Ah, good thing then, I missed this one.
Our team is still a lot influenced by 3.5 LGH.
Fair points, but easy enough to solve :
1 ) You should not have to outhink the DM : just outthink the trap as written : that way, if you find a solution that's outside the box, you should be rewarded. there's no reason a good GM should complexify the trap further.
I don't like auto-kill traps either, I just think the current range is way too limited by the rules.
Also, they should be used sparingly, OR in some areas where they make sense, but you get plenty of warnings that your standard tactics will need to adapt.
What generation gap ? I'm talking about poorly thoughts rules.
Let me give you an example of how it could work :
With a perception roll, you can notice easily traces of dried blood and crushed bones. (Dc 15).
So you know there is a trap, you do not know exactly what it does.
Further roll could allow you to also learn that the doors on both side are going to close on you.
So how are you going to solve it :
1) USe a fly spell, don't touch the ground, and don't activate the trap ?
I know which one I'd prefer.
I think the lot fo you guys have bad experience with traps, and maybe with bad GMs, and I also feel that you are missing about the fun of traps.
I think this is an illness caused by the 3.X rules.
Back in 1e, the most deadly module was supposedly the Tomb of Horrors.
None of my team died in it. Why ?
I think it is a shame to rely on just a perception check, when a good written boxed text should give you the clues you need, and I think also that disarm rolls are a pain.
I don not want a PFRPG 2.0 ruleset, but one of the few thing that could sell me on this would be to solve that, and recreate the trap fun that once was.
Also, I think not all traps should be equal : some should be detectable easily, but nearly impossible to disarm, others should be invisible, but easy to disarm.
I am quite disappointed with how this part is currently handled.
Seriously, literacy was a very variable thing in the middle ages, and after, depending on where you lived and when.
Example : in Normandy literacy rates were at an all time rate with some 80 % rate before the French revolution.
It still meant that one person out of five was out of the loop. Even if you do not want these details, it is worth remembering for NPC portrayal.
Other provinces in France rated between 30-60 %
It's up to you, if you want to portray class struggles between nobility/burgers/peasants/clergy/ .. or not.
For a typical game, I would agree it is not worth the bother.
DM Doom wrote:
Because you live in a modern time, where these things DON'T matter.
Pathfinder/D&D lets you believe that swinging a sword is easy, and by RAW, you can do it all day. Bull.
I have been to medieval parties where the goal is JUST to keep your heavy metal sword above a tied rope for an extended period of time. Quite entertaining to watch I must say.
Detect Magic wrote:
This exactly. You don't have to focus every game on sensitive issues, but it is all the best to at least once in a while show the problem you don't like exists in the game world. And, now, you have a chance to act against it.
Having "generic evil" people does not work. They need motives to make good villains. It can be racism, classism, sexism, homophobism, heterophobism, just plain old greed taken to extreme, or whatever else, but just "destroy the world, mwahaha" gets old fast.
And it is more rewarding if the players start hating your villains too, when they finally catch up with them.