Is Trapfinding any good?

[OmniMage]

I'm currently reviewing the trapfinding class feature the Rogue has. Near as I can tell, it has 3 benefits:
1) Adds a bonus equal to 1/2 the Rogue levels the character has (minimum 1) to all checks to find and disarm traps.
2) Can bypass traps if it beats the DC by 10.
3) Can disarm magic traps (DC 25 + spell level).

I'm okay with 1, but I'm not sure about 2 and 3. Is there any point in giving the Rogue the exclusive ability to bypass traps and disarm magic traps?

I'm thinking of getting rid of those exceptions and allow anyone with the skills to do those things. I was going to make it a feat, one that a Rogue would get as a bonus feat, and let anyone else who wanted to do 2 and 3 to pick up the feat. However, I'm unsure if those are even worth a feat. I'm thinking of doing away with exclusivity and let anyone with the skills attempt those things. Mind you, only those with significant skill bonuses to relevant skills have any chance of success (it seems that a character wanting to do 2 or 3 need a +10 bonus to pull them off).

[VoodistMonk]

Allowing anyone with Disable Device, which can be gotten by literally anyone in any class with a trait, to disable magical traps GREATLY reduces the Rogue's niche... you are completely undermining the entire purpose of the Rogue class existing.

If the GM uses traps, especially magical ones, then the party usually needs a Rogue... or at least a rogue-like class that is built to include those features. You would be removing the uniqueness and flavor of entire classes and multiple archetypes. Those features would become useless dead weight, making classes and archetypes that include them less optimal... as they have traded away useful things to have useless features... or could have included more useful features in place of useless features [like disabling magical traps].

It also makes traps, even magical ones, less effective, overall. Probably to the point of making all traps completely not worth using. If everyone can notice them and disarm them, then it's easier to just use enemies and monsters to fill up any given encounter's XP allotment. Why even waste spending XP on traps when you could use that XP to "buy" higher CR momsters instead?

[Mysterious Stranger]

The core rouge is considered to be the worst player character class in the game. In fact, a lot of people consider the adept NPC class to be more powerful. The unchained rogue improves it somewhat, but even that is still considered a weak class. Trapfinding is about the only thing that they can do that most other classes cannot do better.

Unless you are limited to the core rule book only there are actually quite a few classes can get trapfinding or the equivalent. Usually this requires taking an archetype or other selecting it from a list of class abilities. Allowing anyone to do this by spending a feat not only diminishes the rogue even further, it also diminishes the other classes with access to it.

If the party wants certain abilities, they usually have to have a class that can fulfill those abilities. If you want healing, you need a cleric or other class with access to healing. Why should dealing with magical traps be any different?

[Dragonchess Player]

Generally speaking, unless there is an expectation that the campaign will feature magical traps more than rarely to occasionally, a rogue or other class/archetype* a with Trapfinding or an equivalent ability is probably not "needed" for a party. If the Trap Finder trait is allowed outside of the Mummy's Mask campaign, then there is even less need. Really, all Trapfinding does in PF1e is reduce the resource cost (spells, magic items) for dealing with magical traps using erase, dispel magic, etc. or healing after triggering them.

The "best" (IMO) reason for a rogue when expecting traps is the Trap Spotter rogue talent. Even that, or the equivalent, can gained by non-rogues: some classes/archetypes allow the selection of rogue talents and a more limited version is available to dwarves in Stonecunning (only works on stone, which makes up the majority of the environment in most dungeons).

*- off the top of my head, I can think of a few alchemist and bard archetypes, as well as the investigator, that can gain Trapfinding

[VoodistMonk]

There already is a feat that gives you Trapfinding... it's called Monitor Obedience [Imot].

AoN wrote:
Obedience
Spend an hour in a dark space barely large enough for you to fit and cast your thoughts out from your body. Gain a +4 insight bonus on Perception checks to spot portents and traps; this expanded insight also allows you to disable magic traps as if you had the rogue's trapfinding ability.

[Name Violation]

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Generally speaking, unless there is an expectation that the campaign will feature magical traps more than rarely to occasionally, a rogue or other class/archetype* a with Trapfinding or an equivalent ability is probably not "needed" for a party. If the Trap Finder trait is allowed outside of the Mummy's Mask campaign, then there is even less need. Really, all Trapfinding does in PF1e is reduce the resource cost (spells, magic items) for dealing with magical traps using erase, dispel magic, etc. or healing after triggering them.

The "best" (IMO) reason for a rogue when expecting traps is the Trap Spotter rogue talent. Even that, or the equivalent, can gained by non-rogues: some classes/archetypes allow the selection of rogue talents and a more limited version is available to dwarves in Stonecunning (only works on stone, which makes up the majority of the environment in most dungeons).

*- off the top of my head, I can think of a few alchemist and bard archetypes, as well as the investigator, that can gain Trapfinding

and a spell even

[TxSam88]

Caveat to my answers, we run AP's, which only minor boosts to them to make them more challenging for experienced players who know how to build optimized parties/characters.

So in regards to the OP:

1. If the character maxes Perception, has the stats for it, and is a class skill, he will never need the 1/2 level bonus to find traps. Most traps can be found on a 2+ roll at moderate levels

2. By passing them is fine, but it's a not needed skill, as Disarm Device can do it as well. And again Any character than can maximize that skill can bypass most traps on a 2+.

3. Disarming magic traps, this is the one thing that is what makes the rogue special, giving this to another class, takes this specialty away from the rogue. That being said, the number of times I have encountered a magic trap in the 14?? years I have played pathfinder can be counted on one hand. I'm of the camp that says, let the trap go off and move on with the adventure. We don't fret over magic traps.

Most of the time when I play a rogue, I take an archetype that replaces trap finding, and have had zero issues. As far as I am concerned, the trapfinding ability is next to worthless in the game.

[VoodistMonk]

Something else to consider is that traps are actually kind of expensive, especially magical traps and mechanical traps that use poison... unless the GM places them for "free", it gets impossible to afford halfway decent traps on an NPC's budget. This makes Trapfinding even less desirable... and is why Trapfinding/Trap Sense are often the first things traded when selecting archetypes.

[Derklord]

VoodistMonk wrote:

Allowing anyone with Disable Device, which can be gotten by literally anyone in any class with a trait, to disable magical traps GREATLY reduces the Rogue's niche... you are completely undermining the entire purpose of the Rogue class existing.

TxSam88 wrote:

Disarming magic traps, this is the one thing that is what makes the rogue special, giving this to another class, takes this specialty away from the rogue.

Investigator has the same ability, Slayer can select it as a talent, the Seeker Sorcerer, Seeker Oracle, Patient Ambusher Hunter, Trapper Ranger, Urban Ranger, Alchemical Trapper Alchemist, Crypt Breaker Alchemist, Trap Breaker Alchemist, Vaultbreaker Alchemist, Archivist Bard, Archaeologist Bard, Detective Bard, and Sandman Bard archetypes all grant it, as do the mentioned spell Aram Zey's Focus and the Monitor Obedience for Imot.

DDing magic traps hasn't been a niche of speciality of the Rogue's in over a decade.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

The core rouge is considered to be the worst player character class in the game.

To some people. I'm of different mind... I consider it an NPC class!

[Mysterious Stranger]

If you are bringing in NPC classes, the core rogue becomes the second-best NPC class. Adepts are spell casters after all. They are a lot better than commoners and experts, and slightly better than warriors and aristocrats.

[HighLordNiteshade]

We are currently doing Wrath of the Righteous, and we don't have a rogue. No one wanted to play one. So I (the halfling ranger) have been taking points in disable device, but of course that doesn't help with magical traps. What our DM did was decide to add a feature to Trapspringer’s Gloves that permits the wearer to detect/disable magical traps. It still means I have to devote a lot of skill points in order to be effective, but it essentially got our group around the need for a rogue (I just hit 8th level and just found a pair of these gloves, so it isn't like I've had this ability since level 1). Also from what he's told us, WotR isn't a magical trap heavy AP (but there must be some or he wouldn't have given us a way around not having a rogue). :-)

[Kurald Galain]

VoodistMonk wrote:

Allowing anyone with Disable Device, which can be gotten by literally anyone in any class with a trait, to disable magical traps GREATLY reduces the Rogue's niche... you are completely undermining the entire purpose of the Rogue class existing.

If trapfinding is the only viable purpose of the rogue class, then that's all the more reason to give trapfinding to (certain) other classes so that people aren't forced to play the much-maligned rogue.

[Mightypion]

HighLordNiteshade wrote:

We are currently doing Wrath of the Righteous, and we don't have a rogue. No one wanted to play one. So I (the halfling ranger) have been taking points in disable device, but of course that doesn't help with magical traps. What our DM did was decide to add a feature to Trapspringer’s Gloves that permits the wearer to detect/disable magical traps. It still means I have to devote a lot of skill points in order to be effective, but it essentially got our group around the need for a rogue (I just hit 8th level and just found a pair of these gloves, so it isn't like I've had this ability since level 1). Also from what he's told us, WotR isn't a magical trap heavy AP (but there must be some or he wouldn't have given us a way around not having a rogue). :-)

Ok, a rouge in wrath of the righteous, thats probably the worst module to be one in.

All the true sight on enemies, making it pretty hard to get sneak attack, a lot of fort and will saves to be made, DR a plenty...

[Belafon]

My personal opinion is that it's OK to have a challenge in a campaign, even one that occurs multiple times, that can only be easily* overcome by a specific ability that not every party will have. It's a game of tradeoffs.

Dreklord posted a big list of classes and archetypes that get trapfinding. You can choose to take one of those (or not). Aram Zey's Focus is on the alchemist, bard, and wizard spell lists. If you aren't playing one of those classes you can invest in UMD (as well as Disable Device) so you can use scrolls or a wand of that personal range spell. Or not.

Just because certain characters can disarm magical traps easily* that doesn't mean you should create a way for all other classes to bypass the traps as well.

*:

I keep using the word "easily" because most magical traps can be "disarmed" the hard way. I once played an extremely trap-heavy PFS scenario where no one could disarm the magical traps. But we could find them and analyze them (detect magic), then take them on head-first.

"OK, this one appears to have an evocation aura. The rest of us are going to hide around the corner while the monk with improved evasion walks forward. Hmmm, next one appears to be conjuration. Maybe a fort save, could be a will save. Cleric, you're up, but the rest of us are ready in case it happens to be a summons."

I've also disarmed many, many traps with summon monster. (In Ignan) "OK little fire elemental buddy, you just walk right on forward until you get to the end of the . . . oh, he's gone home the quick way. Next!"

Obviously there are some really nasty traps that it's far better to disarm than deliberately set off.

[Derklord]

Belafon wrote:

My personal opinion is that it's OK to have a challenge in a campaign, even one that occurs multiple times, that can only be easily* overcome by a specific ability that not every party will have. It's a game of tradeoffs.

I'd even go further: Do we play to have the easiest way? Do we play to never struggle? Do we play to never have to overcome (in-game) hardships? I sure don't! Overcoming challenges is what the game is all about, and needing to come up with creative solutions is a lot of fun; more fun than always having the perfect class feature to trivialize every difficulty you encounter.

That's why I don't like the idea here. It rewards "I roll for x" instead of thoughtfulness, creativity and cleverness.

Not that Trapfinding really is a perfect class feature to trivialize all magic traps, because anything proximity based, and many location based ones, will go off before the Rogue can get into range.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Magic traps may be disarmed by a character with the trapfinding class feature with a successful Disable Device skill check (DC 25 + spell level). Other characters have no chance to disarm a magic trap with a Disable Device check.

Disabling magic traps are not the only way to deal with them. Dispel Magic works pretty well vs a lot of magic traps. Considering that almost every spell caster has it on their list somebody in the group should have access to it. This is another reason why the rogue is easily replaced.

[TxSam88]

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Magic traps may be disarmed by a character with the trapfinding class feature with a successful Disable Device skill check (DC 25 + spell level). Other characters have no chance to disarm a magic trap with a Disable Device check.

Disabling magic traps are not the only way to deal with them. Dispel Magic works pretty well vs a lot of magic traps. Considering that almost every spell caster has it on their list somebody in the group should have access to it. This is another reason why the rogue is easily replaced.

we just let the high AC/HP fighter/barbarian walk into the magic trap, then heal him afterwards....

[Azothath]

OmniMage wrote:

{stuff about Traps & Class abilities}

there are several things in play here; 1)Traps as Challenges, 2)Resolving Trap challenges in Play, 3)Creating Traps in Play.

1) Traps as Challenges should come in about 8-17% of the time in play. That is not very significant. Some Melee challenges could be styled as Traps, I'd say that depends on if a skill check is made before combat that can significantly affect the outcome. That's clearly true of Haunts. So no matter what, the */gotcha/* of a sprung trap isn't that often. Still a skill like Trap Detection shouldn't make it a trivial process.

I could go on but for a general post I think I'm done.

>>> Really this discussion should go on in the Homebrew forum.

[OmniMage]

This thread has got a more replies than I thought it would. I didn't realize the Rogue was so bad.

If the unchained version didn't fix the Rogue, can anything fix it?

Edit: Maybe it should be allowed to die instead.

[Kurald Galain]

OmniMage wrote:

This thread has got a more replies than I thought it would. I didn't realize the Rogue was so bad.

Well, that's why the unchained rogue exists in the first place :P

U-Rogue is quite decent though. Not the most optimized class, but entirely workable in-game.

[Temperans]

Trapfinding much like Wild Empathy, cantrips, etc. is more of a ribbon ability that fits with the theme of the class. It also gives the class an ability that they can trade for archetypes without touching the actual important stuff. So, while in most cases it is indeed not useful, when you do need it then it becomes a life saver.

Do also note that having trapfinding gives access to the Disable Dweomer feat, which is an awesome feat in a campaign with lots of magic traps and weird magic items. While using dispel magic is general fine for spells, it only has a limited effect on magic items. Meanwhile, Disable Dweomer is able to suppress magic items with just a few rounds spent on it: The fact that you can increase Disable Device much faster than caster level also means you can deal with much higher-level magic items.

[TriOmegaZero]

I had a brief stretch of PFS characters that took Trapfinding to fill in for the often missing rogue. It was a fun experiment, but most didn't get much chance to use it.

[Mysterious Stranger]

The unchained rogue did boost the rogue considerably, but it is still not a powerful class. It brought it up from a practically useless class to something playable. Skill unlocks were supposed to be what made the unchained rogue a real skill master, but they require too many skill ranks to get the good abilities. Most of the skill unlock abilities that are really good require 15 or more point invested, with a few getting decent ones at 10. Since a lot of games don’t go that high you often never get the good stuff. Phantom Thief from Ultimate Intrigue alters that and is actually quite good.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Derklord wrote:

Not that Trapfinding really is a perfect class feature to trivialize all magic traps, because anything proximity based, and many location based ones, will go off before the Rogue can get into range.

This has to be referring to either AP's/PFS scenarios, or spell traps I'm not familiar with. Most magic traps, even those with Alarm as the Proximity trigger, follow the same basic steps:

1. Anyone approaching the trap rolls a Perception check if they're searching for the trap (even Magic Traps)
2. For magic traps, a successful Perception check detects the trap before it goes off
3. Proceed with either a saving throw (if applicable) or a Disable Device check after the Perception check is resolved

So, the basic rules for all magic traps are that you detect it before it goes off. Taken a step further, the description of the Perception check under a mechanical trap is that the PC is rolling a Perception check to initially discover the Trigger, but a high roll might also give some details as to the function of the trap.

No such verbiage is given for the magic traps, but it is called out that Perception success occurs BEFORE the trap goes off, so narratively this could function the same. Finally, Rogues or other classes can gain an ability to detect a trap w/in 10' of them w/out even actively searching. Again, since the Perception check success of this passive trapfinding would occur BEFORE the trap goes off, that means that 10' before the rogue even triggers the Proximity trigger they'd have detected that there's some kind of trap in the area.

THIS, right here, is why traps boggle me as a GM. If a PC has invested a lot in, built around, or spell buffed their Perception skill high enough and is actively searching, virtually ANY PC has the chance to know there's a trap around, regardless of the perimeter of the Proximity trigger. Even if the "trap" itself is at the center of a 60' radius Proximity trigger, if the PC rolls high enough they know there's a trap here.

Then, if the PC in question has detected the trap and has the right skills/class abilities, they have the chance to disable said trap by RAW. Now, OF COURSE the GM has final say and can decide that no, you have to get around the Proximity trigger first before disabling the trap, but that's not RAW, that's a houserule.

RAW would be that, after determining there's SOME kind of trap in the area, if you can disable it you get to try, if you choose to. Period.

So, if a wizard sets a Fireball as part of a trap and has a Clairvoyance spell detecting movement 60' away, WHO CARES b/c by RAW the Rogue can sense the trap at 10' from the Proximity trigger and could then attempt to disable it despite being 60' from the actual Fireball launcher.

... and YES, Derklord, I KNOW I linked to the SRD for the rules. Sue me.

[Derklord]

The description for the proximity trigger says "This trigger activates the trap when a creature approaches within a certain distance of it." Unless you can Disable Device from range (e.g. via the Mage Hand magic Trick), this "certain distance" to the trap is (usually) greater than the range at which you can use the DD skill.

Am I missing something?

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

... and YES, Derklord, I KNOW I linked to the SRD for the rules. Sue me.

You'll here from my lawyer in 3 to 5 business days!

My reputation precedes me! xD

[Derklord]

OmniMage wrote:

This thread has got a more replies than I thought it would. I didn't realize the Rogue was so bad.

If the unchained version didn't fix the Rogue, can anything fix it?

Unchained did a lot of good work on the Rogue, but failed to fix the fundamental issues.

The Rogue's main issues:
• It's one of just three medium BAB classes with no accuracy boost. Unchained seems to fix that with Debilitating Injury, but that only works after hitting (and triggering SA). *
• Worst possible saves for a PC class. Unchained did nothing for that, nor did it grant any means to improve saves.
• Supposed to be good at skills, but isn't so in practise. There's strong diminishign terutns to skill ranks per level, as not all skills are equally important. What's worse, Rogue lacks bonuses to skills, which makes classes that have such (e.g. Bard and Investigator) much better at skills. Unchained tried to fix this with the skill unlocks, but almost all of those suck so hard that they're a drop in the otion. For example, the 10th rank Climb skill unlock is worse than half of what a first level spell does, and it takes the 20 rank unlock to be better than a 2nd level spell.
• Combat bonuses only work when Sneak Attacking. Unchained did provide a dmaage bonus undependant of SA (dex-to-damage), but Debilitating Injury makes unRogue actually even more dependant on SA (when viewed as which percentage of class requires it).
• No in-class answer to challenges like flying/unreachable enemies, hidden/invisible enemies, swarms, etc. Unchained didn't do anything there.

UnRogue is less mad, hits more often especially when attacking the same opponent for multiple rounds, has a bit more freedom when it comes to selecting Rogue Talents, and occationally benefits from some skill unlock. It's certainly mechanically better, but it's not good, not even compared to many other martial classes.
It's riddled with internal anti-synergies, which unchained did nothing to fix: The strong damage bonus makes it somewhat predestined for TWF, but the low BAB and lack of accuracy boost work against that. The backstab flavor and overcall class theme (and low BAB) would make sense on a class geared towards making few, powerfull attacks, but with delayed access to Vital Strike, lack of synergy with it, and Sneak Attack (and the related Rogue Talents) not supporting thatmakes such a playstyle inefficient. And lastly, the class is supposed to be a "jack of all trades" and have an answer to every situation, but the need to invest a ton into fixing basic issues, and having Rogue Talents be vastly overshadowed by even other classes abilities (e.g. Rage Powers), not to mention low level spells, shuts that down hard.

Design wise, not only is a pure melee with medium BAB, no attack roll bonuses, no good defensive ability, and the worst possible saves a pure failure, but the Rogue class is completely lacking a niche.
There is nothing in the game that a Rogue is the best at (not counting convulated criteria). Many people don't even realize this, because the Rogue is full of pseudo-niches. It may be the only class (not counting Ninja) with 8 skill ranks per level, but that's not a niche. It may have previously been the only class with Sneak Attack, but that's not a niche, just a specific form of bonus damage. UnRogue may be the only class with build in dex-to-damage, but that's not a niche, just a specific form of bonus damage (and not exactly unique in a game with Slashing/Fencing/Starry Grace, and the Agile enchantment).

To quote myself: Even if a player wants to play a dex-based character without spells who's good at stealth and skills in general, can disable magic traps, and targets an enemy's vital points with their attacks and get extra d6s on damage rolls when doing so, I would still point them to other classes!

*) Interestign numerical quirk: The average attack roll of an unRogue striking a bewildered target is on average throughout levels one to twenty exactly the same as a Fighters (including Weapon Training but not feats or AWTs), always being one above or below except at 4th level. That means you basically have the same hit chance, only Rogue needs to land an attack (that qualifies for SA) first! All medium BAB classes apart from Rogue, Ninja, and Mesmerist have abilities that compensate for their lower BAB, and none of them require hitting with an unmodified attack first.

OmniMage wrote:

Edit: Maybe it should be allowed to die instead.

The thread, or the Rogue? I agree on the latter!

[TxSam88]

Derklord wrote:

*) Interestign numerical quirk: The average attack roll of an unRogue striking a bewildered target is on average throughout levels one to twenty exactly the same as a Fighters (including Weapon Training but not feats or AWTs), always being one above or below except at 4th level. That means you basically have the same hit chance, only Rogue needs to land an attack (that qualifies for SA) first! All medium BAB classes apart from Rogue, Ninja, and Mesmerist have abilities that compensate for their lower BAB, and none of them require hitting with an unmodified attack first.

See, I'll concede all the facts mentioned about Rogues except the to-hit issue (mostly cause I don't feel like arguing them right now). A Rogue that is not striking from flanking and stalth/invisible isn't being a very good rogue, these 2 things alone give a rogue +4 to hit, combined with TWF, and weapon finesse, a decently built rogue will put out similar damage as a sword and board fighter, and have an AC high enough to not be damaged too often, plus AOEs are never an issue. Now can other rogue type classes do it just as well if not better? sure, but it's not as horrible as people make it out to be.

[Mightypion]

I agree with Derklord here.

Certain dips can mak a rouge quite reasonable, but that is the dips, no the rouge.

Mutagenic Mauler (+4 Dex Mutagen), Spiritualist Exciter archetype (just have 14 wis if you also want mutagenic mauler) are reasonable dips, but they make almost anyhing reasonable, especially if you dont play with fractional progression rules.

Of course, the same dips make another martial, in many cases, really good rather then reasonable.

[Kurald Galain]

TxSam88 wrote:

A Rogue that is not striking from flanking and stalth/invisible isn't being a very good rogue, these 2 things alone give a rogue +4 to hit, combined with TWF, and weapon finesse, a decently built rogue will put out similar damage as a sword and board fighter, and have an AC high enough to not be damaged too often, plus AOEs are never an issue.

Yes, that. The catch is that full-BAB classes tend to use Power Attack a lot. A 10th-level full BAB class with PA gets +7 to hit and +9 to damage; whereas a 10th-level partial BAB rogue gets +7 to hit and +5d6 sneak attack. Neither has an accuracy problem.

I do agree that the rogue doesn't have a niche, but it does have a ton of archetypes that alleviate that; and frankly there's a number of other classes that don't have a niche either. That doesn't make the rogue amazing, but it's not as horrible as people make it out to be.

[Belafon]

Derklord wrote:

The description for the proximity trigger says "This trigger activates the trap when a creature approaches within a certain distance of it." Unless you can Disable Device from range (e.g. via the Mage Hand magic Trick), this "certain distance" to the trap is (usually) greater than the range at which you can use the DD skill.

Am I missing something?

It's debatable, particularly with magical traps. The question is whether the "trap" is the origination point of the effect or the entire area that is affected when triggered. And there's really no in-depth description of *how* you disable a magical trap. Can a rogue disable a fireball trap from the edge of the effect or does she need to go to the center?

[Temperans]

There is also the comvenient fact that a lot of people seem to forget that the game is actually a lot more forgiving then they give it credit.

There is this weird idea that unless the class deals the most damage possible its immediately useless. When in fact people who play those character constantly complain about not being able to do anything out of combat.

Here rogues are being able to do things out of combat, while still having decent in combat power, and people are complaining that its bad because "a teamwork class doesn't have an attack bonus". All while ignoring the access to flanking, feints, dirty fighting, grappling (great with sneak attack), coup de grace (great for sneak attacking), invisibility, poisons, sniping, etc.

[Temperans]

Belafon wrote:

Derklord wrote:

The description for the proximity trigger says "This trigger activates the trap when a creature approaches within a certain distance of it." Unless you can Disable Device from range (e.g. via the Mage Hand magic Trick), this "certain distance" to the trap is (usually) greater than the range at which you can use the DD skill.

Am I missing something?

It's debatable, particularly with magical traps. The question is whether the "trap" is the origination point of the effect or the entire area that is affected when triggered. And there's really no in-depth description of *how* you disable a magical trap. Can a rogue disable a fireball trap from the edge of the effect or does she need to go to the center?

This is simple really. The "trap" is a combination of: the trigger (what activates the trap), the origin area (houses the mechanism), and the area where the trigger activates (how far from the trigger you have to be before it activates).

The area affected by the trap is not necessarily part of said trap as it depends on what trap you are talking about. For example the area on top of a pit trap is not a trap, but the area the pit trap occupies is a trap.

As for how a magical trap gets disarmed not getting details. Are we really going to question how magic gets disarmed? You can literally describe that however you want it really doesn't matter: You destroy the trigger thus removing the magic, you damage the runes, you trick the magic, you touch it like you touch a wand with UMD, etc.

Finally as to how a fireball trap gets disarmed. The location depends entirely on where the trigger. If you have a trap room the origin point is likely in the middle of the room while the trigger is in the door, this ensures anyone that comes it gets hit by the fireball. If you have trap hallway the origin point and trigger are likely to be very close to make sure whoever is walking gets hit by it. The reach you need to disable a trigger depends entire on the type: A touch trigger can be disarmed without reach, but a proximity trigger requires that your reach be longer than the detection range.

[Kasoh]

Temperans wrote:

Finally as to how a fireball trap gets disarmed. The location depends entirely on where the trigger. If you have a trap room the origin point is likely in the middle of the room while the trigger is in the door, this ensures anyone that comes it gets hit by the fireball. If you have trap hallway the origin point and trigger are likely to be very close to make sure whoever is walking gets hit by it. The reach you need to disable a trigger depends entire on the type: A touch trigger can be disarmed without reach, but a proximity trigger requires that your reach be longer than the detection range.

I'm more dubious. Nothing in description of Disable Device indicates that it needs to be next to the trigger to be disabled. While you don't want players to disable traps through rooms or on different floors, if every magical trap could be immune to disabling with a proximity sensor, then A) Ranged Legerdemain would be more popular, and B) every single trap ever would be designed that way.

If there's special rules for disabling the trap, they'll be in the write up for the trap, otherwise its more likely that if you can spot the trap, you'll be in a position to disable it.

[SheepishEidolon]

OmniMage wrote:

I was going to make it a feat, one that a Rogue would get as a bonus feat, and let anyone else who wanted to do 2 and 3 to pick up the feat. However, I'm unsure if those are even worth a feat.

IMO it would be stronger than Close Call (reroll Disable Device 1/d), Sabotage Specialist (delayed breakdown of manipulated device) and Ranged Disable (Disable Device at firing range, but only simple device, with -4 penalty and rather steep requirements). So it seems to be a solid feat. It's tempting to think feats should be game changers, but usually they aren't.

Trapfinding's value depends on the campaign, naturally. A classic dungeon-heavy campaign makes it relatively attractive, while a focus on intrigue or military reduces its use. IMO that's the main reason it's possible to trade it away.

[Derklord]

Kurald Galain wrote:

Yes, that. The catch is that full-BAB classes tend to use Power Attack a lot. A 10th-level full BAB class with PA gets +7 to hit and +9 to damage; whereas a 10th-level partial BAB rogue gets +7 to hit and +5d6 sneak attack. Neither has an accuracy problem.

Which class are you talking about? A Fighter doesn't have +7, because it has Weapon Training (and possibly Greater Weapon Training, and, nowadays, Warrior Spirit). A Barbarian doesn't have +7, because it has Rage (and a +2 from pounce). Paladin (& Antipaladin) has Smite, Ranger has Favored Enemy, Slayer has Studied Target, Swashbuckler has SWT, Bloodrager has Bloodrage, Cavalier has Cavalier’s Charge and Banner (and possibly a bonus form an order), even Shifter has a +1 from Wild Shape's strength bonus. Gunslinger hits touch AC and thus has a much higher accuracy. UnMonk and Brawler (and Shifter) have a higher chance of hitting by virtue of having more attacks.

Of course, that "+9" also doesn't hold true, due to Weapon Training + Weapon Specialization, Rage, Smite, Favored Enemy, Studied Target, SWT + Precise Strike, Gun Training, Challenge, and strength bonus being multiplied by 1.5 for two-handed weapons.

So what you said is only true if you compare the Rogue to the Warrior NPC class. There's that term I used in my first post again...

Temperans wrote:

There is this weird idea that unless the class deals the most damage possible its immediately useless.

There is this weird idea that all criticism comes from obsessed theorycrafting min-maxers who only care about DPS.

You're claiming a dichotomy where there is none. For good classes, being good at damage (or otherwise at impacting combat) does not come with "not being able to do anything out of combat", or with other glaring weaknesses.

It's not about DPS. It's about being taken out by every fortitude or will save requiring spell because you're plaged with having both as weak saves with no bonuses from class. It's about not frequently missing your target with your objectively sub-standard attack roll bonus. It's about seeing others be vastly better at skills, or at overcoming challenges you (may want to) use skills for, despite you picking the class with the most skill ranks thinking it would make you the best in the party at that. It's about not being able to do anything about flying/unreachable enemies or invisible enemies (without throwing money out of the window for consumables). It's about the frustration of being the only PC in the group who requires teammates to behave differently from normal, and of beign unable to use a big part of your class whenever your teammates don't or can't do so.

Just because you can successfully play the game with a class doesn't make it not weak. Most APs are easy enough to beat with NPC classes, doesn't mean those are good or interesting to play.
Additionally, if you're playing a character notably weaker than your party members, that's really frustrating, and with the Rogue class, that happens very easily.

Temperans wrote:

All while ignoring the access to flanking, feints, dirty fighting, grappling (great with sneak attack), coup de grace (great for sneak attacking), invisibility, poisons, sniping, etc.

None of this is (adequately) supported by class features. No ability to help you move into flanking position, lack of bonus feats to pay for the feat hungry feinting, dirty fighting, or grappling, no inbuild invisibility or poison abilities. Sniping is limited in range and a single attack per round just isn't good.

Also, unchained changed nothing about what you just listed, so if those options are oh-so-useful, why was the unRogue made in the first place? If all you need to do is flank and stealth, why does Unchained outright describe the class as "underpowered"?

TxSam88 wrote:

a decently built rogue will put out similar damage as a sword and board fighter

This is like boasting "I'm as good at math as a fourth grader". In any game that isn't super low powered, a "sword and board fighter" is pathetically weak.

[Temperans]

Kasoh wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Finally as to how a fireball trap gets disarmed. The location depends entirely on where the trigger. If you have a trap room the origin point is likely in the middle of the room while the trigger is in the door, this ensures anyone that comes it gets hit by the fireball. If you have trap hallway the origin point and trigger are likely to be very close to make sure whoever is walking gets hit by it. The reach you need to disable a trigger depends entire on the type: A touch trigger can be disarmed without reach, but a proximity trigger requires that your reach be longer than the detection range.

I'm more dubious. Nothing in description of Disable Device indicates that it needs to be next to the trigger to be disabled. While you don't want players to disable traps through rooms or on different floors, if every magical trap could be immune to disabling with a proximity sensor, then A) Ranged Legerdemain would be more popular, and B) every single trap ever would be designed that way.

If there's special rules for disabling the trap, they'll be in the write up for the trap, otherwise its more likely that if you can spot the trap, you'll be in a position to disable it.

That's that point though of proximity triggers to be really hard to disarm. A great example is the very simple and basic proximity mine, which is the mechanical equivalent of a proximity fireball.

As for "it doesn't say you have to be next to the trigger". The entire point of the skill is that you have to careful disarm something without it activating; It's why if you fail by 5 or more you activate the trap. How the heck are you going to disarm a trap not only without lockpick tools, but also without using your hands? Ranged Disarm requires being 9th level and can only be done against simple uncovered traps with a -4 to your check and applying ranged penalties, while ranged legerdemain is for a specific PrC, are you really going to argue that "oh you can just disable device from anywhere you can see a trap?"

As for "if it works that way all traps would be proximity based", there are other types of ranged triggers not just proximity and in fact. There is a lot more to a trap than where it is, things like: What are you trying to protect? Where is the trap located? What is the shape of the room? What is your budget/skill level? What is your goal with the trap? Etc. If you look in fact most traps use Proximity (anyone that gets near the trigger), Sight (anyone that matches a description as seen by the trigger), and Touch (anyone that touches the trigger). Also note that adding Proximity/Visual triggers increases the CR by 1 and the craft DC by 5.

Finally, why do you hate rogues so much if you plan to make it so that anyone can disable any trap if they can just look at it? That's very much the equivalent of saying anyone can talk animals invalidating the point of Wild Empathy.

[Belafon]

Temperans wrote:

The area affected by the trap is not necessarily part of said trap as it depends on what trap you are talking about. For example the area on top of a pit trap is not a trap, but the area the pit trap occupies is a trap.

That's a really weird distinction to try to make. You can't notice that you are standing on top of an area designed to fall away (unless the trigger happens to be nearby as well)? Or are you saying that you can notice it, but you can't do anything about it?

Quote:

As for how a magical trap gets disarmed not getting details. Are we really going to question how magic gets disarmed? You can literally describe that however you want it really doesn't matter: You destroy the trigger thus removing the magic, you damage the runes, you trick the magic, you touch it like you touch a wand with UMD, etc.

It's not a question of the method by which it gets disarmed, but rather where it gets disarmed. See below.

Quote:

Finally as to how a fireball trap gets disarmed. The location depends entirely on where the trigger. If you have a trap room the origin point is likely in the middle of the room while the trigger is in the door, this ensures anyone that comes it gets hit by the fireball. If you have trap hallway the origin point and trigger are likely to be very close to make sure whoever is walking gets hit by it. The reach you need to disable a trigger depends entire on the type: A touch trigger can be disarmed without reach, but a proximity trigger requires that your reach be longer than the detection range.

Let's take the Fireball Trap in the Core Rulebook. It affects a 20'r area, and has a proximity (alarm) trigger that covers that same 20'r area. But there's literally nothing there. Not in any of those squares. No runes, no guiding mechanism, no focus, nothing. But a rogue can disable it. Again, the method isn't important. What's important is asking "Should the rogue have to be adjacent to the center in order to disable the spell? Why? What's special about the center? If she's standing just outside the blast area she's adjacent to both the effect and the trigger, so why can't she disable there?"

Please note that I said "it's debatable" above. I personally think it makes a lot more sense that you can disarm that fireball anywhere, which means proximity triggers aren't automatic gotcha!s. But if another GM wants to rule the other way, I can't categorically say he is wrong.

[Temperans]

Derklord wrote:

Kurald Galain wrote:

Yes, that. The catch is that full-BAB classes tend to use Power Attack a lot. A 10th-level full BAB class with PA gets +7 to hit and +9 to damage; whereas a 10th-level partial BAB rogue gets +7 to hit and +5d6 sneak attack. Neither has an accuracy problem.

Which class are you talking about? A Fighter doesn't have +7, because it has Weapon Training (and possibly Greater Weapon Training, and, nowadays, Warrior Spirit). A Barbarian doesn't have +7, because it has Rage (and a +2 from pounce). Paladin (& Antipaladin) has Smite, Ranger has Favored Enemy, Slayer has Studied Target, Swashbuckler has SWT, Bloodrager has Bloodrage, Cavalier has Cavalier’s Charge and Banner (and possibly a bonus form an order), even Shifter has a +1 from Wild Shape's strength bonus. Gunslinger hits touch AC and thus has a much higher accuracy. UnMonk and Brawler (and Shifter) have a higher chance of hitting by virtue of having more attacks.

Of course, that "+9" also doesn't hold true, due to Weapon Training + Weapon Specialization, Rage, Smite, Favored Enemy, Studied Target, SWT + Precise Strike, Gun Training, Challenge, and strength bonus being multiplied by 1.5 for two-handed weapons.

So what you said is only true if you compare the Rogue to the Warrior NPC class. There's that term I used in my first post again...

Temperans wrote:

There is this weird idea that unless the class deals the most damage possible its immediately useless.

There is this weird idea that all criticism comes from obsessed theorycrafting min-maxers who only care about DPS.

You're claiming a dichotomy where there is none. For good classes, being good at damage (or otherwise at impacting combat) does not come with "not being able to do anything out of combat", or with other glaring weaknesses.

It's not about DPS. It's about being taken out by every fortitude or will save requiring spell because you're plaged with...

You are ignoring all the rogue talents that are in fact worth at least a feat, some are worth more. Rogue has access to quite a lot of "you get X feat without meeting pre-reqs" talents. Sniping is a much strong vital strike that stacks with vital strike, and they have plenty of ways to increase the range to well beyond what's needed for most encounters. They are a teamwork class because when they are one of the best at taking advantage of teamwork feats. Yeah others can also get those feats but Rogue gets the most benefit from them.

You imply that rogues are bad because they rely on other players, but I see that as a good thing because it means that everyone is involved and cooperating.

Similarly, you claim that there is no dichotomy while you immediately respond with "a good class must be good at everything and have no 'glaring' weakeness". Which is straight up not the case. Fighter have the best combat and the most combat feat, and the worst skills. Paladins have great combat and healing, and the worst skills. Ranger is close to the Rogue, but instead of going for more dice they went for flat bonuses. Chained Monk a 3/4 BAB is often called flurry of misses as people tend to go Flurry (built in TWF) + Power Attack for some reason. Etc.

The matter of saves is nonsensical given how most classes only have 1 good save with nearly all martial classes having a poor Reflex and Will save. So you cannot possibly blame Rogues who are tied with Monks for the best Reflex saves. So by your standard of "having bad will saves is bad" all martials are bad classes? Fort save is a whole different issue because the biggest problems there are poisons and diseases, where having a high save doesn't do much more than delay the issue (unless you are a Monk or Paladin).

So yeah people focus too much on the "oh they are a 3/4 class with no attack roll booster, while ignoring they are the best abusers of simple things like Greater Invisibility (which you can buy a wand of).

[Temperans]

Belafon wrote:

Temperans wrote:

The area affected by the trap is not necessarily part of said trap as it depends on what trap you are talking about. For example the area on top of a pit trap is not a trap, but the area the pit trap occupies is a trap.

That's a really weird distinction to try to make. You can't notice that you are standing on top of an area designed to fall away (unless the trigger happens to be nearby as well)? Or are you saying that you can notice it, but you can't do anything about it?

Quote:

As for how a magical trap gets disarmed not getting details. Are we really going to question how magic gets disarmed? You can literally describe that however you want it really doesn't matter: You destroy the trigger thus removing the magic, you damage the runes, you trick the magic, you touch it like you touch a wand with UMD, etc.

It's not a question of the method by which it gets disarmed, but rather where it gets disarmed. See below.

Quote:

Finally as to how a fireball trap gets disarmed. The location depends entirely on where the trigger. If you have a trap room the origin point is likely in the middle of the room while the trigger is in the door, this ensures anyone that comes it gets hit by the fireball. If you have trap hallway the origin point and trigger are likely to be very close to make sure whoever is walking gets hit by it. The reach you need to disable a trigger depends entire on the type: A touch trigger can be disarmed without reach, but a proximity trigger requires that your reach be longer than the detection range.

Let's take the Fireball Trap in the Core Rulebook. It affects a 20'r area, and has a proximity (alarm) trigger that covers that same 20'r area. But there's literally nothing there. Not in any of those squares. No runes, no guiding mechanism, no focus, nothing. But a rogue can disable it. Again, the method isn't important. What's important is asking "Should the...

Well using the pit example, the trigger for the pit is usually "there is some weight on the cover" meaning location. The air above the pit is not part of the trap nor is the area around it, but the door/cover that acts as a trigger is (Notice covered pits have special rules to detect them).

As for the "where it gets disarmed" I stand by the statement that when you are disarming a trap you need to have access to the trigger, otherwise there would be no way to set off the trap when you fail. Also it stands to reason that unless the trigger is visual you would have to be within the trap effect area.

As for the trap entry in the books. I personally always assumed that they only gave the bare minimum to run the trap to save space and the specific of any specific trap is upto the GM and scenario writter. One GM may have it so that the trap is a line of runes circling the entirety of the area in which case yeah a Rogue could disable it without being inside. Another might make it half the radius to make sure as many people as possible are inside. In any case the trap would go off if you get too close and you would get a check to notice before it goes off.

******************

Btw remember that magical proximity traps are based on the Alarm spells. So the "trigger" would be crossing the threshold without speaking the password. Disarming the trap would thus be making the Alarm spell stop functioning, or alternately if a Rogue's Disable Device beats the DC by 10 or more they just learn the password.

Mechanical proximity traps are scary given how sensity they are.

[Kasoh]

Temperans wrote:

That's that point though of proximity triggers to be really hard to disarm. A great example is the very simple and basic proximity mine, which is the mechanical equivalent of a proximity fireball.

As for "it doesn't say you have to be next to the trigger". The entire point of the skill is that you have to careful disarm something without it activating; It's why if you fail by 5 or more you activate the trap. How the heck are you going to disarm a trap not only without lockpick tools, but also without using your hands? Ranged Disarm requires being 9th level and can only be done against simple uncovered traps with a -4 to your check and applying ranged penalties, while ranged legerdemain is for a specific PrC, are you really going to argue that "oh you can just disable device from...

The point of a proximity trigger to is to go off when something enters its proximity.

The skill entry doesn't say how you do it. I don't care how they do it. They roll a dice, take appropriate bonuses or penalties for equipment and succeed or fail. The most I'd require a PC to be is adjacent to the proximity field, but even then I don't care overly much. Maybe they disable the trap by bouncing light off a mirror onto magical dust that fizzles alarm spells. I don't know. I don't care. I don't want to make that up myself or rely on the Disable Device character to have a thousand handy descriptions of trap disabling for the twelve traps in a dungeon. Just roll the dice and move on.

[TxSam88]

Kasoh wrote:

Just roll the dice and move on.

Way too many DMs forget this. Any and All challenges in Pathfinder should be solvable by a dice roll. We don't make players lift weights to show how well they can bend bars, by the same token we shouldn't make players solve puzzles that their character is solving, we do it with dice.

Traps are the same way. no need to intricately describe how a trap works or what it takes to disarm it. Roll Disable Device vs the DC of the trap and move on.

[TOZ]

When do you roll?

[Temperans]

Wether to roll or not was never in question. It was all about where you can roll it.

Without a special ability that lets you do it at range you have to do it with your melee reach.

[TxSam88]

Temperans wrote:

Wether to roll or not was never in question. It was all about where you can roll it.

Without a special ability that lets you do it at range you have to do it with your melee reach.

no arguments there, just that the roll is before the trap is triggered.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Why does the description for traps describe that a successful Perception check both allows you to note the trap... specifically called out here as a "trap", before it goes off, and also that the PC first spots the TRIGGER, and then with a roll that beats the DC by 5 or more they get hints as to what the trap does? Its because the Perception check tells the PC there's a trap here.

If the Proximity trigger is, say, an Alarm spell, that's a 20' radius. That could mean that 20' away there's a trap waiting to go off, but yet by RAW if someone is diligently searching they could hit the DC, even with a -2 penalty b/c of distance from the trap, and know there's a trap here.

My question in this case would be: if you KNOW that the PCs have no way of disarming the trap at range, why did you bother letting them roll the Perception check?

Now, some folks in this thread so far would say "well, they can try to bypass the trap or set it off with a summoned creature or something" but this gets to the point of realism in your setting. Only, if we're all about realism... how did they detect that this is a "trap with a Proximity trigger?"

Think about it: if we're talking realism, the PC is not using any magic or item that detects magic, and the Proximity trigger is an Alarm spell, how could the PC have perceived it? If an arcane caster had just put an Alarm spell, not connected to a trap, in the area, would you allow the PC to detect THAT with a Perception check? No, b/c the Alarm spell is meant to create an invisible field, undetectable to normal senses, in order to ward a space, so there's no justification by "realism" that the PC would detect it any better when it's bound to a trap.

So by putting in a Proximity trigger using a spell like Alarm or Clairvoyance, but not following the same rules as you would w/those spells, what you're essentially doing is creating an obstacle the PCs HAVE to suffer some form of tax or resource loss from, period. And more than that, you're not following realism with the Perception check, but demanding realism from the Disable Device check, leading to a contradiction solely for the purpose of enforcing that tax.

In other words... why'd you put that trap there in the first place? Why not just announce to the players: passing through this spot on the map will cost you either a Ref save or x damage, or else spend a summon spell and move on" like its a game of Candyland or something.

If I'm going to allow a non-spell-using rogue with no magic items that detect magic to put themselves adjacent to an invisible, intangible field of radiant energy that makes no sound, doesn't disturb the area in any way and is by all other accounts completely undetectable, and I'm going to allow said rogue to roll a Perception check with the possibility that they don't detect the TRAP, but rather that undetectable energy field... then they can roll and potentially disable the trap from there.

[Temperans]

1) Proximity triggers cannot be bigger than the area the trap effects. So a 10ftx10-ft wide magic trap with alarm as trigger will have the proximity trigger be in those 10ftx10ft.

2) We are talking about traps not just random magic. Traps are defacto magic items and involve some way to attach the magic to the area permanently (see all the "rune/sigil of" spells). You will not

3) The alarm spell works pretty much like a trap and I would personally rule it as a trap when ever relevant. That means that players approaching an alarm spell would get a check to spot ot before they trigger it and if they have a way to disarm it they can try.

4) Nothing says that the alarm spell is invisible. In fact the closest thing it says is that its "subtle", which means it could be noticed.

5) The perception check to notice a trap first tells you "hey this is weird its clearly a trap". Beating the DC by 5 or more then tells you "oh this holes clearly mean the trap does something like X". Going back to point 1, unless you are actively searching you only notice a trap before you trigger it, not when you enter the affected area.

6) The trap rules are more specific than the general rule for those spells.

7) Just telling players "well you just suffer" with no reason is one of the best way to make them angry at you. Making a trap it shows that if they had the skills they could had dealt with it, and incentivizes them to diversify. Also not all traps are triggered by summoned creatures.

8) Just because you can detect a trap does not mean you have the tools to disable it. The entire point of proximity, sound, and vision traps is that they are harder to disarm if you don't have the right tools. Making it so you can just disarm them from were ever quite literally trivializes those traps.

9) A shown by things like appraise and UMD, you do not need detect magic to determine something is magical. So your "if I am going to let a rogue without detect magic" doesn't make any sense because they never needed detect magic because they have Trapfinding.

[Senko]

I find myself reminded of Baldurs gate most traps when you spot them trigger a red "area" if your enter it you trigger the trap, if you stand next to it you can disarm it. However there was one trap in a maze that can't be disarmed and if you step on it you die. No save, no x damage you just get crushed between the ceiling and the floor. All you can do is spot it and go another way so personally I can see some traps being impossible to disarm without a specific password or action e.g. press 3 bricks up and 2 across because to get to the trigger sets off the trigger Explosive runes.

[Dragonchess Player]

To expand a bit on Senko's post, the GM should be clear on the difference between a trap and a hazard. Both can be detected, but a hazard can't be disarmed.

An example hazard is a floor made of cracked/rotted/thin/weak stone/wood/etc. that breaks when anyone over a certain weight tries to walk on it. The effect is similar to a pit trap, but there is no mechanical way to "disarm" it so it is a hazard and not a trap. Hazards must be avoided.

[Mark Hoover 330]

DM Blake makes a good point about Visual triggers that I'd like to hearken back to. If a GM is running a spy type game, and the PC wants to defeat a camera (visual trigger), they'd just do it right? The player wouldn't have to DESCRIBE how they do it, they'd just make a roll and do it.

In Temperans post above, #8 says just b/c you detect a trap doesn't mean you can disable it; you don't have the right tools. Why? Where in the descriptions of the triggers does it say you can't make the Disable Device check if you aren't adjacent to wherever the trap's effect comes from?

A sound trigger might be beaten by a Stealth check, but also maybe by using a tuning fork of the right frequency to shut it down; the visual trigger in DM Blake's example speaks for itself. If you have a crossbow in a wall 20' away and a Location trigger of a pressure plate in the floor, you don't bypass the plate and disable the crossbow, you jam the plate.

In all these instances, you're using Disable Device to nix the TRIGGER, not the trap. Why is it any different with a Proximity trigger? Maybe the PC uses an aerosol spray, or a special dust over the whole area; perhaps a mirror array to disrupt the arcane signal. Who cares; it's all just a Disable Device check.

Or else, are you telling your players, up front, that there are specific types of traps... not unique, GM-created traps, but anything with a Proximity trigger... that their PCs CANNOT disable without being adjacent to the trap mechanism, not the trigger? Because, with every other type of trigger, you can disable the trap in SOME way by being adjacent to the trigger but apparently, with Proximity ones you are FORCED to enter the area warded in order to disable these traps.

[Temperans]

1) You physically cannot use disable device with ranged weapons unless you have a specific feat. With that feat being very limited and only working on the most basic triggers.

2) All hazards (and traps are a kind of hazard) can by bypass with creativity. Traps having a specific trigger just means that a player can disable it if they have access to the trigger.

3) When I said you don't have the right tools I quite literally mean having the right feats and abilities to use the skill at range. There is more than enough proof that you cannot disable at range without those abilities or GM rule of cool kicking in.

4) A player doesn't have to describe how they do anything in game, but that does not make it so you can ignore how things work. Maybe your GM might allow you to do that, but that is not how the game works.

5) Visual and Sound triggers are literally the same as Proximity triggers but with special rules. Visual triggers have a longer range than proximity, but are easier to bypass (assuming it doesn't have true sight/darkvision/see invisibility). Sound triggers activate with any sounds. So your very examples of "stealth around a camera" and "use a tuning fork to disable" straight up don't work.

6) You always have to be adjacent to the trigger unless you have someway to do it from range, it doesn't matter what the trigger is. Proximity, Visual, and Sound triggers all make it so you need range to reach the trigger in the first place.

7) The game has many worse ways to make it so that a player cannot disable the trap besides needing range. Decoy triggers, covered triggers, inivisibility on items, multiple traps, using constructs to activate hidden traps, construct traps, camouflaged traps, etc.

8) We are in a thread where people are saying trapfinding isn't good, the book makes it pretty clear that traps are a pain to deal with if you don't have a rogue or someone that can deal with them. But here people are saying that traps should be even more trivial than people already think they are.

9) Magical proximity traps are the easiest to explain away as the "trigger" is a clearly defined area unlike Visual or Sound traps. Specially given you can count the entire trigger area as the trigger itself due to how the alarm spell works.

10) The hardest trigger to disable is also the easiest to bypass, that being the mechanical proximity trap. The reason being that they are motion sensors and so even throwing a pebble would set it off.