The Order of the Stick

Maybe that's why it's important to flashbang the people disabling the trap

I think you could technically layer two gates almost on top of each other couldn’t you? So you’d technically spend a millisecond in another plane before returning to the Material Plane in a different physical location. If you used the elemental plane on earth it wouldn’t even be noticeable for the tiny gap between the two gates.

That

that should take two spell slots and two turns

I’m talking about the traps construction, so you’d be looking at 2 9th level spells plus 2 epic permanency spells, for every tunnel, but it’s theoretically doable.

Or just making it into a magic trap. No need for epic permanency then, necessarily: that's why you have runes there. And if you're designing a dungeon, surely you get to use the DM's book of tricks?

Edited by RainehDaze on Dec 21st 2020 at 4:31:05 PM

Yeah, the trap rules are broken. They are way too cost-effective. Pay one price and you get an infinite-use magic item that casts a spell whenever a condition is met (such as stepping over a line). Doesn't matter if the spell has an expensive material component or what, every time you step over the line, the spell goes off for free.

So, like... a wand, but with extra steps, then?

I'm admittedly rusty, but I'm pretty sure wands have only finite charges, not infinite. That's a big difference. It's also not so much "with extra steps" as "with alternative steps" since wands require conscious activation whereas a trap is automated relative to a trigger.

There was this one fanfic about a guy who took over the world by exploiting the trap rules for infinite free casting of normally expensive spells...

The normal mitigating factor is that traps are generally stationary, yes? Built into a wall or floor and unable to be carried around on adventures to be triggered as needed?

They both basically fall under “does nothing until somehow interacted with” in my book. A wand just needs a higher level of interaction.

Edited by SalFishFin on Dec 22nd 2020 at 8:17:36 AM

Wands can only contain spells level 4 and under, have finite charges, are use-activated (they take a standard action), and need you to have the spell on your class spell list or pass a UMD check. The only commonality they have with spell-based traps is that it's a spell effect. In every other regard, from presentation to the manner in which they trigger, there's no commonality.

Wait, chests can be trapped, right? Ok, so if you trap a really small chest, stick it in your Handy Haversack, and open it facing away from you, it's basically a bulky wand.

Except that you

• Don't need to be a spellcaster
• Aren't limited to 50 charges

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, D&D actually has an in-universe explanation for how traps can have an endless supply of arrows, boulders, alligators, etc.?

Cool.

But knowing that, I think that perfectly explains how "Monster Hollow" works. Because it's all technically a trap, Serini was able to bypass some of the cost issues. And thermodynamics itself.

Nope, those have no explanation. We're only talking about spell-based traps.

Edited by RainehDaze on Dec 22nd 2020 at 7:15:18 PM

So I’m not disagreeing with anyone or trying to start an argument or anything; it just seems we’re coming from different perspectives on this “wand vs trap” thing. Basically what I’m getting at is that on a base level, a wand and a magical trap are functionally the equivalent of the same general logical statements. A trap would be something like a simple if-then statement, that can maybe be embellished with a few AN Ds somewhere in there, but the wand has a bunch of AN Ds at base level.

Basically, I misspoke earlier, and the wand is what has the extra steps.

Ah, gotcha.

Also, note to self next time I DM: Have a trap in a ruins that, when triggered, just drops the skeleton of a monster on the party.

Roll against having a heart attack because of the jumpscare.

Therefore there's no functional difference between a wand and a toaster. That's just something that does a thing and can be described with a lot of AND statements. You could even have making toast as a spell effect if you wanted (there's enough things that make food around)

The rules governing wands and traps are very different. They aren't similar beyond that spell based traps can use spells, but then you hit the point of saying that a wizard, a wand, and a trap are all the same except for everything about them.

"As you step on the trapwire, the ceiling collapses, and the gigantic skeleton of some enormous beast suddenly drops from above!"

Players roll initiative without you asking because they think combat is starting, you roll for no reason and hope they don't realize, first player attacks

"You break a few bones. They remain otherwise motionless. Turns out it's not an undead, just a bunch of bones. Whoever made that trap probably did not realize the monster would die of starvation."

So from what I gather, you’re saying that your issue with my various statements is that I’m looking at the differences between a wand and a magical trap from a very simplistic perspective? Because- get this- that’s also EXACTLY what I’m saying.

In their defense, depending on the nature of the dungeon you're exploring, it's possible that whoever would have kept the monster fed died out long ago.

So if one of the party members is a necromancer, then hey, free giant monster minion?

Smarter dungeon overlords either make sure the dungeon has some means of keeping the monsters fed (besides relying on a steady stream of adventuring parties) or they just use minions that don't need to eat - magical constructs, undead, summoned outsiders, etc.