PDA

View Full Version : [spell] for when you donít have a rogue handyÖ



TheThan
2006-08-11, 03:09 PM
Disable trap
There was once a cunning wizard who needed to get by a really nasty trap. Unfortunately he didnít have a rogue handy to disable the trap, so he had to improvise.


Disable Trap
Transmutation
Level: Sorcerer/wizard 2 Bard 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: close
Effect:
Duration: instant/ permanent
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

Upon casting this spell the caster must make a spellcraft check (DC equal to the disable device dc of the trap). If successful the trap becomes disarmed. A failed spellcraft check fails to disarm the trap. If the spell craft check fails by 5 or more the trap is set of. The trap cannot be rest unless it enchanted to do so. This spell can disable any trap with mechanical properties and/or magical traps.


Components: a small metal cog

TheOOB
2006-08-11, 04:47 PM
Considering that it's a second level cleric (only) spell that simply gives you the ability to find traps as a rogue (as well as a small insight bonus to your search skill, I'd say that spell is over powered.

If you really must disarm a trap with a level one spell, just use Summon Monster I, who cares if a summoned creature dies triggering a trap?

martyboy74
2006-08-11, 04:49 PM
Considering that it's a second level cleric (only) spell that simply gives you the ability to find traps as a rogue (as well as a small insight bonus to your search skill, I'd say that spell is over powered.

If you really must disarm a trap with a level one spell, just use Summon Monster I, who cares if a summoned creature dies triggering a trap?
The monster that gets killed?

TheThan
2006-08-11, 05:28 PM
A rogue is a necessity for any excursion into a dungeon. Now what happens when the party doesnít have a rogue? They never come across any traps? Or more likely they get their tailed kicked by every trap that comes their way. Now a rogue can start disabling traps at level 1. So Iíve decided that a 1st level spell would be appropriate because of that. Plus a rogue can continually try again until he succeeds or can take just take 20 on the disable device skill. A wizard, sorcerer or bard can only cast this spell a number of times per day, which limits its use and limits the use of the caster as a whole. Keep in mind there is no guarantee of success. Just how many combat spells will your wizard or sorcerer be willing to trade for a utility spell he might not use?

Also keep in mind that traps can be made to auto reset so running a summoned creature in it is not always going to disable the trap. In fact I may do nothing but alert the party to the trap in the first place.

I can pump it up to level 2 or three, if its really that game altering.

Steward
2006-08-11, 06:11 PM
Just how many combat spells will your wizard or sorcerer be willing to trade for a utility spell he might not use?

I mean, it's not like Sorcerers can't spontaneously cast any spell they know, right? Yeah, they'd be at a disadvantage when it comes to combat but it's better than just sitting in front of a trap, hoping that it just goes away by itself. Besides, you really shouldn't be depending on your sorcerer's combat spells to get you through most of your adventures, especially if you were unlucky/dim enough to go into your standard dungeon crawl without a rogue or some sort of trap-handling guy.

TheThan
2006-08-11, 07:29 PM
I mean, it's not like Sorcerers can't spontaneously cast any spell they know, right? Yeah, they'd be at a disadvantage when it comes to combat but it's better than just sitting in front of a trap, hoping that it just goes away by itself. Besides, you really shouldn't be depending on your sorcerer's combat spells to get you through most of your adventures, especially if you were unlucky/dim enough to go into your standard dungeon crawl without a rogue or some sort of trap-handling guy.


Hey, spoon happens

A sorcerer may be able to spontaneously cast this spell but still he only gets a max of 6 spells per day (ignoring bonus spells for now) so after two or three traps heíll be low on 1st level spells. The bard is in the same spot, only more so.

lsfreak
2006-08-11, 07:42 PM
You can't take 20 on disarming a trap, because if you fail by 5 or more you set if off.

And if you *summon* the monster, it doesn't get killed :P

The spells would have to be higher than 2nd level at least, considering the Detect Traps spell from a cleric is 2nd level. It'd be much more effective to, as already stated, summon monster I and have them trip it.
Also consider that skills are not equal; I might be mistaken, but I think wizards, especially, are likely to have a higher modifier for Spellcraft than a rogue would on Disable Device, since Disable Device relies on one of the rogue's less important ability scores and is a less important score than Spellcraft in terms of everything a rogue can do compared to a wizard.

NullAshton
2006-08-11, 08:11 PM
Make the spellcraft check at a -10 penalty? Disabling traps is what a rogue does. Remove that, and a rogue becomes a weak fighter with sneak attack and a lot of skills. Without a rogue, there already are ways through less reliable and quiet of dealing with traps. They're called having your party tank in the front, and sunder/dispel magic.

TheThan
2006-08-11, 08:12 PM
Any decent rogue will have max ranks in disable device anyway since its part of his main function. But anyway I pushed it up to level 2, is that fair. I also added consequences for failure like the disable device skill. I thought you could take 20 on disable device until I reread the rules for it. Me bad.

edit

This spell solves a problem of not having a rogue in the blasted party . Face it some times you just donít have a rogue and are faced with trying to get by a trap. It happens, granted it may not happen often but still it happens. Suppose no one wanted to play a rogue, suppose the rogue died and the party doesnít have access to any raise spells. This stuff happens.

I wouldnít allow this spell if there were a rogue in the party.

I designed this spell for specific game in which the party doesnít have a rogue, why you askÖ because nobody submitted one and the one that was submitted was unacceptable. The party is unable to acquire cohorts so donít bring that up.


Make the spellcraft check at a -10 penalty? Disabling traps is what a rogue does. Remove that, and a rogue becomes a weak fighter with sneak attack and a lot of skills. Without a rogue, there already are ways through less reliable and quiet of dealing with traps. They're called having your party tank in the front, and sunder/dispel magic.

Iím sure the partyís fighter is going to want to step in front of that save or die trapÖ

NullAshton
2006-08-11, 08:26 PM
Except that if you're at that level, you can just have your wizard use a few detect magic to find those traps. Then dispel magic when you see them. Easy.

TheOOB
2006-08-11, 08:27 PM
The spell still reduces the need for a character with the trapfinding ability (rogue, scout, ninja, spellthief, ect).

The spell manages to be both incredible powerful, and completely pointless. The vast majority of traps can be bypassed by a first level spell, usually summon monster (summoned creatures who die reform in 24 hours so no biggie), but a magic missile can also take out traps as well, in case the trap resets, and thus can't just be triggered and bypassed.

The fact remains though that there are several traps that cannot be overidden by any easy means, glyphs of warding, a trapped chest containing delicate items, scything blades, lowering ceilings, and those are the reasons you bring a rogue with you into a dungeon. It's supposed to hard, if not impossible to deal with trap heavy dungeons without someone with the trapfinding ability. After all, as mentioned, its a second level cleric spell to give someone a chance to simply find a trap as a rogue half their level, a 3nd level wizard shouldn't be able to replace this role in the party so readily.

lsfreak
2006-08-11, 10:08 PM
Ah, sorry, I didn't notice this spell was specifically for a campaign with no rogue. In normal instances, as a normal spell, I'd say it needs to be 4th-level at *least,* at which point it really serves no purpose because there's so many other ways of dealing with traps.

As others said, there are certainly other ways of dealing with most traps. Magic Missile, having someone else with a good Search check find them and then find other ways of disabling, using dispel magic, tripping it with others or fooling the trap somehow, ect. I'd try and stick with those alternate ways, but if you simply cannot deal with not having a way to disable traps, *then* add in this spell. Keep in mind there could have some interesting hooks trying to use other ways, mainly that something from another plane gets a bit pissed that you keep using his underlings to set off your traps.

Since this spell is specifically for a campaign with no rogue, then I'd say you you'd be okay moving Detect Traps down to zero or first level cleric, and disable trap at first or second level. Only for that campaign, however, and only after heavy consideration from the DM. As others said, it's supposed to be hard without a rogue, as healing is hard without a cleric/druid.

TheThan
2006-08-12, 12:04 AM
Yeah, normally I wouldnít bother with making such a spell, but the situation warrants it.

Jack_Simth
2006-08-12, 01:43 AM
Considering that it's a second level cleric (only) spell that simply gives you the ability to find traps as a rogue (as well as a small insight bonus to your search skill, I'd say that spell is over powered.

If you really must disarm a trap with a level one spell, just use Summon Monster I, who cares if a summoned creature dies triggering a trap?
You don't really want to be using Summon Monster I as your trapfinder; you want an Unseen Servant dragging a hundred pound sled/wagon/sack/whatever everywhere. Mostly for the duration difference. You see, with Summon Monster I, if there wasn't a trap in that hallway, you're out the use of the spell. With Unseen Servant, if there wasn't a trap in that hallway, you've still got him for a good length of time.

TheOOB
2006-08-12, 02:00 AM
If your playing a campaign where you don't have a rogue then your party shouldn't be going into places where traps would be. A DM needs to know in what areas their party is weak and plan accordingly, not just make other players fill multiple roles. If a party doesn't have a rogue, don't send a lot of deadly traps, and if you must have traps, make them easy to find and/or give them a rogue NPC to help.