Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Magius del Cotto" data-source="post: 379430" data-attributes="member: 6554">I think that the bonus to attack is to account for the trap designer's/builder's ability to take into account what the people who would set off the trap would do, as well as how the trap would hold up over time (older traps should have a lower bonus, since time has worked it's ravages on them).Now, Rogues should probably get a scaling bonus to AC to account for the increased to-hit that traps get, but that's a different point.&nbsp; Obviously, it's possible for the person to be somewhere other than where they're supposed to be, which you could rule-0 (if you know the traps well enough) to not hit you because of where you are.&nbsp; However, more likely, the trap maker would know what would happen, and set up the trap to take care of anyone that would try (and fail) and disarm it, and, since the trap's affected by armor, why not just have it be a AC check?Just my 2.3454321 cents worth.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Magius del Cotto, post: 379430, member: 6554"] I think that the bonus to attack is to account for the trap designer's/builder's ability to take into account what the people who would set off the trap would do, as well as how the trap would hold up over time (older traps should have a lower bonus, since time has worked it's ravages on them). Now, Rogues should probably get a scaling bonus to AC to account for the increased to-hit that traps get, but that's a different point. Obviously, it's possible for the person to be somewhere other than where they're supposed to be, which you could rule-0 (if you know the traps well enough) to not hit you because of where you are. However, more likely, the trap maker would know what would happen, and set up the trap to take care of anyone that would try (and fail) and disarm it, and, since the trap's affected by armor, why not just have it be a AC check? Just my 2.3454321 cents worth. [/QUOTE]

Verification