don't miss quote me...Instead of just yawning and sitting around, maybe you should get in there and help. Use your ingenuity and cleverness to suggest something that will improve the thief's chances. Or if you as a...
This was my experience with my Slayer. I'd disable traps, bluff out an enemy looking for our map, and got into a drawn out stealth war while the rest of my party just... waited for me to be done. I felt especially sorry for our Fighter, poor fellow got one combat and spent most of it in a net. If our GM hadn't decided to ignore diplo rolls and let him be the face he wouldn't have gotten to do anything at all.
I was trying to reply to your actual post but messed up my quote editing somewhere. Woops.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
lulz So this is how rumormonger works lol
i know, i could see the broken quotes when i quoted you, i just thought it was funny.
hey, if he enjoys you putting things in his way, because he got something to keep them from being in his way by rolling a d20, then go ahead. Seriously though, if he enjoys rolling them out of the way, i find that weird, and if he doesn't need to roll for them, then he didn't need to invest like that.
most people who get disable device aren't looking to beat some traps, they're trying to make sure traps won't ever be a problem.
"A tricky or difficult device requires...Well disable device still takes time to perform... as in, minutes. The party woud be dead then if they cannot kill the statues...Here lets break this down barney style:
Lets take your trap. The Room filling with sand. How boring would it be if it went:
GM: Ok the room fills with sand and the statues start attacking. 3 minutes before it fills
Party: *Commences combat for 10 rounds (that is a REDICULOUSLY long combat...)
2 minutes remain
Rogue: ok so I do a perception check to find the trap mechanism *Roll perception* 27?
GM: Ok you find *blah blah blah*
Rogue: Ok so I use disbale device for... 32 to disable?
GM: Ok... sand stops.... moving on...that traps feels weak...
The iconic epic traps tend to be beyond the scope of "Roll Perception... Roll Disable device... ok cool" and are things you have to deal with with ingenuity *like setting off the giant boulder trapwhile being chased up hill by an army of bugbears and quickly dashing into a few corners to allow the boulder to run the bug bears over* or cool stuff like that... If you allow the cool epic traps to be disabled wiht a single dice roll.. they kinda lose their coolness...
You're assuming an awful lot. I never once said that the trap could be disabled with a single roll. I just came up with it on the spur of the moment, but if I put it in a dungeon the trap mechanism would likely be inaccessible, and opening the door would require figuring out some sort of puzzle to get to the part where a Disable Device roll can succeed.
You're also assuming characters have the ability to defeat the animated statues at all. Maybe the best they can hope for is to hold them off long enough to get the door open.
The bottom line, the situation I described is not an instant death trap, but it is intended to require everybody to do their part to avoid a TPK. And yes, defeating this encounter would be worth significant xp.
But hte thing is, you are having to do all this convoluted stuff just to make ONE GUY feel special... except he is not. The ONLY thing he is there for is the disable device roll at the end... what if the smart guy is hte guy playing a fighter? Well the puzzle just got solved by someone other than the rogue.. the rogue is again reduced down to:
Roll Disable Device...
Good.
Outside of that, he is literally no better than a Adept.
As for the really dumb analogy to the barbarians, the funny thing is, if you added more monsters, now not only are you creating a scenerio for the barbarians to have fun, you are creating a scenerio where most EVERYONE can help out. More enemies? Well the caster can now drop fireballs to greater effect or have even more fun wiht Black Tentacles. The druid can now drop Lighting Storm for some major fun. The Cleric can wade in and kill more things (for if built like a healbot, can feel more useful as he has to heal more).
In fact, one of the only classes that does not benefit from this addition of more monsters is the non-combat oriented rogue (i.e. the not sap master/Knife master rogue)...
traps, don't generally just... exist on their own. also, an adventure with no enemies? I'd likely be the player who decides to take over a random town at that point. Usually through politics or a mixture of bribery and finding someone who would like a step up in the world.
But hte thing is, you are having to do all this convoluted stuff just to make ONE GUY feel special... except he is not. The ONLY thing he is there for is the disable device roll at the end... what if the smart guy is hte guy playing a fighter? Well the puzzle just got solved by someone other than the rogue.. the rogue is again reduced down to:
Roll Disable Device...
Good.And rolling against Disable Device is somehow different from:
Roll to Hit...
Roll Damage...Apart from that a Barbarian is no better than a Commoner, right?
This "convoluted stuff" is called creating an adventure, and it's part of the GM's job. Creating an adventure with no combat and all traps is literally no harder than creating one with all combat and no traps. Easier, in fact, because traps have fewer stats. You want an encounter where magic doesn't work? I can do that. One that requires a particular spell? No problem. Diplomacy rather than combat? Easy. Giving one PC a chance to be a star is absolutely no harder than giving any other PC that chance, no matter what class/race/skills/feats/spells/etc. they have.
Except for the better saves... and the better HD... and the DR... and the ability to do crazy things (flight? Sure! Destroy magic? NO PROBLEM!)....
I mean your argument is so weak I don't know where to start...
Your convuleted little scenerio is nothing more than the GM saying "NO PARTY! IT HAS TO BE THE ROGUE!!! HE HAS TO FEEL SPECIAL TOO!!!"... The fac that you need to go through all that, just make his Disable Device roll seem remotely useful and is a sad argument. The invinsible statues are nothing more than giving the party somethign to do instead of the normal "ok everyone stands around and waits."
Oh and with the new Investigator, the "skill rogue" is pretty much dead... he can LITERALLY do the skill thing better than the rogue. He has access to most of the useful rogue talents AND he has infusions AND he can add 2d6 to his skill roll...
But hte thing is, you are having to do all this convoluted stuff just to make ONE GUY feel special... except he is not. The ONLY thing he is there for is the disable device roll at the end... what if the smart guy is hte guy playing a fighter? Well the puzzle just got solved by someone other than the rogue.. the rogue is again reduced down to:
Roll Disable Device...
Good.And rolling against Disable Device is somehow different from:
Roll to Hit...
Roll Damage...Apart from that a Barbarian is no better than a Commoner, right?
This "convoluted stuff" is called creating an adventure, and it's part of the GM's job. Creating an adventure with no combat and all traps is literally no harder than creating one with all combat and no traps. Easier, in fact, because traps have fewer stats. You want an encounter where magic doesn't work? I can do that. One that requires a particular spell? No problem. Diplomacy rather than combat? Easy. Giving one PC a chance to be a star is absolutely no harder than giving any other PC that chance, no matter what class/race/skills/feats/spells/etc. they have.
The point being made is that you HAVE to something for the rogue. The average adventure already has something that someone else can do without special attention.
|
But hte thing is, you are having to do all this convoluted stuff just to make ONE GUY feel special... except he is not. The ONLY thing he is there for is the disable device roll at the end... what if the smart guy is hte guy playing a fighter? Well the puzzle just got solved by someone other than the rogue.. the rogue is again reduced down to:
Roll Disable Device...
Good.And rolling against Disable Device is somehow different from:
Roll to Hit...
Roll Damage...Apart from that a Barbarian is no better than a Commoner, right?
Yes, a Barbarian is no better than a Commoner. Because commoners are OP. Oh wait...
The puzzle should be solved by the players, if they can. If they're truly stumped, then a Knowledge roll of some kind or a straight INT roll will provide a hint.
I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm creating a situation tailored for a party with a PC who has invested in dealing with traps. Would you complain if I "justified" the two barbarians in the party by increasing the number of orcs they have to fight?
Remind me how the puzzle makes the rogue shine. What if he doesn't know the answer?
Really? 214 posts? Would it have been more obvious if the title had said "A net troll wants people to talk about rogues"?
Yes, a Barbarian is no better than a Commoner. Because commoners are OP. Oh wait...But hte thing is, you are having to do all this convoluted stuff just to make ONE GUY feel special... except he is not. The ONLY thing he is there for is the disable device roll at the end... what if the smart guy is hte guy playing a fighter? Well the puzzle just got solved by someone other than the rogue.. the rogue is again reduced down to:
Roll Disable Device...
Good.And rolling against Disable Device is somehow different from:
Roll to Hit...
Roll Damage...Apart from that a Barbarian is no better than a Commoner, right?
i'm laughing too much can't breathe
Oh and with the new Investigator, the "skill rogue" is pretty much dead... he can LITERALLY do the skill thing better than the rogue. He has access to most of the useful rogue talents AND he has infusions AND he can add 2d6 to his skill roll...You've already established that it's wrong to allow rogue talents or skills to be useful in an adventure, because... well just because. But anyway, that applies to the Investigator just as much.
OMG!!!! READING IS TECH!!!
Now tell me WHERE I said it is wrong to allow rogue talents or skills?
Please! Enlighten me oh great one!
NEVER have I said that it is wrong to allow rogue talents or skills. What I said was TRAPS are dull because they are simply (assuming you follow the RULES of the game) "Roll Perception, Roll Disabel Device." That... is... it...
Yes, a Barbarian is no better than a Commoner. Because commoners are OP. Oh wait...But hte thing is, you are having to do all this convoluted stuff just to make ONE GUY feel special... except he is not. The ONLY thing he is there for is the disable device roll at the end... what if the smart guy is hte guy playing a fighter? Well the puzzle just got solved by someone other than the rogue.. the rogue is again reduced down to:
Roll Disable Device...
Good.And rolling against Disable Device is somehow different from:
Roll to Hit...
Roll Damage...Apart from that a Barbarian is no better than a Commoner, right?
Now THAT is priceless...
The point being made is that you HAVE to something for the rogue. The average adventure already has something that someone else can do without special attention.But hte thing is, you are having to do all this convoluted stuff just to make ONE GUY feel special... except he is not. The ONLY thing he is there for is the disable device roll at the end... what if the smart guy is hte guy playing a fighter? Well the puzzle just got solved by someone other than the rogue.. the rogue is again reduced down to:
Roll Disable Device...
Good.And rolling against Disable Device is somehow different from:
Roll to Hit...
Roll Damage...Apart from that a Barbarian is no better than a Commoner, right?
This "convoluted stuff" is called creating an adventure, and it's part of the GM's job. Creating an adventure with no combat and all traps is literally no harder than creating one with all combat and no traps. Easier, in fact, because traps have fewer stats. You want an encounter where magic doesn't work? I can do that. One that requires a particular spell? No problem. Diplomacy rather than combat? Easy. Giving one PC a chance to be a star is absolutely no harder than giving any other PC that chance, no matter what class/race/skills/feats/spells/etc. they have.
Do you ever GM? If so, what do you do if somebody want to play a character like Gord the Rogue or Shadowspawn from Thieves' World? Personally, I would allow it unless there was some specific reason to say no (if the focus of the campaign is noble knights, for example). And if I allow a character in my game, I am absolutely going to give that character interesting things to do.
My "average adventure" starts out as blank piece of paper. It doesn't have anything for anybody unless I put it in there. Even a published module is just a list of suggestions.
Yes I GM, and the point being made still stands. I am not saying you can't help the rogue out, but I am saying if the class needs the help then it is not up to par. What I would do has no affect on the validity of a class. I can help an expert or aristocrat NPC class find something to do. That does not make either of them valid PC classes.
PS: I am not talking about corner cases
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues are subpar 'cause you all say so.
Maybe Rogues should just go back to 2e Backstab.
They only get it against 1 creature per day (kinda like witch) and flanking doesn't work but they get so much damage multiplication that they can instagib most enemies!
Oh and with the new Investigator, the "skill rogue" is pretty much dead... he can LITERALLY do the skill thing better than the rogue. He has access to most of the useful rogue talents AND he has infusions AND he can add 2d6 to his skill roll...You've already established that it's wrong to allow rogue talents or skills to be useful in an adventure, because... well just because. But anyway, that applies to the Investigator just as much.
OMG!!!! READING IS TECH!!!
Now tell me WHERE I said it is wrong to allow rogue talents or skills?
Please! Enlighten me oh great one!
NEVER have I said that it is wrong to allow rogue talents or skills. What I said was TRAPS are dull because they are simply (assuming you follow the RULES of the game) "Roll Perception, Roll Disabel Device." That... is... it...
Okay, I see. But since every game mechanic is basically just rolling dice, adding any relevant modifiers, and comparing it to a success number, why single out traps?
because traps follow this flow chart
1. roll perception, if succeed go to 2., if fail go to 3.
2. roll disable device, if succeed go to 4. if fail go to 3.
3. take damage/something bad happens. if you live go to 4. if you die punch the GM(lol).
4. you can continue with your adventure.
Okay, I see. But since every game mechanic is basically just rolling dice, adding any relevant modifiers, and comparing it to a success number, why single out traps?
Probably because traps(As written) are a solo act. One person handles it. You roll twice and you're done. A failed trap is a few sips off the CLW wand or a channel energy and a disarmed one is a speed bump in the dungeon.
This is not conducive to the group game that Pathfinder is known to be.
Compared to a social scenario, there are a great number of possibilities that party members could contribute towards it's success. The Inquisitor looks over the shoulder of the Bard while he's engaging the shifty Nobleman in Diplomacy and catches the nobleman lying while the Barbarian intimidates one of the guards outside to go for a walk so he and the Ranger can break into the nobleman's quarters.
Notice most of these are untrained skills as well so they could be throwing in a quip while another is doing something. Disable Device is trained only so it's unlikely anyone can aid another the disabler.
Oh and with the new Investigator, the "skill rogue" is pretty much dead... he can LITERALLY do the skill thing better than the rogue. He has access to most of the useful rogue talents AND he has infusions AND he can add 2d6 to his skill roll...You've already established that it's wrong to allow rogue talents or skills to be useful in an adventure, because... well just because. But anyway, that applies to the Investigator just as much.
OMG!!!! READING IS TECH!!!
Now tell me WHERE I said it is wrong to allow rogue talents or skills?
Please! Enlighten me oh great one!
NEVER have I said that it is wrong to allow rogue talents or skills. What I said was TRAPS are dull because they are simply (assuming you follow the RULES of the game) "Roll Perception, Roll Disabel Device." That... is... it...
Okay, I see. But since every game mechanic is basically just rolling dice, adding any relevant modifiers, and comparing it to a success number, why single out traps?
BECAUSE TRAPS ARE EXTREMELY STUPID ENCOUNTERS.... They are also either:
1) VERY meta-gameyor
2) Non-factors
Why do I say that?
Well, short of a typical Indiana Jones style "Enter a long forgot tomb of some long forgotten king with some long forgotten about treasure" type deal, most traps just don't sense. For instance, lets say a giant castle. Sure, alarm traps at entrances and say very specific doors makes sense, but random traps in the most off the wall place (falling axes from the cieling in the middle of a corridor?) just feel forced. i mean, why would a person go through all this trouble to lay traps everywhere in a place where there are things that are dynamically moving about? i don't know about you, but a castle being full of traps AND creatures is odd because I feel the traps are just as likely to kill your own guys as they are wandering around doing patrols or whatever. So, in translation, it feels very gamey where essentially the castle and creatures are just schrodinger's castle... where they "don't exist" until you get to the room. They are literally put in there for the GM to give the rogue something to do. Additionally, traps are usually stupidly binary. If we are talking ACTUAL GAME TRAPS, most of them are "trigger trap, take damage, heal, carry on" if you don't disable them. Sure there are things like say... a summoning trap, but that is not much different than saying "well now you runing a bugbear"
or
Your party can easily ignore traps by simply walking around them. Traps are static. They don't move. They don't react to the world unless expressly manipulated or triggered. There is no strategy to them like with intelligent creatures.
|
|
Oh and with the new Investigator, the "skill rogue" is pretty much dead... he can LITERALLY do the skill thing better than the rogue. He has access to most of the useful rogue talents AND he has infusions AND he can add 2d6 to his skill roll...You've already established that it's wrong to allow rogue talents or skills to be useful in an adventure, because... well just because. But anyway, that applies to the Investigator just as much.
Ignoring the obvious[that has already been stated], the Investigator, from what I read in the playtest document, has options like Enlarge Person, Alter Self, and Mutagen readily available[Okay, Mutagen costs a talent, still], and is better at skills then the rogue. Actually has a class feature that adds to skills[beyond Disable Device/Perception for Traps], can make knowledge checks untrained, and has an in-class reason to pump INT beyond "I'm supposed to have skills", etc.
stuffbecause traps follow this flow chart
1. roll perception, if succeed go to 2., if fail go to 3.
2. roll disable device, if succeed go to 4. if fail go to 3.
3. take damage/something bad happens. if you live go to 4. if you die punch the GM(lol).
4. you can continue with your adventure.
Except I've already shown that isn't the case with example trap I gave. When there is a simple trap like you describe, it takes only a few seconds to resolve, so how does that hurt your fun? And when it's as I described, where the trap has to be dealt with in the middle of combat, then if you're not playing the trap finder, you're probably fighting the statues. So again, how does that hurt your fun?
the example you gave isn't a trap by the rules but just a weird scenario... if it isn't magical or doesn't need perceptions & disable device then once again, it doesn't require a rogue or even a trap-finder at all. In fact it's not even called a trap by the rules.
Some people are going to defend Rogues.
They are clearly inferior to some archetype combinations that more or less do the exact same things.
Their niche was not protected, and if the party has ample healing or someone with a ring of regeneration, then most traps become having Barbarilla the Barbarian with his ridiculous HP walk into it, wait for healing, then proceed forward.
For Rogues, or someone with Trapfinding, to become relevant there need to be "Save or Die" traps. Or, at low levels, Save (or have a high enough AC/Tower Shield) to not die from the extremely high damage on traps that is designed to incapacitate a barbarian.
The thing about rogues is that they are a trap. Their gimmick is relatively unreliable without high gold costs. Improved Invis is a requirement to "solo" things since normal invis only gives sneak attack on the first hit.
Rogues are GREAT if the other players want to play by their style. A sniper ratfolk with burrowing teeth is fantastic. He shoots the enemies for sneak attack from range with his light x-bow. Then he borrows into the ground so he cannot be attacked. He then surfaces some distance away, shoots, and withdraws again.
[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]
I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.
I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.
[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.
I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.
Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.
Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.
[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.
I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.
do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?
do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.
[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.
I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.
Paizo makes a pretty penny from APs.
well my expectations are trash apparently, continue on.
Why do people say that Fighters are as bad as Rogues?
Hey, where did the OP go?
...
Well, I guess this means he really was a troll.
Or that his question was answered and he had nothing left to say in this thread.Hey, where did the OP go?...
Well, I guess this means he really was a troll.
Yeah, I guess it's possible that he was unintentionally committing a great evil. That still doesn't do much to help his alignment, though...
do people actually use pre-built stuff a lot?Almost literally every one of the most famous and iconic D&D adventures involves a dungeon crawl for the sake of dungeon crawling at least as the initial premise. See Tomb of Horrors, Age of Worms, and so on.
[sarcasm]Yes. A party of fantasy adventurers would never enter an old tomb or ancient ruin in search of treasure. Why that would be completely unprecedented! [/sarcasm]I have never gone on an adventure where the goal is treasure, or to delve into an ancient trap filled tomb. Almost every adventure I've partaken in is dealing with the problems of the present and not the ghosts of the past.
I'd be surprised if people were largely different from this.
Yes.
But even beside that...the core of D&D is, as the name implies, Dungeons. As in, going into random places for fun and profit.