Eacaraxe's page

** spoiler omitted **

That sounds easy enough, at least off the top of my head:

That close to what you're doing?

You want the optimization to work with the concept but if you imbed the mechanics into the concept that may not happen. [...] Thats how it SHOULD work, but if you insist on making a sub optimal mechanical choices as PART of your concept (ie your concept includes dual wielding) this can't happen.

Well, that's the thing, here. There'll only ever be one mechanical design that's king of the hill. That's really the endgame of optimization/min-maxing, no matter how equivalent different mechanical designs are, there'll always be one just that much better. That's not a value judgment on optimization or the nature of the game, just a simple statement.

The goal here is to make a decision to play something, then work within that constraint to full effect. If I've chosen TWF, then I've made a conscious decision with the knowledge TWF is mechanically inferior to other potential mechanical concepts and it's on my shoulders to build the character well. The question isn't (and IMO, shouldn't be) "what is the best mechanical concept?" but rather "how do I make the mechanical concept I've chosen the best it can be?". Likewise, if I elect to play a rogue, the question is "how do I make my rogue the best it can be?" not "should I have chosen a ninja instead?".

Otherwise, you end up on a slippery slope. Take the halfling TWF'er for example. If TWF is suboptimal and I should go THF'ing for optimization's sake, then perhaps I should reconsider playing a halfling because they have a strength penalty and two bonuses I won't need, small size that causes less damage and a to-hit and AC modifier I no longer need. I want a race with a strength bonus and racials that lend themselves well to melee combat, so half-elf is a natural choice because I can wield an elven curve blade. Since he's a fighter I don't need the high dex any more, so I can drop that down to 12-14 no prob and put that into con and wis, to raise HP and will save. ...and so on and so forth, until I end up with a mechanically homogenized, cookie cutter character that's completely alien to my original idea.

I don't want to play a half-elf THF'er. So, at some point I have to make a conscious decision to stop optimizing for the sake of characterization and just work within the constraint of what I want to do, to get it doing the best job I can. That's a decision that, unless someone plays the most stereotypical, numerically advantageous and cookie cutter of characters and only those, everyone must make. It really doesn't matter on what level that decision is made, so long as the player can build the character to be on rough parity with the other characters in the party.

If a player can do that, they have a viable design and from there it's the GM's job to plan for the overall party power level. If everyone's horribly sub-optimal, then the GM can plan for that; same thing applies for everyone in the party being optimized through the teeth. All the PC's in the party must be on equivalent levels in terms of power for the GM to be able to really take over, though (and it's also the GM's responsibility to guide players as to what level of optimization is preferable).

edit: What's that gerbil doing here?

That's one of my brood. See if you can find the other seven eidolons while you're up there will ya?

Don't ask about the one that looks like Gary Busey.

Now, if your halfling was using the chains he was bound with as a flail, spiked chain, or meteor hammer you might have had a point. That's entangling (sorry) the concept and the role play. Grim + Dual wielding is not. Your halfling would not be any better, role play wise, dual wielding than getting a big honking two hander.

Let me be clear (because the next section depends on this). I don't like Dual wielding (two weapon fighting). On paper its a feat investment to bring you up to the level of some guy with a greatsword. In practice i find it is far, far worse because setting up full attacks is a pain in the rear and everyone is moving around far too often for it to be reliable.

Now, how exactly would giving this halfling one large honking weapon instead of two smaller ones make role playing WORSE? What about making a mechanically better choice makes the character less 3 dimensional, not at thought out, or less of a person?

...and somehow, I'm the one conflating concept and mechanics. You're the one injecting optimization into this question of concept.

How does a grim character meet with dual wielding, you ask? Perhaps our halfling is a very violent person who loves to get in really close quarters and use his short stature to his advantage in combat. Perhaps getting underfoot and stabbing upwards, or even climbing an opponent using stabbing weapons as climbing implements, all Kratos-style. Dual wielding evokes, at least to me, a much more visceral and frantic style of combat than two-handers that may hit hard but are comparatively slow to swing and require space to use to full effect. Maybe he likes to fight so viscerally because he's borderline psychopathic, just has absolutely no patience or believes in overwhelming an enemy with quantity of attacks over quality.

In short, you're claiming that dual wielding leads to "grim" here. It's not, and you're putting words into my mouth. My original statement was "grim, dual-wielding halfling", in other words a halfling with a grim personality who also happens to dual wield as his signature style. There needn't necessarily be causality there, but since you seem to assume there needs be, that is how a grim personality could lead to someone dual wielding as a signature style. Not the other way around as you seem to have inferred.

If your character KEEPS the weapon it becomes a part of who and what they are, like most of the examples below, they become special because of who had them.

Yes, that's the point. The weapon or style is inseparable from the character. That's why it's a signature. Association is a powerful thing: think of Han Solo, and right there with the Millennium Falcon comes his DL-44 that he used to blow away Greedo. Think of Josey Wales, and right there are the dual Colt 1847s or maybe even the 1874 Sharps rifle. Harry Callahan, .44 Remington magnum. Raistlin, Staff of Magius. Those aren't just tools, they're a part of the character and symbolic of them. That is an integral part of characterization. To drive this home:

Why would it matter if the same person had been using a different gun?

The person to whom I'm alluding with ivory-handled revolvers was George S. Patton, in case you weren't aware. While Patton may be more easily-associated with a crapload of tanks than a revolver, that choice of revolver speaks to Patton's flamboyance, romanticism and eccentricity. The man loved the Colt SAA and kept one (and later, an ivory-handled .357 magnum) as his personal sidearm from the Villa expedition up to his death, even after the development and adoption of the M1911. That wasn't from lack of experience or ignorance of firearms, it was because of his personal preference, vague romanticism on the topic of war, and desire to promulgate a flashy and memorable image for his troops.

Patton's choice of sidearm is a glimpse into his personality. Like an ivory-handled, nickel-plated Colt SAA he was bombastic, flashy, highly recognizable and memorable, with a hint of romantic longing for a bygone era. It's quite frankly difficult to envision him wearing anything else as a sidearm.

Bear in mind, these kobold babies are just eggs. It's a hatchery.

So the question is actually closer to 'Is it evil to make an omlette.'

I can't believe I'm about to say this...

Would it be morally permissible for a paladin to kick a pregnant, but evil, woman in the stomach really hard then? Do keep in mind those eggs will hatch into sapient creatures that would have rights, too.

Iterative attacks, god that needs to go. It just clogs up the mechanics and disrupts the flow of combat. There's little I despise more than slamming the brakes on an otherwise exciting, fast-paced combat so Fungo the TWF Ranger can take five minutes to resolve his umpteen attacks, especially if the little turd is exploiting critical threat range and has to roll tons-o-confirms on top of that umpteen attacks, then roll damage for each one. I don't care how its disposed of as long as it is.

I don't have a citation beyond the already-posted rule, but I have a lot of circumstantial evidence: Every Bestiary creature (at least all I've seen) that attacks with both manufactured weapons and natural weapons in the same attack sequence use iterative attacks.

Makes sense to me. Though, this is just my perspective but I still balk at the sheer numbers of attacks in 3.x. It may be more simulationist, but it's a horrid lump of game mechanics that just bogs games down at higher levels when they already tend to be bogged down enough between special abilities and magic as it is.

Has anyone mentioned yet that fox's cunning doesn't grant additional spells or equivalent abilities and only affects modifiers of existing spells?

Besides, even if it did you have a net gain of one first-level extract. Whooo...alert the media, you won D&D.

So both mechanically and thematically they are bad.

You may have a story for one you want to try, but otherwise no, almost every other race is better.

The Dwarferer asks, who gives a Marilith's teats?

The Dwarferer is superior in every way to your namby-pamby, copper-a-dozen fairy princess elf wizard. While your precious little snowflake is floating around like a teeny-b!$%+#@sed kobold, afraid he might get split ends or dirty, The Dwarferer is busy shoving his dwarven waraxe in Some Big Ugly's face while an unseen servant from a wand hand-feeds him beer and bacon-wrapped steak. In fact, The Dwarferer is working on his own spell for that in the meantime: Beer-drinkin' and Murderin' Hand. And, The Dwarferer doesn't care if he gets blood, guts, and goo all over the place: it's extra flavor for when he strains his beard out after combat and drinks that too.

Your little limp-wristed "optimized" fop can't even grow beards. The Dwarferer says quod erat demonstrandum, which to him means "up yer butt, Elrond".

In fact, consider it an act of mercy The Dwarferer went 6/4/10. If he'd gone 9/1/10 instead, he could whip out his animated tower shield and surf headlong into battle atop a tsunami while using ghost sound to blast a truly rockin' soundtrack (I'm thinking, "Run to the Hills" by Iron Maiden, but The Dwarferer thinks "Rock you Like a Hurricane" by the Scorpions is funnier and is willing to extend it just to make sure the BAMF solo plays, and I'm not about to contradict him). Think about that for a little bit, then realize for all that floating around invisible and summoning monsters to do the Real Dwarf's Work trying to not soil your precious little cocktail dress, you just crapped it.

But whatever. No point in arguing with one person. It's a Golarion-specific PrC and Golarion-specific paladins are totally cool with becoming Hellknights, both as a nebulous organization and as a prestige class.

I just thought I'd toss this in. Hellknights are a pretty cool concept, and Asmodeus is pretty much a norm across fantasy campaign settings (deity in some, archdevil in others), so I see no reason for it to necessarily be Golarion-specific. We're not talking about Dragonlance's robed wizards or shadow adepts, for example, where the PrC is necessarily tied into that setting's metaphysics or regions without which the PrC has no justification.

You may need to monkey with the orders to be more setting-appropriate, though.

I mean, look at it this way. Hellknights don't follow a justice system, they follow a legal system. They're in a country where the penalty is death for stealing? And they catch a ten year old street urchin stealing a single apple from a cart? A Hellknight would execute the child right then and there. A paladin (I hope) would pause and say "Whoa, whoa, wait a minute."

If the law also says the punishment is summary execution with no other options, or allowance for trial or mitigation/commutation, and the rightful authorities are bound to only carry out the punishment, then yes. Seriously, why are the only counterexamples being used in this thread unrealistic logical extremes? That alone ought to raise some eyebrows.

Even the most draconic codified, unambiguous sets of laws (i.e. the most appreciable to a Paladin or Hellknight) I can think of still operate off (nominally) the presumption of innocence and allow for trial by which an accuser must prove the guilt of the accused. The thing most people are are failing to grasp is that for a Paladin or Hellknight to do their job, society must first operate by the rule of law. That's rule 0: without the rule of law, there is no lawful society for those guys to enforce. Half these counterexamples implicitly require Rule 0 to be violated (and therefore, an illegitimate authority from the onset) to even occur. Moral and ethical dilemmas be damned.

In that case above, I would hope the Paladin/Hellknight would catch the child, then say to the authorities, "where? Point to me where it is clearly recorded, unambiguously, that this child is to be summarily executed. Show me where petty theft is even a crime. Because the King says so? Sorry, that doesn't cut it. If your country has no codified law which is to be obeyed by all citizens, you are not a lawful society and my hands are unfortunately tied in this matter. Attempt to enforce a non-existent law in my sight and you will reap the consequences". That's where the Paladin/Hellknight obeys the codes of conduct for both classes, because I'd bet in these wild-ass "evil ruler" examples they rule by dictatorial fiat, the rule of law simply does not exist and there is nothing to be enforced.

Now, if that child gets the opportunity to stand before a magistrate or whatever, there's nothing in the code of conduct for either class which prohibits advocacy on the part of the accused (moreover, if the law permits or even requires advocacy and there is no one else to speak on behalf of the accused, it may fall on the Hellknight's head for no reason other than to ensure the law is followed to the letter). Hellknights' obligation is to ensure the law is enforced, nothing more, and if a rightful authority decides to mitigate or commute punishment then that is to be carried out.

Remember, the legions of Hell from which Hellknights take their namesake are masters at manipulating the law to their own end, so long as they remain within the boundaries of it. Nothing prohibits the LG character from fighting fire with fire.

Me? I'd go for the freaking gold: The Dwarferer..er!

6 Sorcerer/4 Fighter/10 EK

Off 20-point buy, after racial bonuses, 14/12/16/10/10/14. Attribute bonuses from levels go: +3 Cha, +2 Str. I'd go with the accursed bloodline, because The Dwarferer is freakin' scary that's why. Stick to abjuration and transmutation, especially spells that make you better at Smashing Things. When you run out of spells that make you better at Smashing Things, pick spells that make you Kill Things. When it comes to feats, More Smashing is Better Smashing. Why, because you're The Dwarferer and controlling is for pansy-ass elves! You end up with a CL of 15 (19 with practiced spellcaster, 17 with knack, and 20 with both), which means you're only casting 7th-level spells and don't need more stinkin' charisma than 17, you're probably not casting anything that has that "deecee" thing unlike the ones that are too concerned with breaking a nail than Smashing Face. You can wear a pansy elf headband anyways, if you're a giant sissy.

Others may laugh and call you "suboptimal" whatever the crap that means, but you'll get the last laugh when you yank out your dwarven waraxe, casts transformation, and power attack it right up where the sun doesn't shine. You ever seen or heard what happens when The Dwarferer power attacks you while buffed to the teats? Of course not, because nobody lives to tell the tale. The Dwarferer is no scimitar-waving fairy princess: he gets completely pissed, kicks ass and takes names.

I'd respectfully disagree, and point to the nodachi (the falchion is dead), four-mirror armour (chainmail is dead), and similar things as way of proof.

Now, I do like Asian/wuxia stuff... I just don't like it being automatically flat-out better than everything else.

That's pretty much dead on. A lot of Asian-themed weapons (extending to Arabic-themed weapons) are flat out mechanically superior to their European-themed counterparts. Those weapons should also be treated by the GM as overwhelmingly rare in your Prototypical European-inspired Fantasy Game Setting. Eastern weapons are all but guaranteed to be exotic in prototypical settings as well, and the inverse to those two things is true as well (what, you think a rapier is going to be martial in Bong Li Tsung?); the same goes for Renaissance-themed weapons as well.

This is where GM discretion needs to come in. Just because a spell or weapon is in the book(s) doesn't mean it exists in that game world or is readily available.

Oreads also get a Wisdom bonus. A whole new meaning to hard as a rock...

The Tarrasque has a 15 wis, 14 cha, and Swallow Whole (Ex). Getting it to wear the hooker boots and lipstick would be the difficult part.

In reality heavy armor is so effective against most weapons that the only way to deal with it was to invent polearms which were literal can-openers. Aside from that, axes and mace-and-chain (heavy spiked iron ball on a chain) were about the only things effective (you'd swing a M&C over a defender's shield, ring his helmet like a bell, and then blow him down while he stood there stunned). There's a realistic fight scene in the old classic The Black Shield of Falworth where various weapons are in action with consequences (bashed armor, sundered shields, etc).

By the time plate armor had been developed sufficient to fully protect against massed archers, heavier crossbow designs were readily available and the arquebus had already started hitting the battlefield. Historically, that made the development of plate armor a near-complete wash that was perennially a step behind weapons development, and not even worth it considering the drawbacks (the Battles of Crecy and Agincourt were arguably lost due to the heavy French armor slowing down and exhausting the French men-at-arms, who by the time they reached the British lines were in absolutely no shape to fight and were cut to pieces, among other factors).

Someone said that stealing a spellbook would be the start of a quest to get it back. EVERYONE has failed to answer WHY anyone would go on such a quest if the Wizard has a backup spellbook or 3. No, they have solely nagged on my point that the Wizard would be unable to contribute to said quest because OF COURSE the Wizard could contribute - he would have a backup spellbook otherwise he would be a bad Wizard!

Well, since you mentioned it specifically...

A spellbook is more than just a collection of spells. It also contains notes, reflections, magical theory, metamagical shorthand, references, and whatever else the wizard deems appropriate. Probably even journal entries and notations on magical items the party has. No wizard ever has a spellbook that's just a laundry list of spells; even if they did, another wizard could figure out that wizard's specialty and prohibitions, and preferred spells. In short, a spellbook is a glimpse into a wizard's psyche, preferences, strengths and weaknesses, in modern parlance it's his social security number; not something a PC wizard ever wants to fall into the hands of a rival or enemy.

If one of my players' wizards ever had his spellbook stolen by a rival and merely shrugs his shoulders and says "oh well, I have another!", that's my cue as a GM to make sure from that point forward said rival builds his spell list to specifically counter and shut down the PC unless they go out of their way to change their habits and preferences from that point forward. Losing a spellbook is that bad.

The opposite holds true as well; if the PC gets his hands on his rival's spellbook, that rival is pretty screwed. "Okay, upon reflecting on Mordrin's spellbook, you know he's an evoker who prohibited necromancy and divination, and has a real affinity for rays and electricity spells. He doesn't buff his comrades much, preferring instead to buff himself. He has the invisibility pages dog eared, and he has some shorthand notes in there on silencing lightning bolt and quickening shocking grasp. You're figuring he invisibles himself and uses it as a quick 1-2 punch to incapacitate weak party members before making a quick retreat."

Plus, wizards may have in that spellbook spells they don't want to fall into other wizards' hands. Munchkins'R'Us aside, wizards aren't exactly advocates for freedom of information. I know if I were playing a wizard and got my hands on Time Stop (typically a rare and jealously-guarded spell), I wouldn't let just anyone know I had it, or let that book away from my immediate person. I wouldn't even let another PC copy it.

I'll admit it. When I DM I sling more fudge than a girl scout troop during cookie season. I'll straight up fudge rolls when dramatically appropriate then turn right around and play theater then take what I rolled. Rule of Fun, play the room.

Hands down my favorite trick is when an encounter is going a little too well, making the NPC's attack roll with x4 Crit Multiplier Weapon of Doom. Then I look at the dice for a second, slowly look up at the vic's...I mean player's...face, look back down and roll again. Wait a second, then exhale meaningfully and roll damage. NPC didn't threaten a crit in the first place, it was pure theater to build tension. Alternatively, if an NPC has a x2 weapon make a "confirmation" check then roll damage and be vague about whether I confirmed and rolled low, or didn't confirm and just rolled average to well (either way, there's a brief cathartic moment as the player thinks s/he dodged a bullet).

NPC casts a fireball. Player fails his Reflex save. I roll the damage dice, look over and ask, "uh how many HP do you have again?". I get my response, then just announce the damage I actually rolled.

Another good trick is to roll the actual damage dice in one color and add a bunch of BS dice of other colors just to get the "how many F'ing dice did he just roll?!?!??" response, although that falls less into the "fudge" category and more into the "asinine yet hilarious practical joke" category.

The Random Number God is not favoring me tonight and the PC's are looking a little bored, so the NPC's get a surreptitious "crap, the encounter's becoming a wash, better raise the stakes a little" bonus here and there. The RNG isn't in the players' favor, I'll toss a little surreptitious "PC's need a break" penalty once in a while. Somebody's flubbing left and right and getting frustrated, I'll take an opportunity to give them a brief respite from their own bad luck. The trick there is to keep GM footprint as light as possible and don't break suspension of disbelief.

Though I do have some base rules. I never fudge without reason. I only fudge when Dramatically Appropriate. I never fudge big. Most of all, I never fudge on anything that could result in a character death or TPK. Bottom line is if you're going to fudge, be at least as unpredictable about it as the dice would otherwise be. GM'ing is 95% presentation and theater, 5% middling crap like rules and dice rolls, and in total 100% making sure the players are having a good time; if you're an entertaining and even-handed GM who can strike that delicate balance between dramatic tension and suspension of disbelief, you can fudge every single roll you make during a session and the players will eat it up.

The fundamental rules should be simple and easy to use. Unnecessary complexity just slows down the game and makes it annoying for players who have to look up a rule for every situation.

I agree, the rules should be simple and easy to use. On the other hand, adhering to RAW without room for improvisation quite frankly binds the players and GM, and makes for a relatively boring game no matter how transparent it is. Players who are fluent in the rules have a distinct advantage over ones who don't, new players tend to get marginalized and discouraged, and the GM absolutely must be the person in the room with the most expansive knowledge of the game and mechanics to keep their players in check. That's especially true in games that have expansive rule sets.

I know for a fact as a GM I'm not going to go rifling through The Ultimate Complete Spiritual Warrior's Handbook: Dancing Blades of the Fifteen Heavenly Justices, Revised Edition, disrupt the flow of a combat and make the other players wait 15 minutes while we reference one throwaway rule, because Timmy insists he gets a +3 to Fifteen Point Armored Heart Assault against goblinoid barbarians with one testicle instead of his default +2 when he couldn't be arsed to get the modifiers right on his own character sheet in the first place or at least have the citation on hand.

One example I can think of offhand was in an Age of Worms game in which I didn't participate because the DM was RAW to a fault and very stingy on what goodies were accessible to players. One of the guys in the game (new player) was playing a spring attacking, partisan-wielding scout, and at one point had to make a climb check; the player just wanted to sling the partisan to his back, but the DM said he couldn't do that because a partisan was too long and he would have to drop it. That little exchange queued an hour-long argument over the DM's adherence to rules to the exclusion of fun, and three players ended up quitting the game because they'd had enough of it.

The DM's fiat to bend the rules, whether that's for Rule of Fun or inject an unexpected challenge for the party to surmount, is an important one. It's also a responsibility to use that fiat maturely, transparently, fairly, and reasonably. In the aforementioned "tight corridor" example, the DM shouldn't wait until the PC's are beset by the jibbering hordes to mention to the player that Elven Curve Blade isn't going to work; the DM would ideally say before the party enters the corridor, "by the way, that corridor looks tight, you're probably not going to be able to get a decent swing off. You might want to switch to your longsword and shield". That's a gimme comment that will be PC knowledge on the back of their weapon proficiency, that a player may not necessarily think of until it's too late.

Otherwise, if something specific and unexpected comes up in a game, just do what I do: get drunk and PIDOOYA, but be fair and fun about it.

It's a tabletop RPG, Rule of Fun trumps everything. That said, munchkinism should still be dealt with summarily and harshly, and decisions ought to have manageable consequences, and players should be expected to deal with that maturely.

Player wants to play an attractive-but-uncharismatic character? Okay, assess a +2 circumstance bonus to Cha-based checks on superficialities, but a -5 circumstance penalty to Cha-based checks on social encounters that go on for longer than the prototypical minute. That way, their Charisma balances out initially, but as the conversation extends and the NPC figures out that despite their beauty they're just not a very nice person and in essence just being manipulative, start to sour towards them or starts turning the conversation in their favor. This also reflects a more "fast-talking" mindset which would work in that sort of character's favor, but pretty much preclude them from any in-depth social interaction from which they'd hope to gain in a major way.

I'd also point out the "Charming" trait on the PFSRD for PC's who wish to do so and insist they take it should they find my aforementioned rule distasteful.

Spellbooks are a part of the wizard. Familiars are a part of the witch. They're central to the balance and flavor of the class. There are rules for reinforcing and protecting one's spellbook on top of the extant zillion other ways to keep it safe, on top of at least one arcane class that doesn't use a spellbook I can name offhand. Deal with it.

Large weapons in enclosed spaces? Now this is one where Rule of Fun does trump. I'd treat that in an ad hoc manner: greatsword in a 5' hallway? Okay, you can do that, but with the -4 attack penalty for using a weapon in an unintended fashion since you're going to have to stab with it or use awkward downward slashes and no power attacking. But since you're already using it awkwardly, I'll be a nice guy and let you lunge with it without penalty.

It behooves the GM to cater to the players, both to allow them to shine and to challenge them by forcing them to deal with their shortcomings every now and again to challenge them. It behooves the players to recognize their characters have shortcomings, accept that in a mature fashion and recognize it as a challenge to be surmounted. If all a player wants to do is optimize a disembodied set of stats and full-clear dungeons, rolling encounters and snatching up loot, World of Warcraft is a cheaper hobby and much better-suited to their expectations. End of story.

I once had a female elf cleric with the Sun and Glory domains/master of radiance going through the ruins of Myth Drannor trying to hunt down a moonblade. We were in a wild magic zone. Cue APL+6 undead encounter that was a vampire and a horde of itty-bitties. I succeeded the spot check, won initiative, OHKO'ed the vampire with a critical searing light, did a swift greater turn and blew away all the lesser undead. My character never broke stride.

[...and that was how that character got the nickname Uber-Buffy.]

In the loot was an intelligent rapier of something absolutely badass that was being wielded by the vampire. My response was roughly "screw you guys, I just one-shot the CR 15 encounter, that sword is MINE!". Flush with my own success and feeling invulnerable, I grabbed the rapier and kicked down the door to the next room...which had an empowered fireball trap. Come to find out the rapier was cursed and doubled incoming fire damage, and I flubbed my Reflex save.

250 fire damage to the face. My Cleric had 60. That's when the DM rolled a couple more dice and started laughing so hard he fell out of the chair.

The party started talking amongst themselves trying to figure out what to do since they were b*!+@$%!-deep in Myth Drannor and now had no healer or wizard to teleport them out. About a minute later, the entire party was back in the previous room, including my character who having no knowledge of the event triggered the same fireball trap and died a second time. This happened a couple more times before the party's sorcerer figured out I had triggered a time loop wild magic surge.

The party spent about an hour out of game trying to figure out how to break the time loop. They tried convincing me to not open the door (didn't work). They tackled my character and tied her up, and set the artificer (closest thing we had to a rogue) to opening the door...which he failed repeatedly. They tried dispelling and triggered the trap. Every time, my character got caught in the blast and incinerated. Finally, whereabouts of disable device check #3 (something like #10 in total) the artificer rolled high enough between a couple people aiding him and a Guidance of the Avatar to successfully disarm the trap.

The next room had a marilith in it.