to guard said stronghold, scribes a permanent Symbol of Death on a wall at the end of a long hallway (let us assume it extends beyond the standard 60' darkvision). The Symbol is set to trigger when seen. Now the party is composed of seasoned adventurers and holds a number of rogues. They are understandably wary of traps, and have heard of the Symbol spells before. Given the relatively short length of Death Ward, and the dearth of magic items that replicate the spell (let us assume the party hasn't had access to ANY), is it reasonably possible for said party to detect and deal with the trap BEFORE activation? If so, how?

Or is unavoidability just another example of high-level trap nastiness?

 

[Jack Simth]

If they have some option for seeing it ahead of the 60 feet (say, an elf using a Sunrod - sunrod illuminates 30/60; elf's sight doubles that for 60/120) then they can make level-appropriet Spot and Spellcraft/Knoweledge(Arcana) checks to know what it is before they are in range. If that doesn't apply, or even if it does, the Rogue can find the trap if he's taking his time and searching continuously (Search/Disable Device DC 33 for a Symbol of Death) despite the impossiblity with the trap being 50 feet over there around the corner - he gets his search check to not trip it the instant it might otherwise affect him, if he's actively searching for traps at every 5-ft square (e.g., being paranoid, and taking his sweet time) as can anyone who searches like a rogue.

Well, at least that's how I'd be inclined to rule it. Unless directly plot-related, it is usually a bad idea to throw a "tough, your dead" trap at the party with no way to circumvent it.

Then again, the Symbol does allow a Fort save and SR....

 

[Infiniti2000]

If they have some option for seeing it ahead of the 60 feet (say, an elf using a Sunrod - sunrod illuminates 30/60; elf's sight doubles that for 60/120) then they can make level-appropriet Spot and Spellcraft/Knoweledge(Arcana) checks to know what it is before they are in range.

That doesn't help because the symbol is only "visible and legible at a distance of 60 feet." So, you can't see it beyond 60ft. As soon as anyone sees it they must be within 60ft, but then of course the symbol functions. I'd give them Spot checks as they approach, obviously, using the -1 per 10ft rule with a base DC of, oh, maybe 5 or 10.

If that doesn't apply, or even if it does, the Rogue can find the trap if he's taking his time and searching continuously (Search/Disable Device DC 33 for a Symbol of Death) despite the impossiblity with the trap being 50 feet over there around the corner - he gets his search check to not trip it the instant it might otherwise affect him, if he's actively searching for traps at every 5-ft square (e.g., being paranoid, and taking his sweet time) as can anyone who searches like a rogue.

You can only search with 10ft, so this idea doesn't actually work.

I really see (pun intended) no way around triggering the rune sans divination magic or detect magic and failed spot checks.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That doesn't help because the symbol is only "visible and legible at a distance of 60 feet."

Except that could very easily be read as "visible at any range (subject to normal lighting conditions and spot rules), but only both visible and legible at a distance of 60 feet or less."

In other words:

At 120 feet, "Can you see it?" returning "Yes," and "Can you read it?" returning "No," is consistent with the rule; it is not "visible and legible."

 

[Cheiromancer]

I think you'd do it as a standard find traps for a symbol of death (search DC 33). The area where the symbol is visible is the area that is trapped. Sure the source of the trap is 60 feet away, but so what? If a trap makes boiling oil fall on you from 60 feet away, it can still be found by a search check made within 10 feet of the triggering point. On a success the rogue's "spidey sense" goes off, and he thinks there is some sort of harmful magic that is going to emanate from further down the hallway.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Except that could very easily be read as "visible at any range (subject to normal lighting conditions and spot rules), but only both visible and legible at a distance of 60 feet or less."

No, it can't be read that way. The sentence uses an 'and', so the symbol is NEITHER visible NOR legible at a distance of greater than 60ft. If you are greater than 60ft, then the symbol is clearly not "visible and legible."

 

[JimAde]

No, it can't be read that way. The sentence uses an 'and', so the symbol is NEITHER visible NOR legible at a distance of greater than 60ft. If you are greater than 60ft, then the symbol is clearly not "visible and legible."

Hmm. I have to disagree with Infiniti's logic here: Just because the symbol is not visible AND legible does not mean the the symbol is not visible OR legible.

Just because I am not human AND female does not mean that I am not human OR female.

Boolean logic for fun and profit.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Hmm. I have to disagree with Infiniti's logic here: Just because the symbol is not visible AND legible does not mean the the symbol is not visible OR legible.

Just because I am not human AND female does not mean that I am not human OR female.

Boolean logic for fun and profit.

Actually, it does mean that. The opposite of "X and Y" is "Not X and Not Y". It's certainly not "X and Not Y" or "maybe X and Not Y".

Really, the way you guys are reading it means you could choose it to be legible outside of 60ft and not visible. You're choosing visible completely arbitrarily.

 

[JimAde]

Actually, it does mean that. The opposite of "X and Y" is "Not X and Not Y". It's certainly not "X and Not Y" or "maybe X and Not Y".

Really, the way you guys are reading it means you could choose it to be legible outside of 60ft and not visible. You're choosing visible completely arbitrarily.

Yes, and in my example, it's technically possible that I'm female and not human, but common sense would seem to indicate otherwise.

Without going into a whole discussion of Boolean logic, I'll say this: I can certainly see normal text a lot farther away than I can read it. In my game, you definitely have a chance to spot one of these things before it affects you (light permitting of course). In the case of 60 foot darkvision, where the range of vision and range of effect are the same, I would certainly give anybody who said they were searching for traps a chance to spot it (with appropriate range modifiers).

 

[Infiniti2000]

Yes, and in my example, it's technically possible that I'm female and not human, but common sense would seem to indicate otherwise.

But your example is flawed because you introduced the word NOT and kept the word AND. If you introduce the word NOT, you must necessarily use the word OR, thus rendering your example invalid. The correct inverse of "visible and legible at less than 60ft" is "not visible or legible at greater than 60ft". Right?

Now, your point must be (and I assume this is Patryn's point) is that the symbol is visible and legible at 60ft (or less). This does not mean that's it's not ALSO visible and legible at greater than 60ft. I'll buy that, but wouldn't rule it that way myself, but I can't buy the idea that you can separate them arbitrarily (i.e. making it either visible or legible but not both).

The reason I wouldn't rule it that way, just so you know my reason in case it matters, is because the spell is high level. I can't think it would make the spell worthwhile to be so easily detected. Really, having it visible and/or (giving you the benefit of the doubt here) legible beyond the spell's range makes it near worthless, certainly making the huge expense a joke. That basically says, "Okay, don't put this down a long hallway because that's stupid."