Taking aside issues of what class should get what*, let's just look at the absurdity of the current situation. It has been repeated several times, but usually at the ends of long posts, so I want to put it out here.
Under the old tracking rules, a Druid (who tends to max out Survival), can identify ANY type of track, but not tell what direction they were pointing. I've literally had a party just search for tracks in every square to follow them, since no one in the party had the track feat. That is absurd, and has been fixed.
Under the trapfinding rules, a Ranger with maxed perception can find the holes in the wall that allow the bad guys to eavesdrop on the party. But if those same holes happen to shoot poison darts instead, they are for some reason invisible, no matter how high the Ranger's search/perception check is, no matter how many other dart traps he has set off that day. That is absurd.
If I create a trapdoor in the floor as an escape hatch, anyone can find it. If someone else later takes over my castle and fills the area under the trapdoor with spikes, it becomes invisible to everyone but Rogues. That is absurd.
If I hide a needle in a Haystack, anyone (with a decent search) can find it, but not if that needle is coated in Poison. See where I'm going with this?
*Of course, my stated position is that finding traps and disabling them should be just a function of the existing skills. Rogues should get a bonus to detecting and disabling traps (and picking locks!) equal to half their rogue level, rounded up.
Here's another one:
A Kobold Expert with maximized Craft (Trapmaker) booby traps a hallway in his tribes warren (Let's call him Kurtyl). To avoid letting invaders deduce the location of the trap, he booby traps a random floor tile. His lucky tribe goes ten years without an adventurer attack. Then of course, some adventurers show up, find and disable the trap, and kill half the tribe before the Kobolds bring them down. Kurtyl is charged by the new chief to repair and reset the trap. Of course, over the last decade, Kurtyl has not only built many other traps, but he's gotten old and his memory isn't what is once was. He doesn't remember which square the trap was in. Under RAW, he cannot find a trap that he himself crafted, because he's an expert, not a rogue, even though he specialized in traps.
[1]Under the old tracking rules, a Druid (who tends to max out Survival), can identify ANY type of track, but not tell what direction they were pointing. I've literally had a party just search for tracks in every square to follow them, since no one in the party had the track feat. That is absurd, and has been fixed.[2]Under the trapfinding rules, a Ranger with maxed perception can find the holes in the wall that allow the bad guys to eavesdrop on the party. But if those same holes happen to shoot poison darts instead, they are for some reason invisible, no matter how high the Ranger's search/perception check is, no matter how many other dart traps he has set off that day. That is absurd.
[3]If I create a trapdoor in the floor as an escape hatch, anyone can find it. If someone else later takes over my castle and fills the area under the trapdoor with spikes, it becomes invisible to everyone but Rogues. That is absurd.
[4]If I hide a needle in a Haystack, anyone (with a decent search) can find it, but not if that needle is coated in Poison. See where I'm going with this?
[1]Wrong: If you can see the outlines of the footprints and identify them, following them is DC 10 or much lower. And in such situations, you can track without the Track feat.
[2]Wrong: Of course he can see the holes, he just can't say if they are a trap.[3]Wrong: He can find the trapdoor, but doesn't know it's a trap.
[4]Wrong: You can find the needle, but won't know that it may be poisoned.
[5]Wrong: Of course the kobold can find it, because he allready knows where it is and what it does.
It's bad enough when people argue with the exact words of the rules, when their intent is clearly different. But it's worse when the words don't even say what is crizicised.
And if they start to whine about that, it really makes my head hurt.
If anyone tries to play the game by what they call RAW, it's a wonder they havn't thrown the books into a corner after a hour or two.
[1]Wrong: If you can see the outlines of the footprints and identify them, following them is DC 10 or much lower. And in such situations, you can track without the Track feat.Ahem. I didn't say 'follow obvious footprints'. There's a reason I picked a skilled character for my argument.
While anyone can use Survival to find tracks (regardless of the DC), or to follow tracks when the DC for the task is 10 or lower, only a ranger (or a character with the Track feat) can use Survival to follow tracks when the task has a higher DC.
A Level 20 Druid with max Survival can find tracks great, but not follow them. Pathfinder fixed that problem.
[2]Wrong: Of course he can see the holes, he just can't say if they are a trap.
[3]Wrong: He can find the trapdoor, but doesn't know it's a trap.
[4]Wrong: You can find the needle, but won't know that it may be poisoned.
The needle in the haystack was a bit of hyperbole (I just wanted to work in a needle-in-haystack as a hard thing to find. I'm not sure it would count as a trap.), but the others are real problems. By your logic, any player can find a dart launcher, scything trap, pit trap, or any other type of trap that is actually discoverable with a search check, but he just isn't allowed to call it a trap? Even when it's completely obvious that it's a trap. How exactly is the Rogue restriction relevant then?
Oh, and to add to the trapdoor: When the spikes are added, the Elf loses his secret door detection against it.[5]Wrong: Of course the kobold can find it, because he allready knows where it is and what it does.
No, he doesn't. It's been ten years. Do you remember your high-school locker combination? Or what classroom you had Geometry in? Actually, let's just assume he can somehow remember. Now replace him with his apprentice (let's say Kurtyl died at the adventurers' hands). He can't ever find it, even if he's more skilled than his predecessor.
It's bad enough when people argue with the exact words of the rules, when their intent is clearly different. But it's worse when the words don't even say what is crizicised.
And if they start to whine about that, it really makes my head hurt.If anyone tries to play the game by what they call RAW, it's a wonder they havn't thrown the books into a corner after a hour or two.
Ahem.
andTrapfinding
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.
Notice a typical secret door or a simple trap DC 20
Find a difficult nonmagical trap (rogue only) DC 21 or higher
Find a magic trap (rogue only) DC 25 + level of spell used to create trap
So yeah, that is what the rules say.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
How exactly do you know what the intent is?
It's bad enough when people argue with the exact words of the rules, when their intent is clearly different.
I say that Paizo nominate 9 community members for life to determine what the intent of the SRD is in all cases. After a ratification by the community, they will be in charge of interpreting the SRD. A simple majority will determine from then onward how to apply the intent that the founding fathers of the SRD had.
I'm not so concerned with the intent as I am with the result.
No matter what the 'intent' was, statements like "Only a rogue can find a trap with a Perception DC greater than 20," and "Only a rogue can disable a trap with a Disable Device DC greater than 20," are pretty hard to read any other way than "parties without rogues find traps when they trigger them."
And I strongly feel that if healing, spellcasting, melee combat, ranged combat, skill use, etc, are all capable of some degree by any party, then trapfinding should be too. Without having to rely on a concentration duration spell.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I say that Paizo nominate 9 community members for life to determine what the intent of the SRD is in all cases. After a ratification by the community, they will be in charge of interpreting the SRD. A simple majority will determine from then onward how to apply the intent that the founding fathers of the SRD had.How exactly do you know what the intent is?
It's bad enough when people argue with the exact words of the rules, when their intent is clearly different.
Well played, sir. Well played.
Well played, sir. Well played.I say that Paizo nominate 9 community members for life to determine what the intent of the SRD is in all cases. After a ratification by the community, they will be in charge of interpreting the SRD. A simple majority will determine from then onward how to apply the intent that the founding fathers of the SRD had.How exactly do you know what the intent is?
It's bad enough when people argue with the exact words of the rules, when their intent is clearly different.
What if one of the members of the circle has purchased stock in a particular rule though? It sounds all well and pat now, but once Justice Joel has investments in The Ultimate Rogue Resource, of course he's going to rule in favor of rogues getting to keep trapfinding to themselves. How will the intent be decided in the event of a tie?
|
What if one of the members of the circle has purchased stock in a particular rule though? It sounds all well and pat now, but once Justice Joel has investments in The Ultimate Rogue Resource, of course he's going to rule in favor of rogues getting to keep trapfinding to themselves. How will the intent be decided in the event of a tie?Well played, sir. Well played.I say that Paizo nominate 9 community members for life to determine what the intent of the SRD is in all cases. After a ratification by the community, they will be in charge of interpreting the SRD. A simple majority will determine from then onward how to apply the intent that the founding fathers of the SRD had.How exactly do you know what the intent is?
It's bad enough when people argue with the exact words of the rules, when their intent is clearly different.
That's why it's an uneven number. :)
That's why it's an uneven number. :)What if one of the members of the circle has purchased stock in a particular rule though? It sounds all well and pat now, but once Justice Joel has investments in The Ultimate Rogue Resource, of course he's going to rule in favor of rogues getting to keep trapfinding to themselves. How will the intent be decided in the event of a tie?
Such a member would have to abstain from voting, on the grounds of fair play. Making it an even number.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Such a member would have to abstain from voting, on the grounds of fair play. Making it an even number.That's why it's an uneven number. :)What if one of the members of the circle has purchased stock in a particular rule though? It sounds all well and pat now, but once Justice Joel has investments in The Ultimate Rogue Resource, of course he's going to rule in favor of rogues getting to keep trapfinding to themselves. How will the intent be decided in the event of a tie?
Perhaps if your example had been stock in the Ultimate Paladin Guide, I'd agree with you, but someone with stock in the Ultimate Rogue guide would never admit it and thus not recuse themselves from that vote!
Perhaps if your example had been stock in the Ultimate Paladin Guide, I'd agree with you, but someone with stock in the Ultimate Rogue guide would never admit it and thus not recuse themselves from that vote!Such a member would have to abstain from voting, on the grounds of fair play. Making it an even number.That's why it's an uneven number. :)What if one of the members of the circle has purchased stock in a particular rule though? It sounds all well and pat now, but once Justice Joel has investments in The Ultimate Rogue Resource, of course he's going to rule in favor of rogues getting to keep trapfinding to themselves. How will the intent be decided in the event of a tie?
Too shay, Miss Year.
"Oh, I'm a ranger. yeah I work in the wild and raise hawks and eventually I tap into the power of nature to work magical wonders. In my spare time at home I just search crates for traps and locked chests for poisoned needles."
Well, you know what I think - it should just be part of the skill. Spotting things, whether they be well concealed doors, fine detail on a moving object, or a little cleverly concealed needle on the doorknob, should all be part of the general "noticing things" skill...Perception.
But to address this point in particular...if anyone should be familiar with traps, from a roleplaying standpoint, even more than Rogues, it's Rangers. Consider that the Ranger is a hunter...and hunting often if not usually involves traps of some sort, at the medieval/fantasy tech level. Snares, pits, deadfalls...these are all something a Ranger should be intimately familiar with, something worked with every day, which I somehow doubt is any less than a cutpurse Rogue would be encountering them.
To add an additional point...people have seemed to be concerned with the "scry and die" tactics favored by parties with teleportation magic in many games...well, ask yourself this: if you have a high level party without a rogue...can you blame them for teleporting past the traps they simply cannot find? Kinda ruins the adventure, doesn't it? Well, almost every party has someone with a good Perception rating...maybe, just maybe, if they could, oh, I don't know, spot the concealed blade as well as they can read the tiny, blurred script written on the hummingbird's wings as it flies past their face at top speed, they'd be more open to the idea of walking through the dungeon/tower/what have you. But when they know they're going to trip off every trap in the place (or burn through half their spells trying to find them), scry and die looks really appealing.
Brit, did you read the thread? Such as the part where were decided that, instead of the feat, trapfinding should work the way Tracking works in the alpha?
Where anyone with the appropriate skill, without a feat, can do it. But then we give Rogues a class based bonus on that skill, the same way rangers get on Track, since they are supposed to be best at it. I suggested that Rogues get that bonus to Perception checks made to find traps, Disable Device checks, and Open Lock checks. That sounds like a pretty nice bonus to me.
That way, Rogues are still the unparalleled trapmasters without an arbitray 'only' clause, but other characters can still act in a way that makes sense.
If the bonus does make traps too easy to find an disarm, then the trap DCs should be increased appropriately.
Also, I should point out that just because a character, like a ranger, can FIND the trap doesn't mean he can disable it. Last time I checked 'Disable Device' was not on his class skill list.
|
|
No...just no.
One character should not be able to do EVERYTHING! That's why D&D is a GROUP game, not a "single-player game". You need to rely on the rogue/scout/*insert class I forgot* to find the traps, just like the trapfinders rely on the Ftr/Paladin/Barbarian to dish out a lot of damage to KEEP THEM ALIVE.
Unfortunatly, that is what is making D&D into more of a video game: The Mindset that "My Character has to be able to do EVERYTHING so I don't have to rely on anyone in my party so I can kill them off later!!"
No...just no.
One character should not be able to do EVERYTHING! That's why D&D is a GROUP game, not a "single-player game". You need to rely on the rogue/scout/*insert class I forgot* to find the traps, just like the trapfinders rely on the Ftr/Paladin/Barbarian to dish out a lot of damage to KEEP THEM ALIVE.
Unfortunatly, that is what is making D&D into more of a video game: The Mindset that "My Character has to be able to do EVERYTHING so I don't have to rely on anyone in my party so I can kill them off later!!"
Classes should have to rely on each other. However, no ONE class should be required to play the game. Rogues should have to rely on the the Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/Two-weapon ranger to protect them. They have to rely on the Cleric/Druid/Bard to keep them healed. They have to rely on the Wizard/Sorceror/Archery ranger to kill large numbers of things at range. But everyone has to rely on the Rogue to deal with traps. No choices. No alternate class. Rogues. And rogues only. That is the problem.
|
|
Actually, scouts can do it too.
But thats aside from the point. Also, you scream that the DMG says you have to have a Rogue or your gonna die, but you could also say the same about a divine caster or an arcane caster. In the end, the DM should tailor the campaign around his players, not the other way around. Trapfinding should not be a feat for the plain and simple fact that all you are doing is homogenizing the ONE BIG rouge skill to make him generic.
Actually, scouts can do it too.
But thats aside from the point. Also, you scream that the DMG says you have to have a Rogue or your gonna die, but you could also say the same about a divine caster or an arcane caster. In the end, the DM should tailor the campaign around his players, not the other way around. Trapfinding should not be a feat for the plain and simple fact that all you are doing is homogenizing the ONE BIG rouge skill to make him generic.
Scouts are not OGL and are therefore not eligible to be part of Pathfinder. I'd like a complete game 'out of the box', so to speak.
As for Divine Caster or Arcane Caster, perhaps you're right that you need someone to fill the 'Artillery' or 'healer' role. But there is a CHOICE when it comes to those classes. The party needs healing, but you can have a Cleric, a Druid, or several lesser healers (like the CotCT iconic party), even though the Cleric is BEST at healing. The party needs firepower, but a ranged ranger, a wizard, or sorceror can fill this role, or even the cleric or druid if someone else can take enough of the healing duties to free up spells. This is even though Sorcerors are the best artillery. The party needs utility magic, but a Bard can cover that as well as a Wizard or Sorceror can, even though Wizards are the best utility casters.
At this point, I agree that Trapfinding shouldn't be a feat (though that would at least be a better solution than the one level dip that happens now.) Look at how the Ranger and Tracking work in Alpha 3. Trapfinding should work that way.
|
|
Oops...I guess I didn't understand that we were only talking about what is OGL...my bad!
So then I guess I could see the reasoning behind having "Trapfinding" being a feat, but I think I would change a couple of things about it. Such as maybe making the feat only able to find "regular" traps (i.e. pit traps, snares, arrow traps, you know...simple, non-magical traps) and maybe giving the Rogues like a "Magical Trapfinding" type of free feat.
Whatcha think of that??
P.S. Thank you for being civil...I was afraid I was going to get in some sort of flame war or something.
Oops...I guess I didn't understand that we were only talking about what is OGL...my bad!
No problem. Specifically, we're coming up with possible rules changes to go into the Pathfinder RPG, which has to be OGL content. Obviously, just having people talk about it doesn't mean the rule will be included or changed, but it can't hurt. The worst case is that Jason (lead developer for PFRPG) will just ignore it and that part of the game will go unchanged.
So then I guess I could see the reasoning behind having "Trapfinding" being a feat, but I think I would change a couple of things about it. Such as maybe making the feat only able to find "regular" traps (i.e. pit traps, snares, arrow traps, you know...simple, non-magical traps) and maybe giving the Rogues like a "Magical Trapfinding" type of free feat.
Whatcha think of that??
That's an idea. It would be important to make sure that detect magic and spellcraft would allow the ID of a magic trap (so that a party with say a Ranger and Wizard would still be able to find all the traps via teamwork, but not all by themselves.) That may or may not be possible now. I'll have to check.
Another way might be to elevate the DCs of Magical traps so that only a rogue (with the 1/2 level bonus I (and others) propose) has a good chance of finding them at a 'fair' level.
P.S. Thank you for being civil...I was afraid I was going to get in some sort of flame war or something.
Flame wars aren't any fun. Debates are. So I try to have the latter, but not the former.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I like the idea of having non-magical traps be able to be found by anyone, but magical traps behaving differently. Having rogues have an ability to find magical traps using perception as a unique ability would be a strong reason to have a rogue in the party, but wouldn't be a crippling loss, since any character with detect magic and the right knowledge skill could figure out what's going on with the magic trap still.
You know what? I'm just going to let that one lie, because you clearly haven't read the thread or the discussion that has gone on, or thought about why the current rules might seem absurd.
You know what? I'm just going to let that one lie, because you clearly haven't read the thread or the discussion that has gone on, or thought about why the current rules might seem absurd.
Does this board have an ignore feature?
Does this board have an ignore feature?
I hope you don't mean for me.
Title says it all. Like Track, Trapfinding is an advanced use of a skill. Unlike Track, Trapfinding is a rogue only class feature, which means every party has to include a rogue or suffer horrific penalties as they stumble through traps.
not every party
One party I DMed got around the lack of a rogue by having the cleric use imbue with spell ability to give the ranger find traps. The ranger maxed out Search, so finding them was not a problem.
The cleric had a feat that gave it Disable Device as a class skill, so he was able to disarm non-magical traps. Magical traps were dispelled by the cleric.
The cleric's feat is not OGL, but even so, knowing a trap exists and how it works might help a party know how to trigger it safely or get around it.
The Trap DCs are not made to deny people from finding them. The difference in the average DCs between a CR1 trap and a CR 10 trap is only 5!
So the problem is that under the old system, DCs were so low that only the class restriction could serve to make it challenging?
Giving a Rogue a bonus by that level means he'll probably not need to roll.
Not giving a Rogue a bonus means he's only as good as everyone else.Raising the DCs just makes it harder for everyone concerned, and more impossible for people who aren't Rogues, probably killing them in the process.
Track DCs haven't changed even though the Ranger received his bonus to track, so it still might not be necessary to change the DCs. Even if DCs are raised, I don't see how that would be any more impossible that things are now.
Did you even read my post? I covered this.
I suppose you did, but it didn't make any more sense then.
Tweaking Trapfinding is not the answer. The problem I'm reading in people's posts is "I reached a trap and without a Rogue to actually find it I'm going to waste other resources getting past it." How'd they even know something was there in the first place? I'd understand guessing there's a trap but it sounds like everyone's finding traps and working around them since their DM ruled they can't disarm it cause they never searched for it.
I'm not sure who's saying that. My complaint personally is that when building a party, SOMEBODY has to play a rogue, regardless of if they want to or not, and that the current system makes no sense. But as for how other parties might have known there were traps they couldn't find, maybe they found them my setting them off? In the other case you mention, that they players somehow learn there's a trap, but can't deal with it because they don't 'know' its a trap, does that not strike you are a problem?
Someone said Rangers should get trapfinding even more than Rogues. I say that's absurd.
It is absurd. No one said that. Rogues should be best at finding traps. Rangers keep coming up in examples simply because they are another class that tends to keep their Perception skill maxed out.
Trapfinding is more than just, I noticed something. Trapfinding is supposed to represent carefully testing and figuring out how a trap works.
No one is talking about giving Rangers Disable Device or Knowledge(Engineering). Finding a trap has never been the same as knowing how it works. A ranger, or any other perceptive character, should be able to notice the hairline crack that indicates the pit trap in the floor. It's absurd that a ranger can find a DC 30 secret door, but not a DC 21 pit trap.
And if a Ranger decides to invest his skills into Disable Device as a cross-class, I think that should count as learning about traps.And not every rogue has 'thief school' in his backstory.
Given your Ranger who can read something written on a hummingbirds wing, I'd still say he's never had the experience to know how to make sure a keyhole is just a keyhole without setting a trap off.
If he's looking for anything amiss with the keyhole, he still should be able to see the poison needle sticking out.
A real world example would be driving. You could get me the world's best stuntman but that doesn't tell me he knows how to drive stick. He has the reflexes of a cat and the best timing anyone's ever seen, but that doesn't mean he ever learned how to use the clutch.
To me, Trapfinding was a special ability that reflected the training to know exactly WHAT to look for and what it meant.
We're not talking about building, fixing, dismantling, or analyzing traps. We're just talking about being allowed to see them.
Here's another example. Your character with his amazing perception spots a creature miles away. Well unless he's had the training identifying abberations he can't tell me exactly what it is, even though he sees it.
That's true. But if he can call a creature a creature, he should be able to call a trap a trap. Under the current rules, traps are either simply invisible to non-rogues, which is bizarre, or a character for some reason can find a slot in the wall with a giant blade in it, but just can't call it a trap.
That being said, identifying abberations is a skill in DnD. Trapfinding as its own skill could work, but since it goes against consolidation I'm sure it'll never happen, and if it did somehow happen I'd hope only Rogues, and maybe Bards, would get it.
I'd always considered Disable Device to be the 'Traps' skill, since it is the one that lets you know how they work and what they do.
One party I DMed got around the lack of a rogue by having the cleric use imbue with spell ability to give the ranger find traps. The ranger maxed out Search, so finding them was not a problem.
That's a good trick, and a good example of teamwork. It also shows how useless Find Traps is on its own, since Clerics don't really have the skill points to max perception.
I think the problem is the perception. Not the skill, but our perception of whether or not something is a trap.
To take someone else's example:
holes in the wall.
Can you notice holes in the wall, if its a trap?
Sure. They are just holes in the wall. Anyone can roll perception and see their are holes in the wall.
Now, if it's a trap, then the rogue can say "hey.. those aren't just holes.. that looks like a trap!". Which is really the Big difference.
Can you spot the trapdoor? Is it really a trapdoor?
Anyone can spot the door. No one else can tell if its trapped.
The locations don't become "invisible", the "seeker" just doesn't know if he's found something mundane, or if its a trap.
Lets take a magical item for example.
Is a magic sword invisible if you can't detect magic?
Does it work any less well for not knowing? No, of course not.
A Longsword +2 is better than a Longsword, whether you know it's +2 or not.
Another example:
If you fail the knowledge check to know the troll is a troll, is it still there?
What if you mis-identify it as an ogre. Does it lose its regeneration? Of course not. it Is what it Is whether you successfully identify it or not, and your unsuccessful check doesn't meaningfully effect the monster.
A series of holes in the ceiling or the wall, or a slightly raised tile on the floor, are exactly what they appear to be.
Unless you are trained in trapfinding, in which case you may be able to tell whether or not such thing is a trap, or murder hole, or listen hole, or bad flooring.
The trapdoor doesn't disappear because you put spikes in the bottom. The holes don't disappear when someone sets a crossbow behind them. Trapfinding isn't about whether you notice "something", it's about whether or not you see it for a trap.
-S
Selegard, that's true. The problem is that it still doesn't make any sense. Why can a first level rogue make that distinction but a high level character of any other class, who has probably encountered lots of traps in his career, can't?
What if I look into said whole in the wall, and can see the crossbow behind it? Am I still not allowed to call it a trap? Is the crossbow itself invisible? What if I've encountered three other traps of the same type that day?
A little metagame knowledge makes things worse: If the elf non-rogue looks around the room, then searches it in detail, finding the pit trap (that he doesn't know is a trap). Since he didn't find it on the first pass, he knows it's not a secret door (since he's an elf). What does that leave? And the player knows that the DM wouldn't just mention an uneven floor tile for no reason. But if the DM doesn't mention it at all, we're back in the 'it's invisible' problem. What now? I guess a lot of poking at the floor with ten-foot poles until something bad happens, unless the Cleric has Find Traps prepared.
Not knowing your sword is +2 is an inconvenience to the DM at worst (since he's the one who has to remember to add 2 each time.) Misidentifying a monster doesn't change how you interact with it. You might do something stupid, perhaps, but the monster will still fight and die in the same manner.
If identifying a trap is purely semantic, that's fine, but it means the Rogue ability is meaningless, since everyone can basically find traps. If the rogue ability has meaning, that means that knowing if something is a 'trap' or not changes the way you can interact with it.
if a 20th level longsword spec'd fighter picks up a Longsword +1.. it's just a longsword. Despite his experience with longswords, it's still just a longsword to him.
He has to walk over to (insert magic user here) and ask him "hey, is this magic?".
It's because some classes can do things other classes can't.
Try and I might, my bard will never be able to cast Wish.
or Miracle. And he can't take weapon specialization.
and.. if you misidentify a troll for an ogre, you are about to die horribly to the monster you can never kill at all.
Yes, you can look through the holes (assuming there is enough light) and you can see the crossbow.
Great.
Is it a trap? You Do Not Know!
Is it rigged? Is it waiting for a guard to come use it? You just do not know.
Is that raised tile a trap or shoddy craftsmanship?
Is that doorknob trapped? You may think so but /you do not know/.
Now- you may avoid that raised tile on the floor. But unless you have someone with the knowledge of trap finding, you wont' know if you avoided it in vain or with good reason.
Everyone in the game gets things that some other person doesn't get. It's what makes the classes unique. Unless your DM is sadistic, you won't find tons and tons of unpassable traps when your group has no trapfinder. You will run into traps that you can identify and avoid, while not being able to disable them.
(the raised tile, for example. or the crossbow trap. avoided but not disarmed.)
Trapfinding isn't a feat, and shouldn't be, because not everyone knows how to do it. Just like not everyone can cast divine spells, or arcane spells, or get weapon specialization, or enter a rage, or attack rapidly unarmed.
We can make solid arguments on why some classes should be able to take over the main idea from other classes but in general the classes are different. And they should be.
The ability to find traps isn't the ability to look through a hole and see the crossbow. It's the ability to see the crossbow, realize it's a trap, and then locate the trigger. He can say. "yes, it's a trap."
Or "No, that isn't a trap, it's just a crossbow on a tripod".
Lets take another example.
the PC's are walking through a corridor using a 10ft edged-tipped pole to scout ahead of them. They find a wire hidden in the dust.
Without trapfinding, the wire isn't invisible. They clearly found it.
What does the wire do? Probably a trap. Anyone with a 5+ int can figure that out.
What does it do though? For that, you need the rogue. Rogues are the trap masters. Do you need the rogue to avoid the wire? No. No more than you need the rogue to open a door. The barbarian's boot works just as well. Heck, it can even do it faster. (tho not quieter.)
Traps are just physical objects in the game. Anyone can see those components. It takes trapfinding though to identify them 100% as traps, and that allows them therefore to be disarmed.
Not having trapfinding doesn't make the crossbow disappear anymore than misidentifying the troll as an ogre, makes the troll disappear. Or turn into an ogre. It is what it is, whether or not you can correctly identify it.
-S
Thing is that argument is even more true for clerics. People willing to play clerics in our area are a lot less common than rogue players. It's gotten to the point where most of the clerics I see are henchmen.
Except that a Cleric isn't actually necessary. He's not the only one who can heal. The party could have a Druid instead. Or a the party could have a healing coalition of bards, rangers, and paladins. Or everyone could just fill their pockets with potions.
Which are all extremely inefficient compared to using a cleric.
Trapfinding works with poles. And cattle. And animated servants. And summoned creatures.
They just aren't as efficient or effective as having a rogue.
They are the best suited to the job, and can perform it admirably. I see no reason to take that away from them.
-S
After reading the thread I must say that I'm not strongly commited one way or another, although everyone's arguments have been well thought out and expressed.
I don't think the rogue would be crippled if Trapfinding was made into a feat. After all, feats are a finite resource for each class. To take a feat like Trapfinding would mean you're choosing to expend a resource that may be better spent elsewhere for your class. It's choice the player would make.
That said, I'd like to concur with some other posters in suggesting that Trapfinding should be handled as the Ranger's Track has been handled in the Alpha; Rogues get a bonus to Perception checks when searching for traps, but anyone can search for and find them. If nothing else it feels consistent with Track.
Anecdotally, Trapfinding is something I've house-ruled a bit in my home 3.5 campaign and more recently in my Pathfinder tests. At 3rd level when rogues gain Trap Sense I also add in a passive element to their Trapfinding ability subbing in Spot instead of Search. This has translated quite nicely into my Pathfinder testing due to the Spot/Search -> Perception consolidation. Maybe this is another element that could be added to the rogue class skill list to keep them on top of the trapfinding game?
Does this board have an ignore feature?I hope you don't mean for me.
No, the question was directed at you, as you seem to be more familiar with the boards than I am. I thought you might be able to help.
Which are all extremely inefficient compared to using a cleric.
Trapfinding works with poles. And cattle. And animated servants. And summoned creatures.
They just aren't as efficient or effective as having a rogue.They are the best suited to the job, and can perform it admirably. I see no reason to take that away from them.
Neither does anyone pushing for a revision to the rules. Every single person wants the rogue to remain the 'best suited' for the job.
Pushing summoned and purchased creatures ahead of you into a dungeon, aside from the dubious moral values involved, will not always trip traps anyways. The very last trap in "There is no Honor" was a mechanical reset trap that triggered every 3 rounds. And since the rogue player had quit, the party had no recourse open to them. Other than to get stabbed by the footlancer twice. And they knew it. They couldn't check for traps, even though they knew a trap was there. They couldn't disable it (until they found the off switch). They just had to try to flee with the treasure while getting repeatedly stabbed in the feet.
After reading the thread I must say that I'm not strongly commited one way or another, although everyone's arguments have been well thought out and expressed.
I don't think the rogue would be crippled if Trapfinding was made into a feat. After all, feats are a finite resource for each class. To take a feat like Trapfinding would mean you're choosing to expend a resource that may be better spent elsewhere for your class. It's choice the player would make.
That said, I'd like to concur with some other posters in suggesting that Trapfinding should be handled as the Ranger's Track has been handled in the Alpha; Rogues get a bonus to Perception checks when searching for traps, but anyone can search for and find them. If nothing else it feels consistent with Track.
Anecdotally, Trapfinding is something I've house-ruled a bit in my home 3.5 campaign and more recently in my Pathfinder tests. At 3rd level when rogues gain Trap Sense I also add in a passive element to their Trapfinding ability subbing in Spot instead of Search. This has translated quite nicely into my Pathfinder testing due to the Spot/Search -> Perception consolidation. Maybe this is another element that could be added to the rogue class skill list to keep them on top of the trapfinding game?
J.R., by passive element, do you mean they automatically get a Search/Perception check within a certain range of a trap? That suggestion was given too,and unlike making it the same as Track (which Brit O is convinced will ruin the DC system), that provides a bonus to rogues that is worth it while letting others be capable of trap finding if the group lacks a rogue altogether.
Trapfinding: Rogues automatically gain a Perception check to find a trap when they pass within 10 ft. This range increases 10 ft. at 3rd level and every two rogue levels thereafter. A rogue can still actively search for a trap if they fail to find it with their passive sense. 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.
Trap Sense (Ex): At 3rd level, a rogue gains an intuitive sense that alerts her to danger from traps, giving her a +1 bonus on Reflex saves made to avoid traps, a +1 dodge bonus to AC against attacks made by traps and a +2 bonus on Disable Device and Perception checks dealing with traps. These bonuses rise to +2/+3 when the rogue reaches 6th level, to +3/+4 when she reaches 9th level, to +4/+6 when she reaches 12th level, to +5/+7 at 15th, and to +6/+9 at 18th level.
No, the question was directed at you, as you seem to be more familiar with the boards than I am. I thought you might be able to help.
Ah. No, these boards do not have an ignore feature. I'd say they're an exercise in minimalism.
J.R., by passive element, do you mean they automatically get a Search/Perception check within a certain range of a trap? That suggestion was given too,and unlike making it the same as Track (which Brit O is convinced will ruin the DC system), that provides a bonus to rogues that is worth it while letting others be capable of trap finding if the group lacks a rogue altogether.
I do indeed mean automatically getting a check if they pass within 10 feet of a trap, similar to elves and secret doors. In my games as the DM I make this check for the player and either inform them verbally that they notice something suspicious, or pass them a note.
It tends to speed things up a little since the rogue player knows they're keeping an eye out at all times. They still actively search things that stand out like chests, but this does away with the tedious checking every 5 feet of a 50' long hallway.
The point here is to give rogues a little something extra in the Trapfinding department. This would be especially relevant if Trapfinding was made a feat or incorporated into the Perception skill.
If the rogue goes down you already have other options.
Spells, as have been pointed out. Summoned monsters (which have no moral qualms- when they die they go back home, to be summoned again or whatever. If killing them in traps has moral qualms then you can't summon them into battle either. If Summoning something to die for you is a moral problem then it matters not whether by sword or poisoned trap).
I simply disagree that we need to take this ability away from the rogue and give it to the world in general.
Giving it to everyone, and giving the rogue a bonus, is taking it away from the rogue and giving it to the world in general.
I know that person-specific examples do not necessarily apply to the world at large.
But, by example from my own experience:
I have seen exactly 0 rangers in any game, since track is a feat anyone can take. Not one ranger. Who would bother?
I've seen barbarians take track instead. They have survival as class skill.
Now, I'm not going to say that if you take away trapfinding that you take away the rogue- but if you take it away you Do lose some of what is special about the class.
What do rangers have special now? A handful of spells, a few free feats and a nature theme?
If you take away trapfinding what's left? sneak attack.
Not everything needs to be removed from the classes and made into something everyone can do. The classes need to be diverse. Some classes can just do things that other classes can not do. That isn't something that necessarily needs to change.
-S
I have seen exactly 0 rangers in any game, since track is a feat anyone can take. Not one ranger. Who would bother?
But there is a reason to bother, now. Rangers get a bonus for tracking in Alpha 3, and it gets better as they level up. The problem with Track being only ranger (as I believe it was in 3.0) or trapfinding being only Rogue, is that it means, as KaeYoss pointed out, is that a player who wants to play a barbarian hunter takes exactly one ranger level to make his Survival skill matter, which is basically taking a feat, because a Brb19/Rgr1 tracks exactly as well as a Rgr20. The same with happens with Rogues, were a ranger, bard, monk, or other skill monkey takes one level of rogue, which suddenly makes them as good a trapfinder as a mono-classed rogue. That doesn't seem fair, does it?
A class bonus that scales with level avoids frontloading, which avoids frivilous multiclassing.
|
|
A number of people on this thread have spoken about how unrealistic it is for Rangers to get trapfinding because of time it takes to learn etc. or how rogues are good at this etc.
My take is a little different. Trapfinding can be explained any number of ways. Rangers are trained to track and protect woodlands which would obviously include disabling dangerous traps set by enemies or indedd making suitable traps of their own for catching dangerous creatures. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to take this as a feat. Maybe they get a bonus for trapfinding in woodland regions. Maybe they take a penalty for dungeons or cities. But at least they get a shot at it.
At the same time, not every rogue archetype is a catburglar or a dungeon delver. What about the con man or the pick pocket. How do you explain their ability to detect traps in all environments? How does a city born and bred rogue know what a snare concelaed in the bull rushes looks like or a well concealed man trap in a jungle trail, never having seen what the jungle actually looks like before? I see them more as being able to sense danger intuitively enough to stop and search an area for unusual situations.
I still feel making it a feat is the better option as it makes it a conscious choice to take it. This would limit the hit to the Rogue in it's usefulness as some are worried about. Not every class is willing to take a feat that they don't really have the skills to back up. Making it just being a perception roll for anyone without requiring the feat certainly doesn't feel right, but this is a personal preference.
All this rule does is increase the flexibility of the system to allow players to build character types. Sure they could do this by dipping into a multiclass. But this to me is just devaluing the rogue even more. Taking one level in rogue doesn't make it a good build, it just makes it a painful way to take a feat.
Yes there are ways around this with summoning etc. However, how many summon monsters must a wizard or sorceror prepare in order to check out a dungeon fully. This chews up their resources which means they're less effective in combat. Sounds like great fun for my sorceror. These things only hang around one round per level and if you just send them careening through a dungeon you're going to alert every critter in the place. I feel the same pain would arise with detect traps as a spell slot. In effect you punish the casters because no one wanted to play the rogue.
Summons are a good way to set off a trap once it's been detected, not a good way to circumvent the ability to detect them. Remember that changing detect traps doesn't change the fact that rogues are the only ones who really have the chance to disable most of them.
I liked the idea of making rogues still the only class with a chance to disable magic traps. I also like the idea of them getting a bonus for trap finding.
Of course, these are just thoughts and you're welcome to pull them apart with sound logic. Some of this I'm never going to change my mind on, but I always enjoy reading other perspectives as it usually gives me something to try out with my players.
Cheers
Erm I should point out Druid and rangers already get a spell that allow them to detect none magical traps and anyone with detect magic can already detect magical ones so at the moment 6 of the core classes can detect magical traps and 3 of the core can detect none magical. Also anyone with ranks in UMD can just buy a wand of detect magic so every class can potentialy detect magical traps.If you want Trapfinding that bad, take a level of rogue.
Well said. I like it the way it is. Anyone can find the simple traps like the pit trap in the floor but it takes someone with the master skills and training to find the really tricky ones. "No point in checking here this piece of floor looks perfectly normal."
"wait a moment, can you feel that?" The rogue tosses some iron filings in the air and watches the way they fall. " There is a trap here set to go off if large ammounts of ferous metal get too close."As has been proven many times Rogues are good at checking traps but you can go a long way probing ahead with spears or using any one of the imaginative ways there are of setting traps off. Heck, just get the barbarian to open every door and heal him afterwards.
|
|
I don't feel that a Rogue should be limited to being *solely* definited by Trapfinding, anymore than a Paladin is *solely* defined by Smite (which a Destruction cleric can do) or an Animal Companion (which a Druid or Ranger can do) or a healing touch (which a Cleric, Druid or Bard can do).
A Dwarven Rogue who is nothing but a trapmonkey, and will take a handaxe to anyone who suggests that he is a *thief,* is a valid concept. An Elven Rogue who spends his days in courtly intrigue and gathering information on people may have no head for soulless machinery and have spent not a single skill point on Open Locks or Disable Device. Neither is an invalid concept.
WotC seemed to agree at the tail end of 3.5, since they were introducing classes like the Scout, Ninja and Beguiler, with Trapfinding, indicating that it wasn't seen as proprietary or the end-all, be-all of the Rogue class. (If anything, the turn away from giving classes Sneak Attack, to replace it with Skirmish dice or Sudden Strike, suggests that Sneak Attack was seen as more of a class-definer!)
I say that Paizo nominate 9 community members for life to determine what the intent of the SRD is in all cases.
I see a problem here.
'For life' suggests that advancement will be handled through the traditional Klingon method...
Well said. I like it the way it is. Anyone can find the simple traps like the pit trap in the floor but it takes someone with the master skills and training to find the really tricky ones. "No point in checking here this piece of floor looks perfectly normal."
"wait a moment, can you feel that?" The rogue tosses some iron filings in the air and watches the way they fall. " There is a trap here set to go off if large ammounts of ferous metal get too close."As has been proven many times Rogues are good at checking traps but you can go a long way probing ahead with spears or using any one of the imaginative ways there are of setting traps off. Heck, just get the barbarian to open every door and heal him afterwards.
But why can't anyone else, ever, learn those skills without taking a level of Rogue?
|
|
It's occured to me that Pathfinder Rogues can learn a few minor spells.
Already Paladins, Rangers and Bards can cast spells, so the Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid and Cleric aren't unique in their primary class ability.
Already Paladins, Rangers, Bards and Druids can heal, so the Cleric doesn't have a lock on healing.
Already a Paladin, Ranger or Barbarian has a full BAB, so the Fighter doesn't get exclusive attack superiority.
Anyone can pick up the Improved Unarmed Strike and Stunning Fist feats and pick up some of the Monk's 'classic' abilities.
If a Druid wants to spend a Feat to learn to find traps, explained by years spent setting traps for Orcs trying to burn down his forest, more power to him.
I'd be fine with *more* class abilities becoming feats. A Paladin or Monk who goes into a righteous Rage? A Fighter who learns to Inspire allies? A Cleric who learns to Smite? A Bard who Summons a Familiar?
Go for it. More options leads to more choices for characterization. More restrictions just needlessly stops people from playing the characters they want to play.