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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="awayfarer" data-source="post: 3830577" data-attributes="member: 42702">No kidding. My point is that if you see the word "impossible" implicit in anything I've said it's a result of whatever mental baggage you're dragging into this.Erm...yes? I mentioned that you've noted this. The reason I mention it there is that I don't understand why you would continue the line of discussion if you believe that. Severity is moot.Ditto? I've acknowledged everything you've said.And once again you're overblowing this. A DM doesn't have to bring half the dungeon down on you in every fight. They don't even have to do something that isn't exaggerated such as, say, adding in one enarby encounter once in a while. So your line of thinking is that if something is only occasionally dangerous you don;t need to take precautions against it? Do you wear a seatbelt?Again, because something is only occasionally dangerous does that mean that you should never take precautions? If a situation has possibly dangerous result, and you have two options with which to proceed, one that reduces the possibility of danger, do you not go with that option?Nice, lets waste everyones resources on this.You have? I don't know why I would have caved to the idea that an expensive method of dealing with traps that only temporarily suppresses some kinds and has a significantly lower chance of doing so. I think I must have stopped acknowledgeing this as a worthwhile idea when i realized that it damages a caster versatility, is less reliable overall (max of +10 on the caster level check), and can only supress a trap rather than disarming it outright. What a bargain.No you haven't. The fact that you keep mentioning spells higher than lvl 1 seems to suggest otherwise. Didn't I just see Silence mentioned above?Oh you're right it isn...hey, wait a minute, thats right, you never made a convincing argument for that.You acknowledge that making a wizard a trapfinder is more expensive, You acknowledge that it takes a significant number of spells to be effective. You've acknowledged that it isn't that particular classes expertise. I take the sum of that to mean "this is a bad idea." 1: Read the first post again. I started the thread with the notion that a groups trapfinding PC (generally a rogue) will almost always encounter and have to deal with traps alone. The entire point was that it isn't probable that a group will all contribute to these encounters.You've paid no attention to this and your argument is actually meaningless in the context of the original point. Fine, a wizard can detect traps using your method, they will probably never get a chance to if there's a competent PC with the trapfinding ability.Furthermore, even if a wizard can do all of this it doesn't address my primary point: that traps will generally be dealt with by one party member. Your "solution" relies heavily on one PC with a specific set of spells.Pigeonholing a PC into selecting and preparing a specific set of spells or wasting a lot of GP on magic items.Way to misquote me. You used two examples in which DM capriciousness might cause a rogue/trapfinder to miss a trap. I said that DM fiat is a poor way of gauging things. So, yes, if your DM is a jerk and refuses to let you find a trap no matter what, both have the same chance.Honestly I'm not sure what your point is. If it's that it is possible for other members of a group to do things about traps, fine, you've made it. I've agreed to it. If your arguing about the gap between the ability of a PC with the trapfinding skill to find/bypass/disarm traps and the ability of a PC without said skill to do so, you haven't offered any arguments that suggest that the two methods are even close.</blockquote>

Verification