24
25

Solving problems of poverty, starvation, homelessness, and more (self.Pathfinder_RPG)

zeekaran が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Oshojabe [非表示スコア]  (25子コメント)

Make an auto-resetting trap of create water and purify food and water. Now, rotten food can be kept in storehouses and purified before eating, and water is no longer an issue. (The reason to go for an auto-resetting trap is two-fold: first its the cheapest way to produce a magical effect, and second it's the only magic item price that is listed as a rule and not a recommendation. If "traps" of create water seem cheesy, remember that traps of cure light wounds would hurt undead - in spite of the fact that it would be a beneficial trap to the living.)

In areas with lots of berries, auto-resetting traps of good berry would be an effective way of feeding an entire population.

[–]carson6412 [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

I think that having a "trap" like this would fall under the idea that the magic cost system isn't perfect.

Example: Mage Armor is a 1st level spell. Making a "Use-activated or continuous" bracers of mage armor would thus be 4000 gold. And yet, a set of bracers of armor which would give the same protection would be 16,000 gold. This is the classic example used by the designers to show that GM's need to be careful when it comes to item price and magical item classification.

The magical item creation needs to be looked at intelligently. Taking a cheap type of spell and shoehorning another effect onto it (ie. the "trap" of purify food) can easily and quickly break the game when applied to more items. Your idea, by the way the rules are meant to work, shouldn't. Remember "The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide." (Taken from Magic Item Creation)

[–]Oshojabe [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

You're right about the prices being weird, of course. Paying someone to cast a cantrip once at CL1, would cost 5 gp. A trap that completely replaces that caster would cost 250 gp, or 50 times as much. Neither of these prices seems quite right.

As a DM, I personally have toyed with post-scarcity worlds created by cantrip-traps, which is why I'm partial to the RAW. I would totally support another DM who decided that this is rules abuse, and priced them as something they thought was more appropriate.

[–]thomar [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

This is also known as the Tippyverse solution. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?222007-The-Definitive-Guide-to-the-Tippyverse-By-Emperor-Tippy

It breaks down as soon as you introduce characters of Evil and Chaotic alignments or uncivilized outside threats, although not as quickly as you would think. Best-case scenario, you get Ravnica. Worst-case scenario, you get a nice set of ancient ruins with magical treasure for your next normal D&D campaign.

[–]zeekaran[S] [非表示スコア]  (11子コメント)

Explain auto resetting traps please. I'm not familiar with them.

[–]Oshojabe [非表示スコア]  (10子コメント)

You can find all the information here under "Designing a Trap." Basically, an automatic reset trap costs 500 * caster level * spell level, and every time the trap is triggered it will create the desired spell then automatically reset so you can trigger it again.

[–]zeekaran[S] [非表示スコア]  (9子コメント)

That's amazing. I can't believe I didn't know about that until now.

[–]Arandur [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

I implore you to ignore /u/xaxers. Beneficial traps are allowed under RAW, even if not under RAI. If you are a player, consult with your GM to see if they will let you take advantage of this reading -- if so, I highly anticipate hearing about your exploits! If you are a GM, then let nothing hold you back! You can quickly and cheaply create a post-scarcity society, and explore the implications thereof. Don't be afraid to be imaginative!

[–]carson6412 [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

While I do agree that xaxers might have been a bit rude, he is right when it comes to magic items. (From the PFSRD: Magic Item Creation) "The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide."

While making this as a GM wouldn't be an issue, allowing the players to use the cheapest formula for a magic item can get game breaking very fast. Now, it can be used to make a good story and if so, it's your game go for it! But just keep in mind that this "trap" is far under-priced for it's effects.

[–]zeekaran[S] [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

Would a fair price for something of infinite food not be about the price of a decanter of endless water?

[–]xaxers [非表示スコア]  (5子コメント)

Because this actually isn't a trap. What is described here is a use-activated wondrous magical item, and the cost for this would be in the hundreds of thousands of gold.

Sorry OP, but you have been fed a bit of nonsense that someone who decided to just willfully ignore the concept of "trap" and other rules created.

Traps, by definition, create a threat to the person triggering them. These are not traps.

Incidentally, per the design rules, spell traps only cost money if you hire an NPC to cast the spells. So, if these actually worked that way, they'd be free.

That was not pointed out to you, because the person telling you this did not peruse the rules himself, and instead relied upon some other person just making this up and going off of their misconceptions.

[–]Arandur [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

You're being a bit rude. I'm not the person to whom you're referring, but I HAVE read the rules on traps, and nothing in them states that traps must threaten to cause harm. You're conflating RAW with RAI; if you had said something like "the construction of beneficial traps was probably not intended to be possible, and your GM may view this as an exploit," then your post would have been both correct and helpful. As it stands, your post was both incorrect and needlessly hostile.

As a GM, incidentally, I get great use out of beneficial traps, and my world is, I think, rather a unique and interesting place for it.

[–]xaxers [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

You're being a bit rude. I'm not the person to whom you're referring, but I HAVE read the rules on traps,

Not very well, since it explicitly states that if you can cast, magical traps have no cost to create. So you either glanced over them, or just read what someone quoted.

and nothing in them states that traps must threaten to cause harm.

The word trap itself does. Do not try and make a series of bad arguments here--not every word that is used in the game has an explicit definition set up in the rules. No where is the word "sleep" defined, but somehow, things can sleep in Pathfinder. In fact, there is nothing to state that a sleeping character is unconscious. They don't need to--it's in the definition of the word. They do not need to include the Oxford English Dictionary in every single rule book. Words have meaning, and unless there is a specific, different, meaning in the game, then they are not going to add a definition to the rulebook.

You're conflating RAW with RAI; if you had said something like "the construction of beneficial traps was probably not intended to be possible, and your GM may view this as an exploit," then your post would have been both correct and helpful. As it stands, your post was both incorrect

I'm sorry, no. Traps cannot be directly beneficial to the person who triggers them, nor can they be intended as such--they're not traps then. Again, the definition of the word "trap" comes into play.

and needlessly hostile.

You are perpetuating a bunch of patently false statements.

[–]Oshojabe [非表示スコア]  (2子コメント)

Please, show me the rule that limits what kind of spells you can put into a trap. I can see two entirely legitimate uses of normally beneficial spells in trap design: the first is when the spell is narrowly harmful to some creature you're trying to keep out (such as healing spells for undead), the second is as part of a two-part bait trap (for example, a trap that castes grove of respite in order to lure people deeper into the dungeon where a second trap is hidden.)

Obviously, a GM is within their rights to veto this kind of trap abuse, but RAW I don't see anything forbidding traps that have beneficial effects. If it is possible to create a trap that is beneficial as a side effect, then what makes it impossible to make the trap for its side effect? I mean, imagine a wizard who likes to use the effects of a Hypnotic Pattern trap to "get high" - does the trap suddenly cost more because he's using for pleasure instead of for protection - if so, why? What if he uses it both as a way to keep people out and a method of "getting high", how much does it cost - as much as a trap, as much as a wondrous item, or a mix of the two (and why)?

[–]xaxers [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

Please, show me the rule that limits what kind of spells you can put into a trap

Tell me the effects of the "trap". If it does not cause harm as an intention, to the person triggering it, then by definition, it is not a trap.

the second is as part of a two-part bait trap (for example, a trap that castes grove of respite in order to lure people deeper into the dungeon where a second trap is hidden.)

The grove is not a trap. It is bait. Those are in fact different things.

[–]Oshojabe [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

The grove is not a trap. It is bait. Those are in fact different things.

Bait can be part of a trap. Do you think that a magically trapped door that cast an illusion over a spike pit in the room it opens into, making it seem like perfectly ordinary ground, would not be permitted by the RAW or RAI? That seems like a perfectly reasonable trap to me, even though the magic part is essentially bait to get the party into the room without being suspicious.

Tell me the effects of the "trap". If it does not cause harm as an intention, to the person triggering it, then by definition, it is not a trap.

So what happens when a person wants to use a trap to both harm and help? What if a wizard built a trap of shocking grasp with the dual purpose of hurting adventurers, and because they were a masochist who liked the feeling of being electrocuted? Would they pay for it as a trap or as a wondrous item? Aside from a GM arbitrarily overruling it (which I would be 100% behind), I don't see why you can't buy a "trap" and use it to benefit yourself. I mean, if you buy a trebuchet with the intention of using it for something other than its intended purpose it doesn't make it cost more. Explain the logic to me of a PC who commissions a trap of cure light wounds to harm undead paying less than a PC who commissions an identical wondrous item of cure light wounds. If the materials are the same, there should not be a cost difference.

[–]xaxers [非表示スコア]  (9子コメント)

These are not traps, despite what a handful of people who claim. In fact, given the actual description of traps and the description of actual wondrous magical items, these do not follow the rules.

[–]Oshojabe [非表示スコア]  (8子コメント)

Oh? Care to elaborate? "Trap" is a similar word to "poison" - it entirely depends on what sort of creature you're thinking about affecting. To a dog, chocolate is poison, to an insect caffeine is poison, neither of these is true of a human. I would contend that a cure light wounds trap is an entirely legitimate anti-undead trap, so from this example we get that a trap can produce beneficial results to some creatures as long as it harms other creatures.

Going case-by-case:

  • Purify Food and Drink specifically deals damage to Water Wierds. Yes, Water Wierds are third party for Pathfinder (though native to D&D), so they won't exist unless the DM says they do, but it seems reasonable that trap with this would be a legitimate anti-Water Weird tactic.
  • Create Water doesn't specifically interact with any monster that I am aware of, but fire elemental's description says "A fire elemental cannot enter water or any other nonflammable liquid. A body of water is an impassible barrier unless the fire elemental can step or jump over it or the water is covered with a flammable material (such as a layer of oil)." Its seems that create water could be used to create a small several-gallon pool of water that a Fire Elemental would be unable to cross, making it a legitimate trap.
  • Goodberries would be effective traps for creatures like dhampirs, which are living but affected by positive and negative energy like undead. If you were trying to assassinate a dhampir, a trap that turned freshly picked berries that they were planning on eating into goodberries would be entirely legitimate.

Now explain to me the logic in saying that these traps can be built as a legitimate traps, but not built specifically for the purpose of their fringe benefits? It's like saying you can make nuclear bombs, but not harness nuclear power for anything else.