# Rogues and the Alarm Spell



## krazykid (Jun 21, 2004)

Does a rogue find a alarm spell as a magical trap? 

I would have thought so but then this raises a new issue - Alarm has a 20' radius trigger - At what point does the rogue detect the spell, at the point of origin of the spell (meaning he has triggered the alarm before finding it) or before entering the spell radius? 

If it is before the spell radius can the rogue disable the alarm spell considering its point of origin is 20' away?

The SRD spell description follows:

*Alarm*
*Abjuration*
*Level: * Brd 1, Rgr 1, Sor/Wiz 1
*Components:* V, S, F/DF
*Casting Time: * 1 standard action
*Range:* Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
*Area:* 20-ft.-radius emanation centered on a point in space
*Duration:* 2 hours/level (D)
*Saving Throw:* None
*Spell Resistance:* No

Alarm sounds a mental or audible alarm each time a creature of Tiny or larger size enters the warded area or touches it. A creature that speaks the password (determined by you at the time of casting) does not set off the alarm. You decide at the time of casting whether the alarm will be mental or audible.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Jun 21, 2004)

He should, though the Search skill doesn't mention the spell under its list of spells. Search DC 26 to discover the warded area (before entering) and Disable Device DC 26 to disarm.


----------



## Orm (Jun 21, 2004)

Can you disable an _Alarm_ without getting into the 20ft radius? Without using _Dispel Magic_ or the like.


----------



## Darklone (Jun 21, 2004)

Same question applies to traps with proximity trigger. If a rogue can disarm those, he can disarm the spell as well.


----------



## Shin Okada (Jun 21, 2004)

By the current ruling, no. The descriptive text does not say that the spell is a trap.

In the world, there are things which a mighty rogue can't handle alone.


----------



## Bauglir (Jun 21, 2004)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> By the current ruling, no. The descriptive text does not say that the spell is a trap.
> 
> In the world, there are things which a mighty rogue can't handle alone.




The rogue could UMD a wand of Dispel Magic to clear the spell..


----------



## Darklone (Jun 21, 2004)

Or an Alarm spell does not help against ranged sneak attacks...


----------



## Derren (Jun 21, 2004)

Sneak attacking a spell.
Interesting idea.


----------



## Darklone (Jun 21, 2004)

Derren said:
			
		

> Sneak attacking a spell.
> Interesting idea.



Nah 

I was refering to the 20ft radius of the spell compared to the 30 ft range for sneak attacks... the rogue doesn't have to trigger the spell for sneak attacks.


----------



## Orm (Jun 21, 2004)

Am I getting this right? A rogue can search for and disable _Alarm_ but has to be near the center of the spell and triggers it while doing so?


> Search: You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 21, 2004)

Shin Okada said:
			
		

> By the current ruling, no. The descriptive text does not say that the spell is a trap.
> 
> In the world, there are things which a mighty rogue can't handle alone.



 It does list the spell under Proximity Trigger in the DMG section about traps, however.

 It's a bit different sure, but you must be able to circumvent an alarm spell somehow, if you can disarm such traps.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Darklone (Jun 21, 2004)

Handwaving rules: I usually consider the material components of the spell as being arranged in a certain way and the rogue can destroy it e.g. with a thrown stone.


----------



## Orm (Jun 21, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> It's a bit different sure, but you must be able to circumvent an alarm spell somehow, if you can disarm such traps.



It seems like the only way to circumvent an _Alarm_ is the use of spells like _Detect Magic_ followed by _Dispel Magic_ .


----------



## Orm (Jun 21, 2004)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Handwaving rules: I usually consider the material components of the spell as being arranged in a certain way and the rogue can destroy it e.g. with a thrown stone.



You don´t need components, you need a focus to cast _Alarm_ . So there´s no bell lying on the floor or anything else like that.


----------



## Shin Okada (Jun 21, 2004)

A rogue can't find/disable Alarm. Also, he cannot open a door with Arcane Lock.

To delve a well guarded dungeon, a rogue would better have some assistance from spell casters or items. Or, he himself should be a multi-classed caster. This is like a fighter cannot handle all the monsters by himself alone (it is hard for him to handle most kind of oozes, for example). I think this is a intended balance factor and game mechanism.


----------



## Lamoni (Jun 21, 2004)

> Search: You generally must be within 10 feet of the object or surface to be searched.



I still allow rogues to see that the square they are searching would trigger a trap, alarm, or whatever.  They don't have to be within 10 feet of the center, only within 10 feet of the perimeter.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Jun 21, 2004)

Trying to disable or disarm an alarm spell is like trying to disable or disarm a Consecrate spell. It's an emination, from a point in space. There is no physical object tied to it, and the spell doesn't mention any kind of visual reference that might suggest to a searcher that a spell is active. There is nothing to spot or search for - a detect magic is what's needed to find it, and a Dispel Magic to get rid of it.

There's a reason rogues don't break into wizard towers very often.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 22, 2004)

It doesn't matter that there's nothing tangible to see; *by the rules*, a rogue can *find and disable* a trap with a proximity trigger, including a trap made with an alarm spell as the trigger. This doesn't explicitly allow you to find a single alarm spell, but if that spell is part of a trap then a rogue can find it.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 22, 2004)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter that there's nothing tangible to see; *by the rules*, a rogue can *find and disable* a trap with a proximity trigger, including a trap made with an alarm spell as the trigger. This doesn't explicitly allow you to find a single alarm spell, but if that spell is part of a trap then a rogue can find it.



If the rogue can find a way to effect the proximity trigger, sure.   It's pretty hard to see how the rogue can affect the trigger without setting it off in this case. 

Believe it or not, the rules don't actually cover every single situation effectively.   When a situation like this comes up, it's the DM's call as to whether it falls outside what the rules are meant to cover. 

The DM can choose to hand wave it, and allow the rogue to disable a magical effect he can't reach, or he can rule that the magical spell needs magic to stop it.  (Or you can just find or create another method of entry.)


----------



## Thanee (Jun 22, 2004)

Well, to some extent, the magical effect must be "there", otherwise it couldn't trigger the spell.

It's that trigger, the rogue is going for, which must somehow at least partially be where the radius starts.

Many spells work like this, for example the Glyph of Warding also has a sort of proximity trigger and is listed as a magical trap, which can be found and disabled. If that would only work with detect/dispel magic or the likes, it would be pretty pointless to actually list this ability for the rogue.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Darklone (Jun 22, 2004)

I don't remember where I read that, but wasn't there something about glimmering or hot air above magical effects? That way you could see (if you look carefully enough) the range of the effect.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 22, 2004)

Dunno. I'd normally think they are not visible.

 I see the rogue's ability as somewhat mystic on that behalf.

 If she searches in the right place (which really isn't obvious in most cases), she can sense some... uhm... disturbance in the force. 

 Once detected, she can attune herself to not trigger the trap while disarming it, since she obviously either has to enter the radius or disarm it from the outside, the first seems more 'logical' to me.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jun 22, 2004)

I think long lasting Abjuration spells can be spotted and overlapping areas of Abjuration spells. But maybe I'm wrong. 
I think I would allow a rogue to "disarm" the alarm spell as a spell trap of equivalent level.


----------



## Darklone (Jun 22, 2004)

Ok, I guess it was from Traps & Treacheries.... so nothing core.

Edit: Duh, was it in Song&Silence?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 22, 2004)

IMHO the common sense answer is that the Alarm spell is a particular kind of magical trap and it must follow the normal rules for Rogues & traps.  The only thing that makes Alarm special is that it is a low-level wizard spell.  I do not consider that sufficient justification to write an entire new set of rules to cover it as a special case.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 23, 2004)

Is the _alarm_ spell by itself really a trap?   I can where it can be used as part of a trap (as the "proximity trigger"), but in that case the alarm spell is restricted to the area that the trap protects. (DMG, page 68, Elements of a Trap, Trigger, Proximity). 

I guess I can see a rogue being able to disable an alarm spell built into a trap, but not just the standard alarm spell.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 23, 2004)

Of course since an alarm spell is an emanation, you could always just throw a cloak over the emanating point, at which point it will emanate within the cloak, letting you do whatever you want.

But only if you're a rogue. Knowledge of this sort of thing is probably what disable device gives.

Finally I think that making a first level spell that obviously SHOULD be classified as a trap totally unfindable is being a little bit silly.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 23, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Of course since an alarm spell is an emanation, you could always just throw a cloak over the emanating point, at which point it will emanate within the cloak, letting you do whatever you want.
> 
> But only if you're a rogue. Knowledge of this sort of thing is probably what disable device gives.
> 
> Finally I think that making a first level spell that obviously SHOULD be classified as a trap totally unfindable is being a little bit silly.



Why should it be classified as a trap?


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 23, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Why should it be classified as a trap?




It's used as the trigger for a number of traps. Triggering an alarm spell causes an effect which is usually unwanted by the triggerer. It fits the standard definition of the word trap. The section within the srd listing magical traps merely say that many spells make magical traps, and unless the spell says otherwise, they use the standard mechanics under search to resolve. The standard search mechanics list spells which can be found and disabled, spells which can be found but not disabled, and a spell which has an odd DC. The list is by no means exhaustive  - I've yet to see it specifically expanded in any future books, and surely there are other trap-like-spells?


----------



## Caliban (Jun 23, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> It's used as the trigger for a number of traps.



Yes, I stated that earlier. But being a component of a trap doesn't necessarily make it a trap. 

A piece of rope can be used to trigger a trap (tripwire). Are all pieces of rope now considered traps? 



> Triggering an alarm spell causes an effect which is usually unwanted by the triggerer. It fits the standard definition of the word trap. The section within the srd listing magical traps merely say that many spells make magical traps, and unless the spell says otherwise, they use the standard mechanics under search to resolve. The standard search mechanics list spells which can be found and disabled, spells which can be found but not disabled, and a spell which has an odd DC. The list is by no means exhaustive - I've yet to see it specifically expanded in any future books, and surely there are other trap-like-spells?



All the trap spells listed in the core rules directly harm or affect the person who triggers it in someway. Your standard alarm spell does not. (An alarm spell used as the trigger for a trap is part of the trap, and I agree it should be possible to detect and disable it as part of disabling the trap.)

All I'm talking about is your standard alarm spell that alerts the spellcaster when it is triggered. Not an alarm spell that has been modified to act as the proximity trigger for a trap.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 23, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Yes, I stated that earlier. But being a component of a trap doesn't necessarily make it a trap.
> 
> A piece of rope can be used to trigger a trap (tripwire). Are all pieces of rope now considered traps?



No, but the bell trap in sunless citadel certainly is. The goblins have one in the door right before the area they've filled with caltrops.

It's a trap, it can be searched for, it requires disable device to avoid, yet it doesn't have a directly deleterious effect, merely an indirect one (alerting the goblins).

Much like an alarm spell would alert either everyone nearby, or it's creator.

So - the "it's not a trap because it causes no harm" line is a bit out.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 23, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> A piece of rope can be used to trigger a trap (tripwire). Are all pieces of rope now considered traps?




If used as part of a mechanism that has a clear trigger--> effect, mechanical or magic, yes.  That does mean that, to someone who has not seen one before, an innocent mechanism such as an elevator or a toaster may look "like a trap" until studied with more than just a Search skill.

If I use a piece of string to trigger a bell to ring, is that somehow mystically unsearchable and impossible to disable because it is "not a trap".  But if I tie that string to a canister of poison gas instead, the Rogue skills do work?

The common sense answer is that they are both traps, albeit of different kinds.  To rule otherwise just creates a class of non-trap traps that you have to write an entire new set of rules for.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 23, 2004)

When Alarm is used as part of a trap, the rogue must somehow be able to circumvent it to get close to the mechanism, otherwise it would be impossible to disarm the trap.

 I think it's just reasonable to assume, that this also works, if the Alarm spell is used by itself, as there is no real difference then.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Caliban (Jun 23, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The common sense answer is that they are both traps, albeit of different kinds. To rule otherwise just creates a class of non-trap traps that you have to write an entire new set of rules for.



What new rules would those be?   The current rules already cover removing the alarm spell without the use of a rogue.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 23, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> When Alarm is used as part of a trap, the rogue must somehow be able to circumvent it to get close to the mechanism, otherwise it would be impossible to disarm the trap.
> 
> I think it's just reasonable to assume, that this also works, if the Alarm spell is used by itself, as there is no real difference then.
> 
> ...



But there is a real difference, as I pointed out already.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 23, 2004)

Yeah, I've seen that, but I don't see the difference (well, I see what you mean with the difference, of course - trap component vs actual trap).

 What makes the Alarm spell used as a proximity trigger really different to the Alarm spell used alone, which triggers an alarm once someone enters its radius? Isn't that exactly the same thing, the trigger method?

 The only real difference is in what happens after the trigger, but that's replaceable, anyways. And the range is different, but that only shifts the trigger point to another location.

 Why can the rogue get past the first, but not the latter, if both use the exact same method of detection?

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Caliban (Jun 23, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yeah, I've seen that, but I don't see the difference (well, I see what you mean with the difference, of course - trap component vs actual trap).
> 
> What makes the Alarm spell used as a proximity trigger really different to the Alarm spell used alone, which triggers an alarm once someone enters its radius? Isn't that exactly the same thing, the trigger method?
> 
> ...



I'm actually referring to page 68 of the DMG, where it states that an alarm spell used as a proximity trigger can only cover the area that the trap itself protects, as opposed to it's normal radius. 

It's a real difference between the normal version of the alarm spell and the version used in a trap. As I pointed out earlier...


----------



## MerakSpielman (Jun 23, 2004)

I think if the Alarm spell by itself was intended to be considered a magical trap, it would have said so explicitly, _somewhere_. The books do not say this, and I don't think it was a simple oversight. I don't think it even _occurred_ to the designers to classify Alarm as a trap.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 23, 2004)

So you cannot find the alarm trigger, but only the trap, which overlaps with it, so to say. And you can only disarm the trap, if you can reach it from outside that area. However, as soon as the area is entered or even touched, the trap triggers, as that is what the Alarm spell does. So you actually have to disarm it, without touching it in any way, right? Does that even work?

 Well, magic trap disarming is weird, anyways... 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Darklone (Jun 23, 2004)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> I think if the Alarm spell by itself was intended to be considered a magical trap, it would have said so explicitly, _somewhere_. The books do not say this, and I don't think it was a simple oversight. I don't think it even _occurred_ to the designers to classify Alarm as a trap.



Wasn't there a post in this thread at the beginning that mentioned the Alarm spell as an example in the Traps section of the DMG?


----------



## Thanee (Jun 23, 2004)

No, only as part of a trap. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Caliban (Jun 24, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> So you cannot find the alarm trigger, but only the trap, which overlaps with it, so to say. And you can only disarm the trap, if you can reach it from outside that area. However, as soon as the area is entered or even touched, the trap triggers, as that is what the Alarm spell does. So you actually have to disarm it, without touching it in any way, right? Does that even work?
> 
> Well, magic trap disarming is weird, anyways...
> 
> ...



You are deliberately trying to make it sound more complicated than it is.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 24, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> You are deliberately trying to make it sound more complicated than it is.




And you're not? You're trying to obscure the meaning of the word trap first of all, and beyond that you're trying to say that the alarm spell as a trap trigger and as a spell are somehow totally different entities.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 24, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> And you're not? You're trying to obscure the meaning of the word trap first of all, and beyond that you're trying to say that the alarm spell as a trap trigger and as a spell are somehow totally different entities.



They are different. The DMG says so.

And the standard alarm spell does not meet the definition of the word trap, so I'm not sure how you can say I'm obscuring the meaning of the word. 

Trap is not a defined term in the PHB glossary, so generally the only things that are traps are things that are described as traps in the rules. The alarm spell is not described as a trap in the spell description (the way glyphs, explosive ruins, and symbols are). The DMG mentions that it can be used as a trigger for a trap, but nowhere does it state that the alarm spell itself is a trap. 

Just to be sure, I looked up the word "Trap" at www.dictionary.com and at the Merriam-Webster dictionary site: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=trap. The alarm spell doesn't seem to meet any of the definitions.

In the english language, an "alarm" and a "trap" are two different things.

Interestingly, this indicates that the Sepia Snake Sigil may not qualify as a magical trap either (because the spell doesn't state that it's a trap).


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 24, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> They are different. The DMG says so.
> 
> And the standard alarm spell does not meet the definition of the word trap, so I'm not sure how you can say I'm obscuring the meaning of the word.
> 
> ...




From the Oxford English Dictionary:

"Often applied to anything by which a person is unsuspectingly caught, stopped, or caused to fall; also to anything which attracts by its apparent easiness and proves to be difficult, anything deceptive. "

And, indeed, from dictionary.com
"A stratagem for catching or tricking an unwary person."

If you're going to exclude these, then you're certainly excluding explosive runes, fire trap, glyph of warding, symbol of Death, symbol of Fear, symbol of Insanity, symbol of Pain, symbol of Persuasion, symbol of Sleep, symbol of Stunning, symbol of Weakness,  and teleportation circle...


----------



## Thanee (Jun 24, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> You are deliberately trying to make it sound more complicated than it is.




Just trying to put some logic in there. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Caliban (Jun 24, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> From the Oxford English Dictionary:
> 
> "Often applied to anything by which a person is unsuspectingly caught, stopped, or caused to fall; also to anything which attracts by its apparent easiness and proves to be difficult, anything deceptive. "



An alarm in and of itself does not stop you or cause you to fail, it doesn't attrack you, it doesn't actually make anything more difficult. It can trigger something else that makes life difficult for you. 



> And, indeed, from dictionary.com
> "A stratagem for catching or tricking an unwary person."



An alarm doesn't catch you or trick you. It can trigger a trap that does those things, but all it does is alert people (or traps) to your presence.



> If you're going to exclude these, then you're certainly excluding explosive runes, fire trap, glyph of warding, symbol of Death, symbol of Fear, symbol of Insanity, symbol of Pain, symbol of Persuasion, symbol of Sleep, symbol of Stunning, symbol of Weakness, and teleportation circle...



Do you actually pay attention to anything I write? Those are all described as magical traps in the spell description, therefore they are magical traps. Alarm is not, therefore it is not a trap. It can be part of a trap, and therefore disabled when the trap is disabled. (You probably don't even disable it then, it tries to trigger the trap, but the trap isn't working.)


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jun 24, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> An alarm in and of itself does not stop you or cause you to fail, it doesn't attrack you, it doesn't actually make anything more difficult. It can trigger something else that makes life difficult for you.




Nonsense.  It most certainly does make it more difficult if what you're trying to do is not be caught, and "caught" is the word you've omitted from the definition you're citing, to wit:



			
				Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Often applied to anything by which a person is unsuspectingly caught, stopped, or caused to fall




Mind you, the dictionary is not the best arbiter of what D&D terms mean, and I do think there's an argument to be made that in general, spells that are considered traps are listed as such explicitly, and _alarm_ is not.  I also think that's probably an oversight on the designers' part, caused by excessively combat-oriented thinking.  I don't see any commonsense argument for not considering an alarm to be a specific form of trap.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 25, 2004)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> Nonsense.



Thank you for that inciteful rebuttal. So eloquent and to the point. I certainly felt swayed.   

So great was the debating skill displayed by that one word that I'm sure I have no need to read the rest of your post.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 25, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Dr_Rictus said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for that inciteful rebuttal. So eloquent and to the point. I certainly felt swayed.

So great was the debating skill displayed by that one word that I'm sure I have no need to read the rest of your post.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 25, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Thank you for that inciteful rebuttal. So eloquent and to the point. I certainly felt swayed.
> 
> So great was the debating skill displayed by that one word that I'm sure I have no need to read the rest of your post.



I wasn't aware that the word "thank" held so much meaning.  I'm impressed.


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jun 25, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that the word "thank" held so much meaning.  I'm impressed.




Ah, but the word "nonsense" certainly does, apparently.

I maintain that you can't cite someone else's post, edit out the very word that entirely rebuts your argument, and not expect it to be called nonsense.  Frankly, it seems foolish to argue the point.

If that stings, well, it wasn't meant personally.  Most of your stuff is quite cogent, and as I say I think you're correct on the substance of the rules, but that particular argument was just junk.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 25, 2004)

Dr_Rictus said:
			
		

> Ah, but the word "nonsense" certainly does, apparently.



Actualy, yes it does. In my experience, when someone starts off a response to you like that, there is not much point in continuing the conversation. Since you chose to enter this discussion by talking down to me and lecturing me, I'm really not interested in anything else you might have said. 

I was trying to have an honest debate, since I think there is a real difference between an alarm and a trap, even in the 3.5 rules. If you want to disagree and actually try to convince me otherwise, that's fine. But please do it without the attitude, because that just irritates me, and I'd really rather not get involved in a sniping match right now. I simply won't debate on those terms anymore.


----------



## Tatsukun (Jun 25, 2004)

Well, how about is we go around it and try to figure out what the DC for a rogue to use 'Use Magic Device' to impersonate a creature small enough not to set off the spell is. 

I think he has to be smaller that tiny to do it. I am thinking this is a major DC we are talking about. 

If we say that it's a trap because something bad will happen if the rogue enters the protected area we open a major can of worms. 

If there is building in a city with an ever-burning touch set in a wall (to illuminate the door) can a rogue deactivate the torch? Can he do it from the parameter of the light? 

I am saying no. 

  -Tatsu


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 25, 2004)

My Evil Wizards will command a zombie to pull a lever that evokes a Non-trap Anti Personel Device when it hears the sound of the Non-trap Alarm spell.  Since the zombie is safely around the corner, he cannot be stopped by any normal means available to the Rogue.

Now I have a trap that is composed of elements that do not met the definition of a trap that is impervious to the Rogue class abilities that are specficially designed to deal with such things.

This is a loophole I can waltz a whale through.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 26, 2004)

Tatsukun said:
			
		

> Well, how about is we go around it and try to figure out what the DC for a rogue to use 'Use Magic Device' to impersonate a creature small enough not to set off the spell is.



A spell is not a "device". Use Magic Device won't help you bypass a spell, it's only used to activate magic items or avoid harmful effects from magic items.

As for the rest, I pretty much agree.   The more I look at it, the more I think that a spell isn't supposed to count as a magical trap unless the spell itself says it's a magical trap, or unless the spell is used as a component of a trap.   And in the second case, the spell isn't really being "disabled", it's just being rendered useless due to the rest of the trap not functioning.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 26, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> My Evil Wizards will command a zombie to pull a lever that evokes a Non-trap Anti Personel Device when it hears the sound of the Non-trap Alarm spell. Since the zombie is safely around the corner, he cannot be stopped by any normal means available to the Rogue.
> 
> Now I have a trap that is composed of elements that do not met the definition of a trap that is impervious to the Rogue class abilities that are specficially designed to deal with such things.
> 
> This is a loophole I can waltz a whale through.



Rogue abilities are not automatically useful in every situation, no more than a clerics ability to turn undead is useful against every type of undead, or a fighters sword is useful against every type of creature they face. 

It is certainly possible to set up situations that require more than a couple of skill checks to bypass. Sometimes you will need spells such as Detect Magic to detect the alarm, Dispel Magic to dispel the Alarm, and a cleric to Turn Undead and destroy the zombie before it can trigger the trap. 

Or you could have someone who is invisible wait until they see the party coming, and trigger an effect that hits them before the rogue has a chance to search for it. Or a 1st level drow sorcerer with 120' darkvision and a wand of fireballs in a pitchblack cavern, etc. 

So I don't think objecting to it on the basis that it's somehow unbalanced is accurate.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 26, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> So I don't think objecting to it on the basis that it's somehow unbalanced is accurate.




You are ducking the issue.

My objection is it is not difficult to build Non-trap Traps whose constituents parts are all unambiguously non-traps by your definitions. 

I have never asked that Rogue abilities be useful in all situations.  That argument is a complete red herring.  

Look at my example again.  It walks like a trap.  It talks like a trap.  If it is not a trap, something is wrong with the definitions you are using.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 26, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> You are ducking the issue.
> 
> My objection is it is not difficult to build Non-trap Traps whose constituents parts are all unambiguously non-traps by your definitions.



I think you are overstating the case just a tad. 




> Look at my example again. It walks like a trap. It talks like a trap. If it is not a trap, something is wrong with the definitions you are using.



No it's not a trap. It hinges on something that is specifically not a trap: A guard creature of some sort waiting to respond to an alarm. Sounds like a standard D&D encounter to me. There are multiple ways of disabling or avoiding the alarm, the disable device skill just isn't one of them in this instance, since there is no device or magical writings to disable.

The alarm spell only reveals the presence of the characters. Nothing else. It doesn't catch them, impede their progress, or cause them any damage. Whoever or whatever responds to the alarm does that.

If the zombie is going to react to the alarm, then at that point it's a combat situation and you roll initiative. 

If the zombie triggers some mythical "non trap anti-personel device" that you never defined, then that's your problem. That's a straw man arguement on your part, since I haven't been talking about anything like that.    That's not me ducking the issue, that you trying to turn it into something else. 

I've just been talking about the alarm spell, and about the difference between an alarm and a trap.   One alerts people to your presence, the other does something to you when you trigger it.


----------



## dcollins (Jun 26, 2004)

I agree that _alarm_ seems like it should count as a trap.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 26, 2004)

To me it's a trap because it functions as traps function. Any spell (like the _permanent images_ example in DMG used to just confuse) that's functioning as a trap can be disarmed as a trap, even if it can't be disarmed when it's not functioning as a trap.

It's a rules gaff. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

joe b.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 26, 2004)

I can fill in the blanks if that is really necessary.  

The "secret" is to build a normal style trap but use Alarm as the first part, an automaton-like creature as the second part, and any standard dangerous effect like opening a canister of poison gas in the vicinity of the party.  Heck, fill the whole frigging hallway 150' in all directions with poison -- that is a matter of NPC wealth, not rule mechanics.

Of course, it does not have to be a zombie.  The zombie is just a simple example of a creature that approximates an automaton.  It could be a permenant Unseen Servant, a tiny bound Elemental, a cheap golem, etc.

Notice I have picked creatures that could be bricked into the wall, save for a small listening hole.  The listening hole could be down the hall and around the corner, so it is completely and totally out of sight.

Combat?  Technically, yes, there is initiative before the bad effect goes off.  Fat lot of good that will do you if you have no means of guessing what is coming.

Rogue Player: "I move cautiously down the hall.  I use Search in every 5' I step.  Once I Take 10.  Then I just roll once."

DM: "As you proceed down the corridor, you can see it is 100' long and turns to the right.  As you reach the middle, an Alarm spell goes off.  It is undetectable by your Search skill, so I will not even roll."

All: "We run around like chickens with our heads cut off in an attempt to avoid the Non-trap that is about to happen to us!!!"


----------



## Scion (Jun 26, 2004)

Isnt an alarm system attatched to a house effectively the same thing?

Who cares if the alarm sets up lasers to cut you down when triggered, or calls the police to come and shoot you. It was still triggered and something bad happened to you.

There doesnt seem to be any difference there. Something is sitting there, when tripped something bad happens. Sounds like a trap to me. The alarm spell awakes the party, that is something bad happening.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 26, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> All the trap spells listed in the core rules directly harm or affect the person who triggers it in someway. Your standard alarm spell does not. (An alarm spell used as the trigger for a trap is part of the trap, and I agree it should be possible to detect and disable it as part of disabling the trap.)




The rules in the DMG have glaring holes.

Forget about the Alarm spell for a moment.

If a trigger causes a 20' stone cube block to drop, blocking off all exits, and entombing the party for a thousand years, is that a trap?

If a glyph summons a balrog to eat you, is that a trap?

If the room slowly fills with water and drowns all who cannot swim, is that a trap?

None of these directly affect the party.  All are classic D&D trap mechanisms.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 26, 2004)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The rules in the DMG have glaring holes.
> 
> Forget about the Alarm spell for a moment.
> 
> ...



They absolutely all directly affect the party. 

They also have no resemblence to the Alarm spell. 

If the alarm spell is part of a trap, the trap can be detected and disabled without triggering the alarm (or the alarm is triggered without activating the trap, whichever makes more sense for the situation). 

But the alarm spell by itself does not operate as a trap. A trap does something to you, and alarm spell does not. It alerts someone else to your presence. That's alarms do, that's not what traps do (although many traps incorporate alarms into them). 

An alarm does not catch you. An alarm does not impede your progress. An alarm does not cause any damage to you. A trap can do anyone of the above. 

An alarm spell is not a trap, and it is not a device or glyph or rune or symbol that can be disabled. However, I don't see any problem with a rogue who is searching being able to detect the presence of the alarm without setting it off. (In fact, they have to be able to do this when an alarm is incorporated into a trap.)


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 27, 2004)

A string with bells on it is a trap that a rogue can disarm. An alarm spell is functionally no different.

joe b.


----------



## Janos Audron (Jun 27, 2004)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> A string with bells on it is a trap that a rogue can disarm. An alarm spell is functionally no different.
> 
> joe b.




Well, then I guess a powderkeg which does 10d6 fire damage in a 20 ft. spread and a Fireball are no different...

Oh, wait, there's SR, so to a Marilith, they are different.

Same with the string and bell: in one instance there is a string with a bell attached and the rogue can cut the string without triggering the bell sound. In the other case, there is nothing to see (string and bell are foci, which means they are not used up during casting, so they are on the caster's person once the spell has been cast), nothing to feel, smell, taste, touch or disarm...


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 27, 2004)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> A string with bells on it is a trap that a rogue can disarm. An alarm spell is functionally no different.
> 
> joe b.





But with an _Alarm_ spell there is nothing there for the rogue to disarm.  I see both sides of this conversation pretty well, I think.

However, I would not let rogues disarm or disable anything that did not have some physical component.

As an evil wizard, I devise this trap where the party will probably attempt to fly over a large pit.  At the high point of flying over the pit I place an anti-magic field of some type.  This is definately a trap.  However, one of this type should not be able to be disarmed by the party rogue.

Yes, rogues can disarm magical traps.  A trigger stone that shoots a fireball from the ceiling is definately something I want my rogue to find.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 27, 2004)

Janos Audron said:
			
		

> Well, then I guess a powderkeg which does 10d6 fire damage in a 20 ft. spread and a Fireball are no different...
> 
> Oh, wait, there's SR, so to a Marilith, they are different.




The damage type is different, but the effect is the same. It could be a spring trap filled with silly string, or a bucket of water perched over a partly-open door.

Whether or not the trap is effective against any particular opponant isn't what I was addressing. The issue is whether or not they are both traps. If so, they can both be disarmed by a rogue, regardless of effect.

If they are not traps, (which has been the main argument so far, that _alarm_ is not a trap), I'm interested in finding out the reasoning behind why a string of bells is a trap but an _alarm_ spell isn't a trap.



> Same with the string and bell: in one instance there is a string with a bell attached and the rogue can cut the string without triggering the bell sound. In the other case, there is nothing to see (string and bell are foci, which means they are not used up during casting, so they are on the caster's person once the spell has been cast), nothing to feel, smell, taste, touch or disarm...




If the rogue can disarm magic traps, he can disarm magic traps, even if we can't think of any way that such a thing can happen. Personally I see no reason why a rogue should be able to disarm anything magical to begin with,  but they can. So I think rogues can disarm an _alarm_ spell because the spell is used like a trap, just like a string of bells is a trap. Also, like how any damaging spell can be turned into a trap, ala lightning bolt trap.

joe b.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 27, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> But the alarm spell by itself does not operate as a trap. A trap does something to you, and alarm spell does not. It alerts someone else to your presence. That's alarms do, that's not what traps do (although many traps incorporate alarms into them).
> 
> An alarm does not catch you. An alarm does not impede your progress. An alarm does not cause any damage to you. A trap can do anyone of the above.




To me, this seems to say that whether or not the Rogue can find a tripwire is a function of what the trip wire is tied to at the other end.  I don't see that.

Admittedly, this is a magic tripwire.  But being as the rogue can find magic "tripwires", I don't see that as a very important distinction.

Edit: I guess I'm not doing anything more than repeating Joe.....


----------



## Amal Shukup (Jun 27, 2004)

I'm very much of the "walks like a duck..." school of thought here. Moreover the rules seem fairly clear on the mechanics associated with treating Spells that act like Traps.




> *From the SRD:* Spell traps are simply *spells that themselves function as traps*. Creating a spell trap requires the services of a character who can cast the needed spell or spells, who is usually either the character creating the trap or an NPC spellcaster hired for the purpose.




Quack. 

Note that it doesn't refer to a 'Spell with the Trap Descriptor'' (no such exists) - it is tied completely to function. So if an _Alarm_ spell has been set to catch somebody sneaking into the protected area, then it is functioning as a trap.

Also:




> *From the SRD:*
> MAGIC TRAPS
> Many spells can be used to create dangerous traps. *Unless the spell or item description states otherwise, assume the following to be true.*
> 
> ...




If the _Alarm_ spell is to be considered excluded from the above mechanics, the _Alarm_ description needs to explicitly indicate that it is excluded - as opposed to the suggestion that it needs to explicitly identify itself as being a trap. The 'burden of proof', as it were, is on the Spell indicating that it does not follow those rules...

_Programmed Image_ could conceivably function quite similarly; in which case (as nothing in the spell description states otherwise) I'd suggest that the same mechanics would apply there as well.

No?

A'Mal


----------



## Caliban (Jun 27, 2004)

Amal Shukup said:
			
		

> I'm very much of the "walks like a duck..." school of thought here. Moreover the rules seem fairly clear on the mechanics associated with treating Spells that act like Traps.
> 
> 
> Quack.



But an alarm spell doesn't function as a trap. That's the whole point. People keep saying that it does, I point out all they ways that it doesn't, and no one actually refutes that. 

Please, explain how an alarm spell acts a trap. It doesn't meet the definition of a trap. Unlike every single trap spell listed in the PHB, it has no physical component. 

No Runes.
No Glyphs.
No Symbols.
No physical component whatsoever. 

Every single magical trap spell in the PHB has some physical component listed that is there for the duration of the spell. I don't think this is a coincidence. 



> Note that it doesn't refer to a 'Spell with the Trap Descriptor'' (no such exists) - it is tied completely to function. So if an _Alarm_ spell has been set to catch somebody sneaking into the protected area, then it is functioning as a trap.



Alarm spells don't "catch" anything. They can be part of a trap that catches someone, but the spell itself doesn't do that. 

No quack. 



> If the _Alarm_ spell is to be considered excluded from the above mechanics, the _Alarm_ description needs to explicitly indicate that it is excluded - as opposed to the suggestion that it needs to explicitly identify itself as being a trap. The 'burden of proof', as it were, is on the Spell indicating that it does not follow those rules...



I disagree. Every spell trap in the PHB specifically mentions that it's a spell trap, giving a search and disable DC. 

If alarm is a trap, why don't didn't they mention that? It's not like it has multiple functions built into the spell. 

An alarm can be part of a trap, but when you look at the rules, the spell itself isn't a spell trap. 



> _Programmed Image_ could conceivably function quite similarly; in which case (as nothing in the spell description states otherwise) I'd suggest that the same mechanics would apply there as well.
> 
> No?
> 
> A'Mal



 No. If the Alarm spell was intended to be a spell trap, it would be mentioned as such, just like all the other spell traps. 

Your basically saying that every spell that has a "trigger condition" is a magical trap that can be disabled. So a rogue can disable a contingency spell on a wizard? A rogue can disable a magic mouth spell? 

If so, why doesn't it mention anything about this in their spell descriptions, like it does for every glyph, symbol, rune, or even teleport circle?


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 27, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> But an alarm spell doesn't function as a trap. That's the whole point. People keep saying that it does, I point out all they ways that it doesn't, and no one actually refutes that.




Is a string with bells surrounding a specific area a trap? I think almost everyone would say, yes, that's a trap because any contrivance that alerts you to the presence of a enemy is a trap for that unseen enemy.



> Please, explain how an alarm spell acts a trap. It doesn't meet the definition of a trap. Unlike every single trap spell listed in the PHB, it has no physical component.




It acts like a magical string of bells. It does meet the definition of trap. The problem your having is that it doesn't match the other types of spell traps listed in the PHB. That's a separate issue. I'm more inclined to believe that the _Note: Magic traps such as..._ text was excluded by error than to believe that _alarm_ isn't a spell trap because _alarm_ is the magical poster child for a large range of mundane detection/location traps.

A trip wire with a smoke grenade or flare.
A wire with bells.
A piece of hair placed carefully in a door to indicate if someone's entered your room while you've been away.

All of these things are traps. Traps that rogues have the ability to notice and disarm. All _alarm_ is, is a magical version of these detection/location traps.



> Alarm spells don't "catch" anything. They can be part of a trap that catches someone, but the spell itself doesn't do that.




As I've stated above, catching isn't a required componant of a trap. The DMG lists _permanent images_ used to *confuse* as a trap. So there can be magic traps that don't fit the catching criteria according to the DMG.



> I disagree. Every spell trap in the PHB specifically mentions that it's a spell trap, giving a search and disable DC.




I think only every spell trap *that does "damage" to the trap tripper* lists a search and disable DC (damage being a state of change in the tripper, be that phyical hurt or change of location). There is no search and disable DC listed for the DMGs example of _permanant images_ yet it's listed as a trap. Just because _alarm_ doesn't explictly state its a trap doesn't mean it can't be one.

My guess is that the designers were blind-sided by this one because the only way that _alarm_ can be used is like a detection/location trap. It really has no other uses. It's so obvious, they probably missed the "Note: Magical traps..." text.

joe b.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 27, 2004)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Is a string with bells surrounding a specific area a trap? I think almost everyone would say, yes, that's a trap because any contrivance that alerts you to the presence of a enemy is a trap for that unseen enemy.



No, that's not a trap. That's an alarm. There is a difference, as I've pointed out repeatedly. 

An alarm alerts you to the presence of an intruder. 

A trap impedes (trapping them in a pit or cage, etc.), or harms (blows up, poisons them, fills the room with water, etc.). 

A trap can have an alarm incorporated into it (so that it both alerts you to the intruders presence and does something to them), but an alarm can also be something seperate, with no trap associated with it.

Please read my previous posts, because I'm getting really tired of repeating myself.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 27, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> No, that's not a trap. That's an alarm. There is a difference, as I've pointed out repeatedly.




If it's the word "trap" you're hung up on lets just get rid of it and use "alarm." Rogues cannot disable alarms? A rogue can't disable the above detection/information traps/alarms I mentioned? I think rogues can disable mundane alarms and they can also disable magic alarms just like they can disable magic traps.



> An alarm alerts you to the presence of an intruder.
> 
> A trap impedes (trapping them in a pit or cage, etc.), or harms (blows up, poisons them, fills the room with water, etc.).
> 
> ...




Trap means more that just what you're saying, however. It also means a stratagem for catching or tricking an unwary person. And to follow that thought some more, catching just doesn't mean holding/restraining, it also means to discover or come upon suddenly, unexpectedly, or accidentally.

Ala, my alarm caught some thieves breaking into my house. The alarm is a trap to catch thieves, not to harm them or restrain them, but to simply prevent their success because their presence is now known. One could say that an alarm impedes their actions because they know the consequences of triggering it and once triggered they know that something that's more directly impeding is probably about to happen.

When someone discovers sets of tripwires along a path that trigger flares they more than likely say something like:

Person A: "Be careful! The path's trapped."
Person B: "With what?"
Person A: "Just some alarms, nothing dangerous, but we'll be better off if they don't know we're here."

Alarms are traps just like a bucket of water on top of a partially opened door, just like a whoopie cushion in a chair. Just like people set traps to see if someone's performing a particular action. "I wanted to see if he was stealing from me so I laid a trap for him. The keys to the registar are out in the open and I have this camera recording what happens." There is no damage done by the trap directly, but there are consequences that can be avoided by disabling the trap/alarm. And a rogue could disarm this trap by searching to see the camera and finding a way to disable it.

_Summon monster_ magic devices are considered traps (but they don't impede or harm) that can be disabled, but you seem to be arguing that the magical _alarm_ that summons help mundanely can't be disabled. The _alarm_ spell that triggers a roof to open up and drop an ooze onto someone can be disabled, but the _alarm_ spell that just wakes the ooze up can't be disabled.

To me, it simply makes no sense. Regardless of what the "trigger/alarm" triggers/alerts, it's a trap, be it mundane, or magical. Alarms are a type of trap that (when triggered) cause non-mechanical/non-magical effects (and impede indirectly) while most traps (when triggered) cause a mechanical/magical effect (and impede directly).

A main problem I see with treating _alarm_ as not being able to be disabled is the following situation. If I create a trap that releases a toxic gas throughout my entire dungeon if a particular sound (that of an _alarm_ spell) goes off, the rogue can disarm the _alarm_ because it's used as a trigger for my toxic gas trap, but the rogue cannot disable the _alarm_ when I flip a lever to turn off my toxic gas trap. I'm not buying this because there's no difference between the sound made when there isn't a trapped response to the bell and when there is a trapped response.

In other words, the spell doesn't "know" that it's going to trigger a trap with it's bell sound and the rogue has no way of knowing the difference between a trigger _alarm_ spell and a non-trigger _alarm_ spell.

If the rogue can disable alarm as a spell trigger, a rogue can disable alarm when it's not a spell trigger. I'm not a big believer in the schrodinger's alarm theory: to me, an _alarm_ is not dependent upon what it alarms to determine if it can or cannot be disarmed. I find it odd to think that a rogue can disable magical and non-magical traps, and non-magical alarms (ala wire with bells), but somehow can't disable magical alarms.

Just seems like a symantic arguement to me. I don't think rogues should be able to disarm any magic, but if they can, I think they can surely disarm alarms as well as traps. Because to me, an alarm is just a specific type of trap, like pit, arrow, water, acid.. etc.

joe b.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 27, 2004)

Well, Caliban is of course right, that the Alarm spell _is no trap_ within the rules, all trap spells are specifically declared as such.

Question is... should it be a trap?

I think yes, since it works just like a trap does. In a very simple sense. It has a trigger and it does something, which is usually bad for you. Detection is something I consider pretty bad for a rogue. 

And even if the rogue would be able to disarm an Alarm spell... it's still hard enough to actually find out there is one, unless you are searching every square, or are detecting magic.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Amal Shukup (Jun 27, 2004)

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 _), but will provide this quote for your consideration as to a trap's function:




> *From Traps and Treachery by FFG:* "In the context of a campaign world, traps *function as security* - they're designed to protect people, places, or things."



_ - 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


----------



## Caliban (Jun 27, 2004)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> If it's the word "trap" you're hung up on lets just get rid of it and use "alarm." Rogues cannot disable alarms? A rogue can't disable the above detection/information traps/alarms I mentioned? I think rogues can disable mundane alarms and they can also disable magic alarms just like they can disable magic traps.



Rogues have the ability to disable spell traps. Where does it say that they can disable spell alarms? 

And of course a rogue can disable a mundane alarm, because there is a physical device to disable.   That's what the disable device skill is for.  However, there is nothing to disable with the Alarm spell. Nothing. 

Every spell trap in the book has a physical component that the rogue can disable (rune, glyph, symbol, etc). The Alarm spell does not. 



> Trap means more that just what you're saying, however. It also means a stratagem for catching or tricking an unwary person. And to follow that thought some more, catching just doesn't mean holding/restraining, it also means to discover or come upon suddenly, unexpectedly, or accidentally.



 A physical trap catches someone in the physical sense. The second definition for "catching" you refer to wouldn't apply to a traps. Traps aren't intelligent, they can't "discover or come upon" anything. "To discover or come upon suddenly" is referring to a person doing the discovering.

An alarm reveals their presense, it doesn't "discover or come upon" them. Two very different things.

Edited to clarify my thoughts.


----------



## Tatsukun (Jun 27, 2004)

So let’s say an NPC has a magic shop. He has a good door, but he’s worried about someone picking the lock. He gets a smith to build a needle trap into it. (1). Then, he sets an ever-burning torch above the door so nobody can linger there without being seen by the city guards who pass buy frequently (as in, there is no cover for hiding). The guards have been told that if the light is ever off, they should assume someone has broken in. (2)

So, number one is clearly a trap. Is your argument that number two is a trap also? Should the rogue be able to use his disable device to get past the torch?  Does he somehow create darkness is he can hide? Does he use his skill to turn invisible? Can he do it from the parameter of the light? 20’ away? 40’ ??

It’s starting to sound like you think anything that has a consequence is a trap. 

Let’s say there is an iron golem in an alcove of a hallway. He has been told to always stare at the hallway in front of him. If you walk by the alcove, it will get a chance to see (and kill) you.  

Is that too a trap? Can a rogue bypass this with his disable device skill? It’s starting to sound like the skill should be ‘bypass any dangerous situation caused by location whatsoever’.  

Silly

    -Tatsu


----------



## Scion (Jun 27, 2004)

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Although it has been stated before.

SRD:
Types of Traps: A trap can be either mechanical or magic in nature. Spell traps are simply spells that themselves function as traps. Creating a spell trap requires the services of a character who can cast the needed spell or spells, who is usually either the character creating the trap or an NPC spellcaster hired for the purpose.

Is alarm a spell that can function as a trap? yep.

SRD:
Trigger
A trap’s trigger determines how it is sprung.
Proximity: This trigger activates the trap when a creature approaches within a certain distance of it. A proximity trigger differs from a location trigger in that the creature need not be standing in a particular square. Creatures that are flying can spring a trap with a proximity trigger but not one with a location trigger. 

Does it trigger when you get within a certain distance? yep.

SRD:
Damage/Effect
The effect of a trap is what happens to those who spring it. Usually this takes the form of either damage or a spell effect, but some traps have special effects.
Spell Traps: Spell traps produce the spell’s effect. Like all spells, a spell trap that allows a saving throw has a save DC of 10 + spell level + caster’s relevant ability modifier.

Does the spell have an effect when triggered? yep, it alerts someone. That is the trap.

SRD:
Spell Trap Cost
A spell trap has a cost only if the builder must hire an NPC spellcaster to cast it.

Just for completeness, we all know alarm can be cast.


Really though, I dont see how anyone can say it 'isnt' a magical trap. It is magical, it triggers when its conditions are met, and it has some effect. It doesnt matter 'what' that effect is, the main part of a trap is its triggering component.

There is no difference what-so-ever if the alarm spell triggers and wakes the party, triggers and points large shiny lasers at the person who triggered it and fired, or if it triggers and does nothing at all. It is still a trap.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 27, 2004)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> A main problem I see with treating _alarm_ as not being able to be disabled is the following situation. If I create a trap that releases a toxic gas throughout my entire dungeon if a particular sound (that of an _alarm_ spell) goes off, the rogue can disarm the _alarm_ because it's used as a trigger for my toxic gas trap, but the rogue cannot disable the _alarm_ when I flip a lever to turn off my toxic gas trap. I'm not buying this because there's no difference between the sound made when there isn't a trapped response to the bell and when there is a trapped response.



I would argue that in either case the rogue cannot actually disable the alarm spell. Even when it's incorporated into a trap, the rogue doesn't actually disarm the alarm. He just prevents the trap from responding to the alarm. 

Since the DMG states that the alarm is limited to covering the area of the trap, it seems to be intended that there has to be a trap mechanism (magical or mundane) that responds to the alarm that the rogue can reach.

But at that point we are heavily into the abstract nature of the 3.5 rules, and it's basically coming up with rationalizations to support what the rules actually do say clearly (a rogue can disarm traps and an alarm spell can be a component of a trap).


----------



## Caliban (Jun 27, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Although it has been stated before.
> 
> SRD:
> Types of Traps: A trap can be either mechanical or magic in nature. Spell traps are simply spells that themselves function as traps. Creating a spell trap requires the services of a character who can cast the needed spell or spells, who is usually either the character creating the trap or an NPC spellcaster hired for the purpose.
> ...



Nope. As I've pointed out several times.



> SRD:
> Trigger
> A trap’s trigger determines how it is sprung.
> Proximity: This trigger activates the trap when a creature approaches within a certain distance of it. A proximity trigger differs from a location trigger in that the creature need not be standing in a particular square. Creatures that are flying can spring a trap with a proximity trigger but not one with a location trigger.
> ...



That doesn't make it a trap. Is magic mouth a trap? Is the Contingency spell a trap? 



> SRD:
> Damage/Effect
> The effect of a trap is what happens to those who spring it. Usually this takes the form of either damage or a spell effect, but some traps have special effects.
> Spell Traps: Spell traps produce the spell’s effect. Like all spells, a spell trap that allows a saving throw has a save DC of 10 + spell level + caster’s relevant ability modifier.
> ...



Nope, that's not a trap. That's an alarm.


> SRD:
> Spell Trap Cost
> A spell trap has a cost only if the builder must hire an NPC spellcaster to cast it.
> 
> ...



Then you haven't actually been reading the thread. You are just restating the original arguement without actually refuting anything I've said. 



> There is no difference what-so-ever if the alarm spell triggers and wakes the party, triggers and points large shiny lasers at the person who triggered it and fired, or if it triggers and does nothing at all. It is still a trap.



No, there is a huge difference. But it looks like we are just repeating ourselves. If you have anything new I'll discuss it with you, but it looks like we have reached an impasse.


----------



## Scion (Jun 27, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Nope.  As I've pointed out several times.




And to use the same unfortunate tone, as has been pointed out to you several times, you are wrong.

I have read all of your posts, I simply dont agree. Your points are not convincing, and you cannot refute the fact that there is no difference between an alarm going off to point lasers at someone and the same alarm going off to simply make a really loud noise. Both are traps.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> That doesn't make it a trap.   Is magic mouth a trap?  Is the Contingency spell a trap?




When used as a trap? sure.

SRD:
Magic Mouth
Illusion (Glamer)
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature or object
Duration: Permanent until discharged
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (object)
This spell imbues the chosen object or creature with an enchanted mouth that suddenly appears and speaks its message the next time a specified event occurs. The message, which must be twenty-five or fewer words long, can be in any language known by you and can be delivered over a period of 10 minutes. The mouth cannot utter verbal components, use command words, or activate magical effects. It does, however, move according to the words articulated; if it were placed upon a statue, the mouth of the statue would move and appear to speak. Of course, magic mouth can be placed upon a tree, rock, or any other object or creature.
The spell functions when specific conditions are fulfilled according to your command as set in the spell. Commands can be as general or as detailed as desired, although only visual and audible triggers can be used. Triggers react to what appears to be the case. Disguises and illusions can fool them. Normal darkness does not defeat a visual trigger, but magical darkness or invisibility does. Silent movement or magical silence defeats audible triggers. Audible triggers can be keyed to general types of noises or to a specific noise or spoken word. Actions can serve as triggers if they are visible or audible. A magic mouth cannot distinguish alignment, level, Hit Dice, or class except by external garb.
The range limit of a trigger is 15 feet per caster level, so a 6th-level caster can command a magic mouth to respond to triggers as far as 90 feet away. Regardless of range, the mouth can respond only to visible or audible triggers and actions in line of sight or within hearing distance.
Magic mouth can be made permanent with a permanency spell.
Material Component: A small bit of honeycomb and jade dust worth 10 gp.


This spell talks all about triggers and such. If you walk past the statue, and it starts shouting, 'intruders!! intruders!! intruders!!' I bet people will feel that they walked into a trap. This is because they just sprung a trap.

You seem to feel that it would only be a trap if the statue then fell on them. I dont see the distinction, because there isnt one.

It doesnt matter if the trap triggers a sound, a laser, or does nothing at all. It is still a trap.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 27, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> And to use the same unfortunate tone, as has been pointed out to you several times, you are wrong.
> 
> I have read all of your posts, I simply dont agree. Your points are not convincing, and you cannot refute the fact that there is no difference between an alarm going off to point lasers at someone and the same alarm going off to simply make a really loud noise. Both are traps.



*shrug* I can and have refuted it. An alarm is not a trap. I haven't found any of your arguments to the contrary to be convincing. 

Since we are at the point of "Yes it is! No it isn't!" it looks like we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 27, 2004)

I'll repeat my arguements one last time in a seperate post, to try and restate them clearly: 

I agree that an alarm spell is very similar to a spell trap. However I feel that it is different in three very important ways: 

1) It doesn't actually act upon the person who triggers it in any way
2) There is no physical component to disable
3) The alarm spell does not state it's a spell trap. 

The first point means that it doesn't meet the definition of a trap (see all my posts regarding the difference between an alarm and a trap), the second point is important because every spell the book says you can disable *does* have a physical component, and the third point means that the designers most likely did not intend for it to be disabled using the disable device skill.


----------



## Scion (Jun 27, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I agree that an alarm spell is very similar to a spell trap.  However I feel that it different in three very important ways:




Very similar, since it 'is' the triggering component as you have said. The actual final effect is unimportant however, the trigger makes the trap.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> 1) It doesn't actually act upon the person who triggers it in any way




Unimportant. If you are invisible so that a seeing eye trap cannot detect you and fry you does that make the trap not a trap any longer?

If it summons/gates the Monster Of Doom (tm) to come and destroy you does that make it not a trap?

What if you take damage from loud sounds? The alarm spell can make a loud sound, it damages you, it acted upon you.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> 2) There is no physical component to disable




Also unimportant, having a physical component is not required for it to be a trap. 

I will quote from the srd:
Spike growth and spike stones, however, create magic traps against which Disable Device checks do not succeed. See the individual spell descriptions for details.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> 3) The alarm spell does not state it's a spell trap.




Also unimportant, it could very well be that it simply cannot be disarmed, but it is still a trap.

I dont care if it can be disarmed or not, it is still a trap.

The core books dont say that every sappling tree can be made into a trap either, but we all know it is true.

If a spell is set up in such a way as to be a trap, then it is a trap.

If someone could cast a delayed fireball that lasted for 24 hours, during which time anyone who approached within distance X triggered it then for those 24 hours it is a trap.

Easy, simple, and not counterintuitive like 'it is a trap if this switch is up and not a trap if this switch is down.. even though the trigger is exactly the same either way'


----------



## Caliban (Jun 27, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Very similar, since it 'is' the triggering component as you have said. The actual final effect is unimportant however, the trigger makes the trap.



That statement I find very unlikely. Any actual support for it? 

I have shown a lot of support for the difference between an alarm and a trap. You haven't actually shown anything to the contrary. You just keep repeating that it is a trap over and over again.

If we use your interpretation, any trap that incorporates an Alarm spell can't have a Search or Disable Device DC greater than 26, since Alarm is a 1st level spell.

I find it highly unlikely that this was intended by the designers, and it doesn't seem to actually be supported in the rules.

Like I said, if you come up with anything new let me know.


----------



## Scion (Jun 27, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> That statement I find very unlikely. Any actual support for it?




Care to disprove it? All traps have triggers and some sort of effect. The alarm spell has a trigger and some sort of effect.

It is a trap.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> I have shown a lot of support for the difference between an alarm and a trap. You haven't actually shown anything to the contrary. You just keep repeating that it is a trap over and over again.




I, and others, have quoted out of the SRD showing how you are wrong. You have proven nothing and just keep repeating yourself.

At this point everyone just keeps repeating yourself. You say, 'but it isnt a trap because it doesnt deal physical damage' and others 'of course it is a trap, it triggers and has an effect, it also works just like other traps given in the dmg'.

I think I will go with the version that is supported directly by the raw, I am unsure where your line of reasoning is coming from, but it certainly doesnt appear to be supported by the raw.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> If we use your interpretation, any trap that incorporates an Alarm spell can't have a Search or Disable Device DC greater than 26, since Alarm is a 1st level spell.




Completely false. Other traps can have triggers that are based on something like the alarm spell, but the alarm spell always has a certain dc. Of course, someone could heighten the alarm spell making it harder as appropriate.

Just because a trap includes fire it does not mean that all traps with fire have the same dc. Just because a trap has a trip wire doesnt mean that all traps with a trip wire have the same dc.

You are really reaching here caliban  The alarm spell is first level, so when used as a trap it has certain conditions yes. But, if it is heightened, or some other trap uses a version much like alarm, it can still have a different dc.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> I find it highly unlikely that this was intended by the designers, and it doesn't seem to actually be supported in the rules.




Except from all of the quotes posted by myself and others in this thread directly from the raw.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> Like I said, if you come up with anything new let me know.




Hey, sure, and if you come up with something go ahead and post it. You have already listed your three main criteria, I have already countered them. Anything else?


----------



## Thanee (Jun 27, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> 2) There is no physical component to disable




Is there one for every listed trap spell?

Glyph of Warding has the inscription.

What other spells are there (PHB only), which are declared as magical traps?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 27, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I'll repeat my arguements one last time in a seperate post, to try and restate them clearly:
> 
> I agree that an alarm spell is very similar to a spell trap. However I feel that it is different in three very important ways:
> 
> 1) It doesn't actually act upon the person who triggers it in any way




True, the bell effect (be it audible or inaudible) does no damage to the triggerer. But that's the same as a holy water trap would do no damage to any non-undead/non-evilish type creature or a fireball trap does no damage to one immune to fire, or an arrow trap does not damage to a creature immune to piercing weapons. Yet holy water, fireball, and arrow traps are most definitely traps.



> 2) There is no physical component to disable




A disableable component is not required to disable a magical trap. Ala _permanent images_ ala _fire trap._



> 3) The alarm spell does not state it's a spell trap.




Neither does _permanant images_ although the DMG explictly states it can be used as a trap. Hell, the DMG explictly states that it can be used as a *trap* that *confuses.* Which also doesn't fit your definition of trap having to cause direct harm. _Sepia snake sigil_ also isn't stated to be a spell trap but it's listed as a CR 4 trap in the DMG.

This is why I think the DMG lists how to deal with spell traps, because not all spell traps will have the spell trap discription in their text.



> The first point means that it doesn't meet the definition of a trap (see all my posts regarding the difference between an alarm and a trap), the second point is important because every spell the book says you can disable *does* have a physical component, and the third point means that the designers most likely did not intend for it to be disabled using the disable device skill.




Points rebutted, and to restate.

1. A _fireball_ trap does no damage to a creature immune to fire, yet is most definitely a trap per the DMG. Traps are not required to harm to be traps. Traps are not even required to be able to potentially harm in order to be a trap. _Sepia snake sigil_ does no harm. Or, at least no more harm than what an _alarm_ does.  :\ 
2. A _permanent images_) trap per the DMG has no stated physical component to disable. A _Fire Trap_ per the PHB has no stated physical component to disable.

And as a point of interest, a _firetrap_ is described as a ward. Alarm is described as a ward as well.

3. The _permanent image_ spell does not state it is a spell trap. _sepia snake sigil_ is listed as a CR 4 trap in the DMG yet it also isn't stated to be a spell trap in its discription.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 27, 2004)

To clairify,

Not all things that qualify as traps are able to be disabled, say like the use of the Canae tactic, because that is a trap that's not dependent upon a mechanical/magical change of state based upon pre-set design. However, in the case of a mechanical/magical alarm that changes state when a particular pre-set action occurs (bells ring when tripwire is touched, alarm rings when certain area is entered) such a contrivance *can* be disabled because it has a set pattern of functioning that can be interrupted. That's a trap, even if all the trap does is spray silly string on someone or sound an alarm.

The torch you're describing isn't a trap because it does nothing: it doesn't change according to set circumstances. Were the torch to flash, brighten, or extinguish when someone enters the area, that would be a trap that a rogue could get by.

I don't want you to have the wrong idea about what I think about traps. Traps have to be mechanical/magical. Traps have to have a set response to certain circumstances. Traps have to be able to function independent of an sentient observer's presence even if that means they function poorly, such as an alarm spell when no one's close enough to hear it.

Anything that is mechanical/magical, with a set parameter under which it reacts, that doesn't require intelligence or a traditional D&D creature (golem, undead etc), that's used to hinder a particular action is probably a trap.

I think that's a workable definition so far, but I'm sure it could be better.

joe b.



			
				Tatsukun said:
			
		

> So let’s say an NPC has a magic shop. He has a good door, but he’s worried about someone picking the lock. He gets a smith to build a needle trap into it. (1). Then, he sets an ever-burning torch above the door so nobody can linger there without being seen by the city guards who pass buy frequently (as in, there is no cover for hiding). The guards have been told that if the light is ever off, they should assume someone has broken in. (2)
> 
> So, number one is clearly a trap. Is your argument that number two is a trap also? Should the rogue be able to use his disable device to get past the torch?  Does he somehow create darkness is he can hide? Does he use his skill to turn invisible? Can he do it from the parameter of the light? 20’ away? 40’ ??
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 27, 2004)

I'll chip in with the correct majority and say that _alarm_ is definitely a trap. It meets the dictionary definition of 'trap', and can also align with the D&D definition of a trap. I have my 3.5 DMG open to page 68 where it discusses "elements of a trap". From the DMG:

"All traps - mechanical or magical - have the following elements:

Trigger - Yep. Proximity.

Reset - No Reset, one of the 4 options.

Bypass (optional) - None.

Search/Disable DC - Magic Trap, 26.

Attack Bonus/Saving Throw - "Occasionally a trap will use both of these options, or *neither*."

Damage/Effect - Yes, there is absolutely an effect. The effect is that the spell's caster is alterted to an intruder's presence. This meets all definitions of the word 'effect'.

Challenge Rating - According to the tables on pages 74 and 75, I've come up with 3.

I think it's pretty safe to say that an alarm spell is a trap. Now the question is, can you disarm it? I would say yes, using the RAW, they can. From the DMG: "Magic traps may be disarmed by a rogue (and only a rogue) with a successful Disable Device check (DC 25 + spell level).

This seems pretty clear to me, I don't know what all the fuss is about.


----------



## Thanee (Jun 27, 2004)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> I'll chip in with the correct majority and say that _alarm_ is definitely a trap.




Sneaky. 

While I agree with you in general, Caliban is definitely right, that by the rules _Alarm_ is not a trap, as it is not declared as a trap in the spell description.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Amal Shukup (Jun 28, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Sneaky.
> 
> While I agree with you in general, Caliban is definitely right, that by the rules _Alarm_ is not a trap, as it is not declared as a trap in the spell description.
> 
> ...




Caliban is definitely NOT correct in this assertion. His beliefs as to whether _Alarm_ functions as a trap lie in the realm of the subjective (we'll have to agree to disagree). However, 'By the Rules', it is absolutely *not* required that _Alarm_ identify itself as a Trap. _Persistent Image_, for example, is not described as a trap despite being explicitly cited as a potential Spell Trap on pg 67 of the DMG. 

The DMG and SRD are absolutely specific in defining 'Spell Traps' as *any* spell that *functions* as a trap. There is no requirement that the spell  must identify itself as a trap in its description.

In fact, the opposite is true: the SRD and DMG indicate that the _normal rules for discovering/disarming a trap apply to any spell functioning as a trap *unless* the Spell Description *explicitly* states otherwise._

The relevant sections were cited in previous posts.

So, to reiterate: If one believes that _Alarm_ (and/or _Magic Mouth_, _Persistent Image_, _Programmed Image_ et al) are (in the way they are applied) *functioning as a trap*, then the rules are 100% clear on how they are to be treated.

Several of those spells can be used in non-trap applications, but if one believes that they simply cannot BE traps (on account of they're 'alarms' and don't bodily 'catch' or injure a Rogue directly like 'real' traps), then I feel that they are, well, simply wrong and can figure out/invent their own rules at their leisure.

A'mal


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 28, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Well, Caliban is of course right, that the Alarm spell _is no trap_ within the rules, all trap spells are specifically declared as such.




This is a bit of a silly arguement - for starters the rules never say "these are the only magical traps that can be searched for and disabled".



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> No, that's not a trap. That's an alarm. There is a difference, as I've pointed out repeatedly.




I really like this style of arguing - the 'put your fingers in your ears and declare that everyone else isn't listening' school of logic...

I already pointed out that there is at least one published example of a trap which does nothing else but trigger an alarm, a trap which can be searched for, and which can be disabled.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> Rogues have the ability to disable spell traps. Where does it say that they can disable spell alarms?
> 
> And of course a rogue can disable a mundane alarm, because there is a physical device to disable.   That's what the disable device skill is for.  However, there is nothing to disable with the Alarm spell. Nothing.



Once again - if there is no line of effect from the origin of the alarm spell to the triggerer, then the spell isn't triggered, which means that placing an object so it surrounds the point of origin of the alarm spell would quite effectively disable it.


> Every spell trap in the book has a physical component that the rogue can disable (rune, glyph, symbol, etc). The Alarm spell does not.



This is a bit of a misleading arguement. You're saying "all X's have a Y" and inferring that all X's covers what we're talking about.

Since part of our arguement is that the alarm spell IS an X, the claim that all X's have a Y has any effect on the arguement is a little spurious.


> A physical trap catches someone in the physical sense. The second definition for "catching" you refer to wouldn't apply to a traps. Traps aren't intelligent, they can't "discover or come upon" anything. "To discover or come upon suddenly" is referring to a person doing the discovering.
> ...




You keep trying this one, and you can't overcome the basic fact that there is already precedence for 'traps' which raise an alarm, and which can be searched for and disabled.

So what you're saying is:

Rogues can disable alarms
Rogues can disable spell traps
Rogues cannot disable spell traps which trigger alarms.

Oh, and that you've not really got any reason why the third statement is true.

Either come up with an actual arguement, or give up.


----------



## Tessarael (Jun 28, 2004)

SkidAce said:
			
		

> As an evil wizard, I devise this trap where the party will probably attempt to fly over a large pit.  At the high point of flying over the pit I place an anti-magic field of some type.  This is definately a trap.  However, one of this type should not be able to be disarmed by the party rogue.




Note that the anti-magic field is not triggered - it is permanently present. Traps have a trigger. That said, if the party is searching they will find the anti-magic field, and they'll find it before they all fall into the pit (they may find it by one of them falling as he wanders into the area).

Another thing to note is from the SRD description of the Search skill: "Active abjuration spells within 10 feet of each other for 24 hours or more create barely visible energy fluctuations. These fluctuations give you a +4 bonus on Search checks to locate such abjuration spells."

This seems to imply that a Rogue with the search skill can find an abjuration spell. Whether that spell be Alarm or Antimagic Field. So I will argue that a Rogue can find an Alarm spell's area before triggering it.

Now can a Rogue disable an Alarm spell? As written, there is no Disable Device DC on Alarm. Many people argue that's a mistake, and I am inclined to agree with them. However, strictly according to the rules, I think Thanee is right: it walks like a trap, it quacks like a trap, but it doesn't have a trap label so the warranty is void and you can't disable it. 

Also note the SRD description of Disable Device. "Spike growth and spike stones, however, create magic traps against which Disable Device checks do not succeed." It's entirely possible that Alarm simply cannot be disabled. However, one could of course avoid the affected area.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 28, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Either come up with an actual arguement, or give up.



Hmm.. I thought I said earlier that it looks like it was an "agree to disagree" situation. I guess that's not good enough for some people, they just have to "be right" and if you can't accept that, they start the personal comments. 

I've tried to make valid arguements, and refute opposing arguements. Some people find them convincing and some don't. That's fine with me, but apparently that's not good enough for you. You don't want let anyone have an opposing opinion, or an honest disagreement. 

I'm not going to "give it up". So what exactly are you going to do about it? What empty ultimatum are you going give me next? What authority do you have to back up this command of yours? 

Sheesh.

I'm getting really tired of the attitudes people have been displaying on this thread.


----------



## Amal Shukup (Jun 28, 2004)

Tessarael said:
			
		

> As written, there is no Disable Device DC on Alarm.




As written, assuming that _Alarm_ is functioning as a trap (which I and others maintain it most assuredly is), the DC is 26. Straight up black letter from the SRD and DMG.

The designers did not 'make a mistake' not assigning a specific DC to each spell that could concievably be used as a trap, they created a general rule that applies to ALL spells that can be used as a trap (unless that spell specifies something different.)




			
				SRD said:
			
		

> MAGIC TRAPS
> 
> Many spells can be used to create dangerous traps. *Unless the spell or item description states otherwise, assume the following to be true.*
> 
> ...






			
				Tessarael said:
			
		

> Also note the SRD description of Disable Device. "Spike growth and spike stones, however, create magic traps against which Disable Device checks do not succeed."




An excellent example of where the Spell Description "state otherwise". The fact that _Alarm_ does not state "this can't be detected/disarmed" PROVES (to my mind) that it can be...

A'Mal


----------



## Caliban (Jun 28, 2004)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> True, the bell effect (be it audible or inaudible) does no damage to the triggerer. But that's the same as a holy water trap would do no damage to any non-undead/non-evilish type creature or a fireball trap does no damage to one immune to fire, or an arrow trap does not damage to a creature immune to piercing weapons. Yet holy water, fireball, and arrow traps are most definitely traps.



No, that is not a valid counterpoint. Something having immunity to the effect of a trap is not equivalent to there not being an effect generated. 



> A disableable component is not required to disable a magical trap. Ala _permanent images_ ala _fire trap._



Fire trap has a physical component to it. It requires a 1/2 pound of gold dust to be sprinkled on the object, and point on the object to the the focus of the spell.   It would make more sense if it was a glyph or whatever, but the spells aren't always consistent. 





> Neither does _permanant images_ although the DMG explictly states it can be used as a trap. Hell, the DMG explictly states that it can be used as a *trap* that *confuses. *Which also doesn't fit your definition of trap having to cause direct harm.



Straw man arguement. That's not my definition of trap. 

And the DMG says a high level wizard can create a permanent image to conceal dangers or confuse invaders. 

That means the Permanent Image itself isn't a trap, it's a component of a trap (concealing a floor pit for example). 

Even if it is, what exactly are you disabling? I think that once you have detected it as an illusion, you just ignore it, or you automatically make your save. 



> _Sepia snake sigil_ also isn't stated to be a spell trap but it's listed as a CR 4 trap in the DMG.



Your right it is. Thanks for pointing that out, I thought it odd that that spell wasn't called a trap in the spell description. I think this is an oversight in that particular spell, since it definitely has a direct effect on anyone who triggers it. 



> This is why I think the DMG lists how to deal with spell traps, because not all spell traps will have the spell trap discription in their text.



I think they are all supposed to, but obviously at least one doesn't. But mainly, I don't think Alarm qualifies as a spell trap. 



> Points rebutted, and to restate.



And your rebuttals have been refuted. Probably not enough to actually change your mind though. Just as your rebuttals weren't enough to change my mind. 

It's OK if you disagree with me. Just don't be a jerk about it.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 28, 2004)

Amal Shukup said:
			
		

> An excellent example of where the Spell Description "state otherwise". The fact that _Alarm_ does not state "this can't be detected/disarmed" PROVES (to my mind) that it can be...
> 
> A'Mal



I really don't think the spike growth spell is relevent to this discussion.   

Spike Growth is a spell trap with an obvious physical component (and an obvious physical effect) that cannot be disabled.   

Alarm is a triggered spell with no physical components whatsoever, and that has no effect on the person who triggers it.   

I do not believe the spells are equivalent on any useful level, and thus cannot be used to make judgements about the other spell.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 28, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Care to disprove it? All traps have triggers and some sort of effect. The alarm spell has a trigger and some sort of effect.



Ah, so no support to show then? 

I wasn't aware that "some sort of effect" was in the defintion of a trap.   Last I checked, it wasn't.   I've already been over how alarm doesn't meet the definition of trap.   

To refute that, you try to change the definition of trap.   Sorry, but I'm not buying that.


----------



## Scion (Jun 28, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> That's not my definition of trap.




Frankly, it doesnt matter what you define a trap to be.

According to the raw the alarm spell is a trap. Simple as that. The srd quotes have shown this to be true.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 28, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Hmm.. I thought I said earlier that it looks like it was an "agree to disagree" situation. I guess that's not good enough for some people, they just have to "be right" and if you can't accept that, they start the personal comments.




Personal comments? I asked you to actually argue a point - you seem to be unable to do so.

I genuinely want a discussion about this - I genuinely want someone to say something that has the potential to change my mind.

Instead you seem to be ignoring all the points brought up, and simply reiterating your own point over and over, all the while complaining that we never pay attention to what you say.

I guess my frustration at your debating style was made manifest.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 28, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Frankly, it doesnt matter what you define a trap to be.
> 
> According to the raw the alarm spell is a trap. Simple as that. The srd quotes have shown this to be true.



Repeating this same statement over and over again doesn't make it true.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 28, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Personal comments? I asked you to actually argue a point - you seem to be unable to do so.



I have done so, repeatedly.    



> I genuinely want a discussion about this - I genuinely want someone to say something that has the potential to change my mind.



This does not seem to match what you have actually been doing. 



> Instead you seem to be ignoring all the points brought up, and simply reiterating your own point over and over, all the while complaining that we never pay attention to what you say.



Then you haven't been reading my posts.      I can't respond to every single point in every single post.    I simply don't have the time.   

I'm definitely not going to take time to respond to arguements or points that are in posts that have personal attacks.  

I've already spent to much time responding to this thread as it is.   I've got a gaming convention to plan.



> I guess my frustration at your debating style was made manifest.



Right, it's my fault you have been acting like a jerk.  Whatever.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 28, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I have done so, repeatedly.



If you intend repeatedly to mean "I repeated the same thing over and over again", then I suppose this statement is accurate.

Please, tell my why it is that the alarm spell doesn't qualify as a trap, bearing in mind that
1. There is a trap in sunless citadel which is a bell on a spring, which is statted out with a search DC and a Disable device DC.
2. There are a number of traps which are spells
3. The lists for spell traps don't claim to be comprehensive
4. There IS at least one way to defeat an alarm spell without magic.
5. The dictionary definitions posted earlier in this thread either prohibit EVERY spell trap in the game from being a trap, OR allow alarm to be one.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 28, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> If you intend repeatedly to mean "I repeated the same thing over and over again", then I suppose this statement is accurate.
> 
> Please, tell my why it is that the alarm spell doesn't qualify as a trap, bearing in mind that
> 1. There is a trap in sunless citadel which is a bell on a spring, which is statted out with a search DC and a Disable device DC.



That's a physical device. It can be disabled whether or not it's a "trap" or an "alarm". I don't think it's relevent to this discussion.



> 2. There are a number of traps which are spells



I have never said anything different. 



> 3. The lists for spell traps don't claim to be comprehensive



I wasn't aware of an actual list of spell traps. Just several spells that specifically identify themselves as magic traps, and of those that identify themselves as magical traps, they seem to have certain qualities in common, qualities that the alarm spell doesn't share (see below). 



> 4. There IS at least one way to defeat an alarm spell without magic.



Ok, I'll bite. How do you defeat an alarm spell without magic? (Unless you mean "knowing the password", which I wouldn't count as "defeating" the alarm spell.)



> 5. The dictionary definitions posted earlier in this thread either prohibit EVERY spell trap in the game from being a trap, OR allow alarm to be one.



Could you explain your logic on this one? Because I don't see this contradiction.

My main point is this: 

All the spells that identify themselves as magical traps have a physical component to them (with the possible exception of Fire Trap). The Alarm spell does not. (For me this is the main point, and what made me start looking at it more closely.)

All the spells that identify themselves as magical traps directly affect whoever triggers it (they blow you up, they trap you, they cast a spell on you, they inflict a status effect on you, etc.) An alarm spell doesn't do any of this. An alarm spell has no effect at all on whoever triggers it. It's just a sensor that makes a noise when it detects something. It doesn't "catch" you. (Whatever responds to the alarm can "discover" or "catch" or "harm" you.)

So the Alarm spell is different in two ways from all the spells that we know are magical traps. There are spells that count as magical traps but don't identify themselves as such in the spell description (Sepia Snake Sigil is one), but they should match up to the other aspects of the known trap spells. 

In general, if the spell doesn't identify itself as a magical trap, then it probably isn't (with certain exceptions, just like everything else in 3.5). 

I simply don't buy the theory that any spell that has a "trigger condition" should count as a magical trap. 

In a home game, my rule would be "any triggered spell with a physical component is a valid target for Disable Device" (and even that would probably have exceptions), because that is consistent and makes sens. But that is neither here nor there.

Now I need to get some sleep.  It's been a long weekend for me,  I've played in 5 RPGA modules over the last three days (in addition to posting on this thread when I have time) to prepare judges to to run games at Hexacon 14.


----------



## Scion (Jun 28, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Repeating this same statement over and over again doesn't make it true.




You really should listen to this yourself, as you have said nothing new for pages, nor refuted the srd.


What you are saying is that if there are two seperate situations where one is an alarm that tells me to jump up and start blasting and the other is an alarm that tells a laser to start blasting that the first is not a trap yet the second one is.

Nonsensical.

Also, along the same lines, if there is an alarm attatched to a laser and there is a switch in the next room that turns the laser on and off then, even though nothing physical about the situation in the first room, that you can somehow find the trap when the switch is on, and not find it when the switch is off.

Also nonsensical.

I personally dont care whether or not you can disable the alarm spell, that wasnt the original question. The question is whether or not the rogue can detect the alarm spell.

There would seem to be absolutely no reason not to allow it.

After all, as part of listed traps there is an alarm type spell. Since it has a certain radius then you must be able to detect something about it. Otherwise for a good number of traps you would have to 'spring' it in order to 'detect' it.

Therefore, since an alarm system on a house would be a type of trap, since there are traps that use an alarm type of spell, the alarm spell itself functions in 'exactly the same way' as a trap, and it meets all of the criteria in the trap section of the dmg, it is a trap that can be detected by the rogue.


A brick of manure has no listed damage in the phb (that I know of, if it does use some other instrument normally not used to attack that isnt listed). Are you saying that it cannot be used as a weapon? After all, it isnt listed in the weapons section, nor does it say 'weapon' under its description.

Of course, in the general sense of weapon it would easily fall under improvised weapons. But then, alarm easily fits within the definition of trap in the trap section.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jun 28, 2004)

Edit: Nevermind.

joe b.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Jun 29, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> I've already been over how alarm doesn't meet the definition of trap.




I've already been over how it does. I guess you glazed over it? It meets every DMG criteria of a trap, therefore it is a trap in D&D, regardless of it would be considered a trap in real life (which it would be, because it's a trap).


----------



## rrealm (Jun 29, 2004)

I would have to agree with those that say _Alarm_ is a trap and it can be detected.  It should be a trap because it does have (to quote Thanee) “_a trigger and it does something, which is usually bad for you. Detection is something I consider pretty bad for a rogue._”  The effect potentially alerts someone of one’s presence via a loud auditable noise or a mental pinging in someone’s head who is then in turn going to react appropriately.

And since it has been determined that rogues can find fluctuations of alteration magic, they should be able to detect the presence of an _Alarm_ spell however, I see no reason why a rogue can use his or her disable devise skill to bypass it.  After all, there is no physical (or ethereal) remnants of the spell like there is in the case of most glyphs or “typical” physical traps such as bells tied to string, buckets above doors, or carefully placed hairs or threads attached to door frames. 

A rogue cannot bypass every trap in the game simply because he or she is a rogue.  The only way I see to bypass a given _Alarm_ spell is to A) obtain the correct password by interrogating the caster, B) guess a password – though you only get one chance and if you fail, the alarm is sprung, C) cast a _Dispel Magic_ spell and target the area, or D) wait for the _Alarm_ to wear off (provided it does not have a permanency spell on it).


----------



## rrealm (Jun 29, 2004)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> I have my 3.5 DMG open to page 68 where it discusses "elements of a trap". From the DMG:
> 
> "All traps - mechanical or magical - have the following elements:
> 
> ...




There is a method of bypassing the *trap*, the spell can be created with a password and by speaking the correct password as you enter the area, the _Alarm_ will not trigger.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 30, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> That's a physical device. It can be disabled whether or not it's a "trap" or an "alarm". I don't think it's relevent to this discussion.
> 
> I wasn't aware of an actual list of spell traps. Just several spells that specifically identify themselves as magic traps, and of those that identify themselves as magical traps, they seem to have certain qualities in common, qualities that the alarm spell doesn't share (see below).



There is one under the search skill


> Ok, I'll bite. How do you defeat an alarm spell without magic? (Unless you mean "knowing the password", which I wouldn't count as "defeating" the alarm spell.)



If the emanation of the alarm spell doesn't hit you, the alarm doesn't go off. So by surrounding the point of origin with a solid object (or by screening yourself from the spell with a solid object), you exclude yourself from it's detection area.


> Could you explain your logic on this one? Because I don't see this contradiction.



Your original dictionary.com entry contains three possibly applicable entries:
"1 : a device for taking game or other animals; especially : one that holds by springing shut suddenly
2 a : something by which one is caught or stopped unawares
6 : any of various devices for preventing passage of something often while allowing other matter to proceed; especially : a device for drains or sewers consisting of a bend or partitioned chamber in which the liquid forms a seal to prevent the passage of sewer gas"
Number 1 only applies to traps which grab you and hold you, meaning sepia snake sigil (which has no trap entry) is a valid trap, and any of the damage-causing or hypnotising or otherwise non-immobilising traps do not fit the definition.

Number 2 covers alarm quite nicely, and also covers most of the other traps and trap spells due to the variable nature of the word caught (which includes meanings such as 'suddenly made aware of" - ie "I caught bob picking his nose"').

Number 6 could potentially be used to cover the traditional D&D traps, as well as alarm - they're devices intended to prevent adventurers from progressing further into a dungeon.

IOW - I can't see a definition which DOES fit all of the 'traps' in the book, but excludes those not specifically noted as traps, unless that definition is "only things specifically noted as traps are traps".


> My main point is this:
> 
> All the spells that identify themselves as magical traps have a physical component to them (with the possible exception of Fire Trap). The Alarm spell does not. (For me this is the main point, and what made me start looking at it more closely.)



Unfortunately in the cases of explosive runes and the symbol spell, the act of percieving the physical component triggers the trap. So the thief must be detecting something else, or the trap is triggered by his search...


> All the spells that identify themselves as magical traps directly affect whoever triggers it (they blow you up, they trap you, they cast a spell on you, they inflict a status effect on you, etc.) An alarm spell doesn't do any of this. An alarm spell has no effect at all on whoever triggers it. It's just a sensor that makes a noise when it detects something. It doesn't "catch" you. (Whatever responds to the alarm can "discover" or "catch" or "harm" you.)



But this isn't part of the 'trap' definition - demonstrated by the existence of the bell trap. It's a trap, but it doesn't do what you suggest a trap must do.


> So the Alarm spell is different in two ways from all the spells that we know are magical traps. There are spells that count as magical traps but don't identify themselves as such in the spell description (Sepia Snake Sigil is one), but they should match up to the other aspects of the known trap spells.



Of course one of the reasons that it's different is because alarm covers all of the possibilities of the "sound an alert if someone enters this area" trap. Just like a teleportation circle is different to all the other trap spells because it covers all the bases of the "anyone stepping into the circle is teleported" trap category.


> In general, if the spell doesn't identify itself as a magical trap, then it probably isn't (with certain exceptions, just like everything else in 3.5).
> 
> I simply don't buy the theory that any spell that has a "trigger condition" should count as a magical trap.
> 
> In a home game, my rule would be "any triggered spell with a physical component is a valid target for Disable Device" (and even that would probably have exceptions), because that is consistent and makes sens. But that is neither here nor there.



If it's got exceptions, then it's not really consistent, is it? The major one to my mind is magic mouth, which you argued against counting as a trap previously, despite the fact that it complies with your above ruling.

My personal take would be that if it looks like a trap and smells like a trap and feels like a trap, it's a trap, and search can detect it. Whether it then qualifies as a 'device' is another matter - if neither I nor my player can imagine a non-magical counter to the trap, then it's probably not disableable without magic. To my mind, only spike stones and spike growth fit this category, and even then I could see using disable device to defeat their effects, even if only in a limited way.


----------



## rrealm (Jun 30, 2004)

Caliban said:
			
		

> All the spells that identify themselves as magical traps directly affect whoever triggers it (they blow you up, they trap you, they cast a spell on you, they inflict a status effect on you, etc.) An alarm spell doesn't do any of this. An alarm spell has no effect at all on whoever triggers it. It's just a sensor that makes a noise when it detects something. It doesn't "catch" you. (Whatever responds to the alarm can "discover" or "catch" or "harm" you.)



Lets assume a thief springs a chest with a _Fireball_ spell on it.  The _fireball_ blows up nearly everything in the room.  Technically the _fireball_ did not directly affect the triggerer.  He (or she) just happen to be standing in a room where the temperature instantaneously increased by 1000 degrees Fahrenheit and since the typical adventure’s skin is sensitive to rapid and extreme temperature change – he (or she) takes heat damage.  Is there any reason to believe that this is not a trap?

Lets change the damage type.  What if the spell on the chest was _Sound Blast_?  Again, it is technically the area which was targeted, not the triggerer.  This time the would-be thief gets himself (or herself) a concussion and suffers sonic damage.  Again, is there any reason _Sound Blast_ is not a trap?

Now if we remove the damage and still fill the room full of sound, we have a chest with the _Alarm_ spell cast on it.   Although it deals no damage, there is no difference between the above spells and _Alarm_.

Now if we follow Caliban’s definition and logic, the would-be thief would be screwed and would have absolutely no chance of detecting or removing these traps since the traps do not “directly affect whoever triggers it” as the case would have been if a _Magic Missile_ or _Melf's Acid Arrow_ had struck the would-be thief.


----------



## Amal Shukup (Jun 30, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> ...Whether it then qualifies as a 'device' is another matter - if neither I nor my player can imagine a non-magical counter to the trap, then it's probably not disableable without magic.






			
				rrealm said:
			
		

> A rogue cannot bypass every trap in the game simply because he or she is a rogue.




Not automatically, of course. Some will escape detection, some will elude his efforts to disarm. Some will simply exceed his abilities. Absolutely, some traps will not be bypassed...

HOWEVER, Rogues can ABSOLUTELY attempt to bypass/disarm Magical and Spell Traps. It is a Rogue Class ability. Called Trapfinding




			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Trapfinding:* Rogues (and only rogues) can use the Search skill to locate traps when the task has a Difficulty Class higher than 20. Finding a nonmagical trap has a DC of at least 20, or higher if it is well hidden. *Finding a magic trap has a DC of 25 + the level of the spell used to create it.*
> 
> Rogues (and only rogues) can use the Disable Device skill to disarm magic traps. *A magic trap generally has a DC of 25 + the level of the spell used to create it.*
> 
> A rogue who beats a trap’s DC by 10 or more with a Disable Device check can study a trap, figure out how it works, and bypass it (with her party) without disarming it.





IF a spell is being used as a trap, it IS a trap (waddle, waddle... Quack!) and  the Rogue has a shot at detecting and disarming it unless explicitly noted otherwise in the description of the spell (such as, fer instance, _Spike Stones_, which explicitly notes that it CAN be detected, but not disarmed) . 100% Black Letter, Rules as Written, Not really open to interpretation...




			
				SRD. Again... said:
			
		

> MAGIC TRAPS
> 
> Many spells can be used to create dangerous traps. *UNLESS the spell or item description states otherwise, assume the following to be true.*
> 
> ...




Moving from the absolutely objective and un-assailable to the subjective (something I've been trying to avoid):

Note: I edited out some stuff below that, upon rereading in the cool light of morning, seemed like it could be seen as attacking an individual rather than an _idea_. That was never the intent, of course, but still - it could have been so construed. I apologize for any offense given.

Also, just to be clear, the following subjective element of this post is directed exclusively at the 'idea' that _Alarm_ is not a trap (and therefore sidesteps the mechanics for resolution presented in the rules). I do not agree with that idea.​ 

IMNSHO: No 1st-level spell should automatically thwart every rogue in existence (*IN THEIR CORE AREA of COMPETENCE*) because its "just an 'Alarm', not a 'Trap'". 

It's a check: D20+mods vs a DC. Whole point of the D20 system. Things rarely auto-succeed or auto-fail. These mechanics exist to resolve the opposed efforts of those trying to kill the Orc and get the Pie and the efforts of those trying to protect the Pie... In my opinion, to arbitrarily deny that process undermines the whole premise of the game.

Spellcasters can overcome magical and mechanical traps through the use of magic. It's not even their primary function - but hey, casters are both typically more powerful and expected to be utility infielders, so that's okay. 

Rogues are limited to using Skill(s) instead but have been granted (in the wisdom of the designers) the EXCLUSIVE class ability (Trapfinding) to apply those skills towards overcoming magical and mechanical traps. This is particularly apt as this IS THEIR PRIMARY FUNCTION. I STRONGLY feel that arbitrating that capability away (and giving casters supremacy in the Rogue's principle area of utility) because of a phenominally narrow definition of the word 'trap' is just, well, incorrect. 

_Alarm_ (the simplest and least of the spell traps) has the non-trivial DC of 26 - both to detect and disarm. A Rogue can't take 20 on checks of this sort (consequences). Even a fully twinked low-level Rogue needs to roll very well TWICE IN SUCCESSION to get past it. And it's his job. This is what Rogues are FOR. Where they're supposed to shine...

Hey, the guy misses the check? Hey, too bad, Mr. Rogue, no Pie for you today! That's allright. We rolls the die, we takes our chances... But to not give him a chance? No chance at all?? I do not think that would be a fun way to play.

A'Mal


----------



## rrealm (Jun 30, 2004)

I definitely agree that an _alarm _ is a trap and it can be detected by a rogue (and only a rogue) but I question how or why the spell can be disabled (not including passwords, waiting around, or _dispel magic _ spells, or the like).  There are no material components to manipulate like a glyph or some other magical traps.  What is the rogue to do?  Wave his hand around 20’ from the source and make the _alarm _ go away because of air vibrations?


----------



## Amal Shukup (Jun 30, 2004)

rrealm said:
			
		

> I definitely agree that an _alarm _ is a trap and it can be detected by a rogue (and only a rogue) but I question how or why the spell can be disabled (not including passwords, waiting around, or _dispel magic _ spells, or the like).  There are no material components to manipulate like a glyph or some other magical traps.  What is the rogue to do?  Wave his hand around 20’ from the source and make the _alarm _ go away because of air vibrations?




Now this could be a fun discussion. Philosophy and Metaphysics - oh my! 

I've always liked the idea that Magic operates through SOME sort of physics. It interoperates with the mundane physical world (triggers, targets, durations et al), perhaps the Physical world can interoperate with it?


* Perhaps there is a supernatural or quasi-magical aspect to the Rogue's trapfinding ability? I think not, but it could provide sufficient justification for a 'handwaving'.

* Perhaps a Rogue can (with a check of 26 or better) move smoothly and precisely enough to encapsulate the point of emanation with a thrown piece of weighted cloth, say and prevent its line of effect? 

* Or slip in past 'waves of abjuration' to reach (and disable) the point of emanation. Like Catherine Zeta Jones weaving in and amongst security system lasers in that otherwise awful 'Entapment' Movie. _Hmmmnnn...  Did anyone but me just experience a very pleasant flashback? Piffany would NOT approve..._

* Perhaps a Rogue can disrupt the abjuration by cleverly interfering with it (just not enough to set it off), causing the spell to collapse on itself? Not unlike how resonance and standing wave patterns can collapse a structure of steel and concrete...  Hmmmn... With a check of 10 better than the DC the Rogue just temporarily disprupts the pattern - allowing it to reform behind after the party has bypassed it...​
Any other thoughts?

A'Mal


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jun 30, 2004)

rrealm said:
			
		

> There are no material components to manipulate like a glyph or some other magical traps.  What is the rogue to do?  Wave his hand around 20’ from the source and make the _alarm _ go away because of air vibrations?




Well, "some" is the operative word here.  In general, the rules for disabling magical traps are quite abstract.  So, unless you're going to disallow disabling of magical traps that don't have an obvious physical presence in general, this doesn't really bear on the _alarm_ question specifically.


----------



## Majere (Jun 30, 2004)

On a more light hearted note I thought I would mock caliban for a bit with his "Schrodingers Traps".

Schrodingers alarm Spell:
An alarm spell has a quasistate of detectability:
 An alarm spell that triggers your coffepot to switch on in the morning is detectable
 An alarm spell that tells the Orks in ambush to open up on you with missle fire is not.

Schrodingers diasabling laws.
A rogue immune to poison cannot disable a poison trap.
 - One that isnt can
A living, good aligned rogue cannot disable a trap to pour holy water on him
 - An undead rogue can

If you want to diable that symbol of death, wait for the deathward on the rogue to expire
If the trap traps you in a room you cannot disable it from outside of the room
 - Even if to disable it all you have to do is cut the string 3" beyond the doorway


Sillyness aside
Make alarm a trap or its too powerful,
Way too powerful

Majere


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 1, 2004)

rrealm said:
			
		

> I definitely agree that an _alarm _ is a trap and it can be detected by a rogue (and only a rogue) but I question how or why the spell can be disabled (not including passwords, waiting around, or _dispel magic _ spells, or the like).  There are no material components to manipulate like a glyph or some other magical traps.  What is the rogue to do?  Wave his hand around 20’ from the source and make the _alarm _ go away because of air vibrations?




I don't know, maybe you could bother to read the thread, and you'd find out? I only had to post it twice before caliban noticed...


----------



## rrealm (Jul 1, 2004)

Amal Shukup said:
			
		

> * Perhaps there is a supernatural or quasi-magical aspect to the Rogue's trapfinding ability? I think not, but it could provide sufficient justification for a 'handwaving'.
> 
> * Perhaps a Rogue can (with a check of 26 or better) move smoothly and precisely enough to encapsulate the point of emanation with a thrown piece of weighted cloth, say and prevent its line of effect?
> 
> ...




I'll go with the idea of a rogue having the capability of moving in such a fashion to not set off the spell similar to narrowly avoiding “abjuration lazers” for lack of a better phrase.  I’m still not certain I would allow a rogue to disable it but I would allow a rogue to walk through the affected area.  I also would go with the idea of allowing the rogue’s party to pass through the affected area provided the rogue made the DD check by +10.


----------



## Amal Shukup (Jul 1, 2004)

rrealm said:
			
		

> I'll go with the idea of a rogue having the capability of moving in such a fashion to not set off the spell similar to narrowly avoiding “abjuration lazers” for lack of a better phrase.  I’m still not certain I would allow a rogue to disable it but I would allow a rogue to walk through the affected area.  I also would go with the idea of allowing the rogue’s party to pass through the affected area provided the rogue made the DD check by +10.




Sure. As a DM, it is completely within your authority to make whatever house rule you wish.

Just recognize that you're making a *House Rule*, because the RAW clearly indicate that Rogues can both discover AND disable Spell Traps.

_My 'beat the DC by 10 or more' comment in my previous post was an attempt at a possible explanation for the Rogues clearly described ability to bypass traps without neccesarily disabling them (leaving them fully operational behind him) by beating the DC by 10 or more - I'm not trying to add a new ability or anything..._

A'Mal


----------



## RigaMortus (Jul 1, 2004)

I haven't been keeping up with this discussion so I'm not sure if this was mentioned or not, but...

I don't think the Rogue needs to "target" or "work on" the point of origin of the Alarm spell in order to disable it.  An entire area is warded, the point of origin is just that, the point at which the spell was centered.  But an entire area is warded and if the Rogue can next to any part of that warded area, and rolls high enough, he should be able to disable/by-pass the thing.

On the other hand...  Is the Alarm spell really a trap?  What is the definition of a trap?  It doesn't harm or otherwise adversely affect the person(s) that triggers the spell.  I don't think you should use the term "trap" so losely.  Isn't an ambush effectively "a trap"?  Does this mean, if a Rogue makes his spot check and sees people lying in wait, he can use Disable Device on them and bypass them?  I know that makes no sense, as well it shouldn't, but an ambush is essentially a "trap".  What about a spell that is triggered by the Contingency spell?  Is that a "trap"?  Assuming it has some sort of adverse effect on the person or thing that triggers it.  The point is, Alarm may not necessarily be a trap.


----------



## Scion (Jul 1, 2004)

you *really* need to read the rest of the thread rigamortus


----------



## Gaiden (Jul 1, 2004)

I have only read pages 1-3 so forgive me if this has already been stated.

It seems to me that the entire debate over alarm vs. trap is one of semantics.  Granted they are two different things and have separate definitions.  I am not about to argue that they ought to be considered the same thing.  The alarm spell is clearly distinct from the bladed pendulum swinging from the ceiling to cleave you in two when the bell tolls.

However, I return to this being an argument over semantics.  Given my above example, it certainly also could not be denied that the alarm spell is intimately connected to that swinging pendulum.  In the same way that the alarm spell is not the trap, neither is the arm of the bladed pendulum, nor the chain connecting it to the ceiling, nor the releasing hook, etc.  The alarm spell is certainly PART of the trap though.  It is the trigger, or ironically, the "alarm".  Arguing that the trigger is not a trap is a meaningless debate because it is absolutely true.  However, arguing that the trigger is not part of a trap is as nonsensical as arguing that the bladed pendulum is not part of the trap.  If you are unconvinced, ask yourself this:  "How is the trap supposed to work and would it work if the alarm spell was disabled?"  If your answer to the latter question is no, then there is no legitimate justification for not including the trigger of a trap as part of that trap as a whole.  Again, to argue otherwise is semantics.

Hopefully, I have been succinct enough to move on to how to actually handle the alarm spell.  I foresee several possiblilities:

1.) Deal with the paradox just like you do when you allow freedom of movement to work underwater and not have the character sink or "fall" to the bottom of the ocean.  In other words, don't worry about the physics of such a situation and just say that it happens.  Works for me .

2.) Allow the DD skill to be used, in this case in place of UMD, to bypass the trigger of the alarm spell by acting as a dimunitive or smaller creature to get to the center of the emanation.  I say use DD because it would be unbalancing to require a rogue to have UMD to disable this particular trap when DD is supposed to cover his skill at such things.  YMMV (what does that mean anyway - I know it is appropriate to use there - I have been toying with different acronyms and have decided upon your mood might vary - but I don't think that is right - I want to say it stands for something along the lines of you might move to disagree - but the whole V vs. D thing just isn't working for me).

Anyway

3.) Allow the rogue to disable a section of the spell - effectively change the AoE almost like an AoE DM when funcitoning on duration AoE spells like blade barrier for example.

Hope that is helpful


----------



## RigaMortus (Jul 1, 2004)

Ok, ok...  It took me all day, and I read this entire post (of course, retaining all of it is another matter).  Anyway...



			
				rrealm said:
			
		

> I definitely agree that an _alarm _ is a trap and it can be detected by a rogue (and only a rogue) but I question how or why the spell can be disabled (not including passwords, waiting around, or _dispel magic _ spells, or the like).  There are no material components to manipulate like a glyph or some other magical traps.  What is the rogue to do?  Wave his hand around 20’ from the source and make the _alarm _ go away because of air vibrations?




Let's look at Use Magical Device.  With this skill, you can "emulate" a certain race, class or alignment.  What exactly does this mean?  Well MY interpretation is that you "trick" the Magic Device into thinking you are that certain race/class/alignment.  You never actually transform yourself, you just use "trickery".  That is how I see a Rogue bypassing an Alarm spell, since it has no visible components to it.  They use Disable Device, and if they beat the DC check, Disable Device emulates the fact that they know the password to bypass the trap.  They never actually know or figure out the true password, just as with UMD they never actually turn into that race/class/alignment.  They simply emulate it.  So there is my "logic" behind a Rogue bypassing a magical trap with no visible components.


----------



## RigaMortus (Jul 1, 2004)

Gaiden said:
			
		

> 2.) Allow the DD skill to be used, in this case in place of UMD, to bypass the trigger of the alarm spell by acting as a dimunitive or smaller creature to get to the center of the emanation.  I say use DD because it would be unbalancing to require a rogue to have UMD to disable this particular trap when DD is supposed to cover his skill at such things.  YMMV (what does that mean anyway - I know it is appropriate to use there - I have been toying with different acronyms and have decided upon your mood might vary - but I don't think that is right - I want to say it stands for something along the lines of you might move to disagree - but the whole V vs. D thing just isn't working for me).




On the flip side (and I know I basically just agreed with you and said the same thing in my post, but...)

Bypassing a Trap is harder to do than disabling it.  If the Alarm spell is a DC 26, the Rogue needs a DC 36 to bypass it.  And if he is able to make that DC, is he able to confur the benefit of bypassing it to his party as well?

I see bypassing an Alarm spell as basically "emulating" the password to the Alarm.  And every person would have to do this.  But since only the Rogue can DD, only he can bypass it, leaving his friends behind.  Oh well, magic, it's just weird...


----------



## Dr_Rictus (Jul 1, 2004)

Gaiden said:
			
		

> 1.) Deal with the paradox just like you do when you allow freedom of movement to work underwater and not have the character sink or "fall" to the bottom of the ocean.  In other words, don't worry about the physics of such a situation and just say that it happens.




Well, as has been pointed out before, it's not actually water resistance holding you up, so the notion that _freedom of movement_ would make you sink is based on a misunderstanding of the physics involved anyway.

But that is, of course, beside the point.


----------



## Amal Shukup (Jul 1, 2004)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> Bypassing a Trap is harder to do than disabling it.  If the Alarm spell is a DC 26, the Rogue needs a DC 36 to bypass it.  And if he is able to make that DC, is he able to confur the benefit of bypassing it to his party as well?




Yes.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A rogue who beats a trap’s DC by 10 or more with a Disable Device check can study a trap, figure out how it works, and bypass it *(with her party)* without disarming it.




NOTHING in the rules suggests that magical or spell traps are to be treated any differently than mechanical traps... (Edit: Except that ONLY Rogues can discover/disable them - not just anybody with the Search and Disable Device Skills)

Interesting idea with respect to 'emulation' being the method Rogues use to 'disable' Magical Traps. 

So, whether a DM prefers the classic 'it just works', my 'disrupting/avoiding magical waves through subtle interactions', or your 'emulation' explanation of the process for 'flavor' purposes, they should be able to get past any conceptual problem associated with Rogues discovering/disabling magical traps and just let the rules work the way they are written.


A'Mal


----------



## Majere (Jul 2, 2004)

Actually, the mechanics of defeating an alarm spell are very simple.
The alarm spell can be set to not activate if someone speaks a password. 
To bypass the spell, or at least get close enough to disarm it the rogue only has to decifer the magical eminations and discover the password. Or something close enough to the password to allow him to close down the spell. 

Most computor programmes are have "backdoors" put in by programmers so they can hack into their own programmes. For me spells are a bit like computor programmes, someone takes an amount of raw energy (amount determined by spell level and type determined by spell school) and "programmes" it to do something. Thus, most spells have a "backdoor" and this is what rogues exploit. 

Thats my explanation anyway.
Better than hand waving IMHO 

Majere


----------



## sir_ollibolli (Jul 2, 2004)

So, actually when the rogue succeeded and the party went through, the Alarm spell is still active for others... or for the party when they return.

I'd suggest otherwise: Alarm is a dismissable Spell. The rogue emulates the spellcaster's "signature" to dismiss this spell. This way the _Alarm_ is disabled.

Edit: Spalling errorrrrs


----------



## rrealm (Jul 2, 2004)

sir_ollibolli said:
			
		

> So, actually when the rogue succeeded and the party went through, the Alarm spell is still active for others... or for the party when they return.
> 
> I'd suggest otherwise: Alarm is a dismissable Spell. The rogue emulates the spellcaster's "signature" to dismiss this spell. This way the _Alarm_ is disabled.
> 
> Edit: Spalling errorrrrs




I'm sold on the idea.


----------



## Amal Shukup (Jul 2, 2004)

sir_ollibolli said:
			
		

> So, actually when the rogue succeeded and the party went through, the Alarm spell is still active for others... or for the party when they return.
> 
> I'd suggest otherwise: Alarm is a dismissable Spell. The rogue emulates the spellcaster's "signature" to dismiss this spell. This way the _Alarm_ is disabled.




I'd suggest, assuming the Rogue beat the Spell Trap DC by 10 or more, that whether the Trap was disabled or left active behind would be up to the Rogue... He might prefer not to dismiss it altogether in order to give no evidence of his passage. Merely beating the DC is sufficient for simply disabling the trap.

I'd also suggest, although I'm going a bit out on a limb here (not too far, but I have no direct citation), that the Rogue could now bypass that particular Trap at will - having completely mastered it (as represented by beating the DC by such a margin).

A'Mal


----------



## Vaxalon (Jul 2, 2004)

Amal Shukup said:
			
		

> * Perhaps there is a supernatural or quasi-magical aspect to the Rogue's trapfinding ability? I think not, but it could provide sufficient justification for a 'handwaving'.​




Why not?

Makes perfect sense to me.

A fighter who can fire five arrows in six seconds certainly is doing something beyond what we expect a human to be able to do.

Evasion is just as extraordinary.


----------



## Majere (Jul 2, 2004)

sir_ollibolli said:
			
		

> So, actually when the rogue succeeded and the party went through, the Alarm spell is still active for others... or for the party when they return.
> 
> I'd suggest otherwise: Alarm is a dismissable Spell. The rogue emulates the spellcaster's "signature" to dismiss this spell. This way the _Alarm_ is disabled.
> 
> Edit: Spalling errorrrrs




I quite like that.
A rogue who disarms the trap works out how to dismiss the spell. 
A rogue who beats the DC by 10 or more works out the password as well, allowing him to simply bypass the spell (As with bypassing mundane traps)

Of course this explanation works better for alarm than for say glyphs, but the basic mechanics are there for a almost sensible explanation 

Majere


----------



## krazykid (Jul 3, 2004)

*So what every mage wants ...*

Is an alarm spell that provides a conformation that it is still active. Say a mental single ping every 5 mins. Thus if an alarm was disabled by a rogue then the mage would know that the alarm was found and disabled. The rogue would then be best in such cases to try and by-pass the alarm. 

Of-course if the mage was trying to sleep or concentrate a single ping could become annoying over time - with the right magic spells there could be an overnight service industry for alarm monitoring being created


----------



## anon (Jul 4, 2004)

If my rogue has a weakness such that she is injured by any sound louder than a whisper, does the Alarm now qualify as a TRAP since I will be hurt if it goes off?  Where is the reference in the rules to physical damage being a necessary component of a trap?

All lines of questioning that start with "how would she disarm..." are, IMHO, irrelevant.  We don't ask that the specifics of any trap disarming be detailed--only that a certain DC be met.  I agree that it is difficult to put our heads around the idea that a rogue can disarm some magical traps, but by the rules they can.  If we accept that they can, then I don't think the HOW part is relevant.  We certainly don't ask "How, specifically, do you cast Alarm?" of the wizard.


editted due to small typo


----------



## RigaMortus (Jul 6, 2004)

The only problem I have is the fact that you are giving a Skill (Disable Device) the ability of a 3rd level spell (Dispel Magic) by allowing one to completely Disable the Alarm spell.  Bypassing it (which I equate to temporarily turning the Alarm spell of for the Rogue and his party to pass) seems a bit more restrictive, because the spell is still active and if they want to pass through that area again, he'll have to reroll his Disable Device check again.  Yet, it is weird since bypassing is HARDER to do than completely disabling it.  In most cases this makes sense to me, but not in this case.  I guess I shouldn't be too hung up on it since, well that is what Rogues do, Disable Traps.


----------



## Majere (Jul 6, 2004)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> The only problem I have is the fact that you are giving a Skill (Disable Device) the ability of a 3rd level spell (Dispel Magic) by allowing one to completely Disable the Alarm spell.  Bypassing it (which I equate to temporarily turning the Alarm spell of for the Rogue and his party to pass) seems a bit more restrictive, because the spell is still active and if they want to pass through that area again, he'll have to reroll his Disable Device check again.  Yet, it is weird since bypassing is HARDER to do than completely disabling it.  In most cases this makes sense to me, but not in this case.  I guess I shouldn't be too hung up on it since, well that is what Rogues do, Disable Traps.




But rogues already get the ability to "dispel" other magical traps such as glyphs so this is a non-issue.
besides if you couldnt find and disable alarm spells, rogues would be useless, people would just put the bloody things everywhere, not like first level spells cost much to have cast for you.
Its a 1st level spell for (insert deity here) sake. This thing should be of equivalent power as sleep or magic missile. Not a super-dooper spell.

Majere


----------

