|
Perhaps to solidify the Ranger's "schtick" for tracking, maybe it should be limited like the Rogues ability to find traps...
Gods, no....
Needing to have a rogue if you're going to have traps and needing to have a Ranger if you're going to have tracking are both bad.
The thing about tracking is it lets me as a DM provide a way to tell the story to the PCs. Not having a Ranger in the party, I either have to not use it, give it away, or encourage the barbarian to take it.
I like the third choice.
The same is true for Trapfinding. If the rogue is the only one who can hope to find a trap, but I'm running a party of three and no one wants to be the rogue, someone 'dips' to qualify for the ability and advances in whatever class they normally want.
Let's get rid of nonsensical motivations for class dipping. Let's make it an investment of some significance for a wizard to be able to do the trapfinding thing (or a ranger for that matter), but let's make it possible.
Because if we don't, we're stuck with the same 'limited options' and the same 'cookie cutter parties'.
Having even a small handful of different classes that can cover the essential tasks in some way is good. Thus, not having a cleric but having a druid and a bard is fun (limited healing).
|
|
Perhaps to solidify the Ranger's "schtick" for tracking, maybe it should be limited like the Rogues ability to find traps...Gods, no....
Needing to have a rogue if you're going to have traps and needing to have a Ranger if you're going to have tracking are both bad.
The thing about tracking is it lets me as a DM provide a way to tell the story to the PCs. Not having a Ranger in the party, I either have to not use it, give it away, or encourage the barbarian to take it.
I like the third choice.
The same is true for Trapfinding. If the rogue is the only one who can hope to find a trap, but I'm running a party of three and no one wants to be the rogue, someone 'dips' to qualify for the ability and advances in whatever class they normally want.
I don't think trapfinding needs to be a feat system, but I do think it needs to be available to more than one class. When you take something that crucial and restrict it to just one class, you're really limiting the options of your players.
Incidentally, I'd like to see some more combat styles for the ranger beyond just TWF and archery...
|
|
Honestly, I think that trapfinding should either get ditched, or turned into a feat that rogues get as a bonus feat at first level. I've tried both in my games, and the one that worked the best was ditching trapfinding; you'd be surprised how few non-rogues have enough Search to make looking for traps worthwhile. XD
Jeremy Puckett
I don't know, I like trapfinding as an ability, but I agree that it should be limited to a few classes that should have it, but I can't argue against the ranger getting it, because that does make sense to me. But the only classes I can really see having it are the ranger and the rogue.
Although I did kind of like my "for classes without trapfinding, treat all traps with a DC of 20 or higher as having a DC of +10," instead of saying that finding those traps are impossible.
|
|
I don't know, I like trapfinding as an ability, but I agree that it should be limited to a few classes that should have it, but I can't argue against the ranger getting it, because that does make sense to me. But the only classes I can really see having it are the ranger and the rogue.
Although I did kind of like my "for classes without trapfinding, treat all traps with a DC of 20 or higher as having a DC of +10," instead of saying that finding those traps are impossible.
I think you could make a good case for the bard, too, but it should definitely stop there.
|
I think you could make a good case for the bard, too, but it should definitely stop there.I don't know, I like trapfinding as an ability, but I agree that it should be limited to a few classes that should have it, but I can't argue against the ranger getting it, because that does make sense to me. But the only classes I can really see having it are the ranger and the rogue.
Although I did kind of like my "for classes without trapfinding, treat all traps with a DC of 20 or higher as having a DC of +10," instead of saying that finding those traps are impossible.
Trapfinding should be rolled into Perception.
I feel Rangers should get a bonus to Trapfinding in their favored terrain. I feel Rogues should get a flat bonus to trapfinding.I like the changes to Tracking.
With Monte on board I'd like to see one of his variants given to the ranger: If the ranger has an animal companion, it shares the ranger's favored enemy bonuses (and, by extrapolation, his favored terrain bonuses).
I'd really like to see trapfinding given to rangers, maybe their not as good at it as rogues, or give rogues a flat bonus with their version of it, but give the option to rangers, and maybe bards aswell, to promote diversity.
I think trapfinding should work like track does now. It shouldn't give the ability to do it, just make the ability which is available to everyone better for the Rogues.
I'd really like to see trapfinding given to rangers, maybe their not as good at it as rogues, or give rogues a flat bonus with their version of it, but give the option to rangers, and maybe bards aswell, to promote diversity.
Wow! Jason's so awesome that even his cut and paste errors are good ideas!
:)
I think trapfinding should work like track does now. It shouldn't give the ability to do it, just make the ability which is available to everyone better for the Rogues.
At the very least it would make sense for the ranger to be able to find traps in their favored terrain.
|
|
I personally agree that Rangers and Bards should get trapfinding. I 100% agree that its broken that only 1 class in the game is irreplaceable. Sure, give the rogues a bonus or something. I don't mean to step on the rogues toes, but as has been said, if every other role in the party can be swapped out between a few classes, even if there is a "best" option, then the trapfinding role should be the same way. Let rogues be the best at trapfinding, thats fine, but let at least a couple other people do it. And i would say Ranger and Bards are the two that would make sense.
I, too, am in favour of taking trapfinding into a dark ally and getting rid of it.
Make it part of perception. Everyone should be able to notice traps. Just like everyone can track now. And just like with track and the ranger, rogues should get some extra for trapfinding. Maybe an autoroll just like elves and secret doors*, or just a simple bonus on finding traps. +5 or something
*In case you think it's a nuisance: It can be handled quite easily:
Trapfinding: Rogues have a sixth sense for traps. Whenever a trap is about to be triggered while a rouge is near, he gets a reflexive perception check (called by the DM before announcing the trap). If the check is succesful, the rogue can warn his party (or, if you want to be a bit more gritty, let them make initiative checks).
I really like the idea of giving rangers Trapfinding with respect to a favored terrain. It's very thematic; forest rangers know to watch out for snares and deadfalls, urban rangers (batman!) know to watch out for strings strung across doorways triggering nastiness, etc.
You know, in Arcana Evolved Monte made it so any character with the right skills could detect and disarm traps. It doesn't seem to have broken the game one bit.
However, giving rogues a special flair for trap finding and disarming would be very appropriate.
Giving rangers and bards trapfinding would be excellent.
Ultimately, however, this variant is only a houserule away.
|
|
I'd really like to see trapfinding given to rangers, maybe their not as good at it as rogues, or give rogues a flat bonus with their version of it, but give the option to rangers, and maybe bards aswell, to promote diversity.Wow! Jason's so awesome that even his cut and paste errors are good ideas!
:)
No kidding. It's scary how good that guy is.
|
|
A lot of you guys are talking about trapfinding and I've found the change I have made to it seems to work pretty well in my campaign. Basically what I've done is allow anyone to search for any trap, but to allow to rogue to keep his skill at it obvious, I give him an automatic search for any trap that he passes within 5 feet of, sort of like elves with secret doors.
I figure that the rogue is just that much more aware of traps then the rest of the party, so even when he's not scouring a hallway he is at least walking with some caution about what could be ahead. This also has the added bonus on cutting down of unneeded dice rolls(I search the hallway. Nothing. Ok, then I search the door...)
-Tarlane
I really like the idea of giving rangers Trapfinding with respect to a favored terrain. It's very thematic; forest rangers know to watch out for snares and deadfalls, urban rangers (batman!) know to watch out for strings strung across doorways triggering nastiness, etc.
Exactly. Its very fitting IMO. ("Hold up lads. Something in this clearing doesn't seem right").
|
|
With Monte on board I'd like to see one of his variants given to the ranger: If the ranger has an animal companion, it shares the ranger's favored enemy bonuses (and, by extrapolation, his favored terrain bonuses).
I'm going to jump in on this; instead of writing a bunch of posts to all the various good stuff here - I'm just going to consolidate my opinions in one post.
First off, Guru - ABOSLUTELY! That is fantastic idea!
Wow! Jason's so awesome that even his cut and paste errors are good ideas!:)
That is hilarious! I was thinking the same thing - that he made a good suggestion by accident.... But I thought the addition of trapfinding to a ranger was a good move - gave it a some cross-over ability from the Scout class.
I like trapfinding as an ability, but I agree that it should be limited to a few classes that should have it, but I can't argue against the ranger getting it, because that does make sense to me. But the only classes I can really see having it are the ranger and the rogue.
I think the Ranger, Bard and Rogue should get Trapfinding. I'm not against the notion of a feat that could allow these non-trapfinding classes to be able to locate them as well (much like Track used to be a feat in 3.5 that Rangers got for free) in congruent with what DeadDMWalking said.
The other good idea was the notion that Rogues get the ability to "spot" them like secret doors being spotted by Elfdar.
I'd really like to see trapfinding given to rangers, maybe their not as good at it as rogues, or give rogues a flat bonus with their version of it, but give the option to rangers, and maybe bards aswell, to promote diversity.
There is already one built-in prop to the rogue for traps - in that they're the only class that has the ability to DISARM them as a class skill - so the Ranger and Bard could potentially find them - and thus diminish the mandatory presence of a rogue to find them, but the rogue has a better chance of disabling and thus is still a good benefit for being around.
I, too, am in favour of taking trapfinding into a dark ally and getting rid of it.
Trapfinding: Rogues have a sixth sense for traps. Whenever a trap is about to be triggered while a rouge is near, he gets a reflexive perception check (called by the DM before announcing the trap). If the check is succesful, the rogue can warn his party (or, if you want to be a bit more gritty, let them make initiative checks).
I am not opposed to this either. In my homebrew games, i have a house rule that I was inspired by the way traps are located in DDO.
I allow rogues the ability to "spot" the danger of a potential trap when within 10 ft. They then need to make a Search to actually find it and find a way to disarm it.
I use the same mechanics of movement speed vs Move Silent Skill to modify the "spot" check of the danger. (-5 during full move -20 during double move). Thus when a rogue and party really want to take their time and be sure not to fall prey to a trap they are moving slower - thus spell durations in effect are brought in to the equation. Sometimes players with shorter spell durations in effect may not want to move slowly to still have the benefit of the spell when they have their next encounter.
That all being said - I think that the ability to "spot" this type of danger of a trap would make a GREAT rogue ability that he/she can take to still set her apart from other trapfinding classes.
Either way - trapfinding for other classes to increase diversity in a party is a great idea. And as I said - so long as the rogue is the only class with Disable as a class skill - he's still got an edge, and being able to learn to spot traps without actually having to "search" every square of a hallway etc is a way to still keep love for the rogues in play.
Robert
|
|
Actually, Artificers have Disable Device, not OGL of course, but does set precedence that other classes can have Disable Device.
Rangers, should have the whole deal in their favored terrain. Disable Device, Trapsense and Trapfinding. This represents their familiarity with their chosen terrain. A dwarven ranger with favored mountain would know when to detect a boulder set to fall. Same as a forest oriented ranger would know to sense a snare.
Actually, Artificers have Disable Device, not OGL of course, but does set precedence that other classes can have Disable Device.
I think the biggest deal is trapfinding, not Disable Device. You can always get that as cross-class skill (and in Pathfinder, be quite good at it, too), but you need trapfinding to actually find traps with a spot DC of over 20.
Glad the woodland stride is still in; can we please, pretty please with sugar on top, give him trackless step as well?
It should also be noted that this particular ranger does not have spells due to his low Wisdom... poor guy.
As no one else seems to have said it;
Thank goodness it looks like rangers will still get their spells!
;P
Peace,
tfad
It should also be noted that this particular ranger does not have spells due to his low Wisdom... poor guy.As no one else seems to have said it;
Thank goodness it looks like rangers will still get their spells!
;P
Peace,
tfad
I agree, and without the ";P"
PF should only add things, not take away. Things like the bondage thing for wizards where they can trade their familiar for some magic bling is okay, since you can leave old NPCs as they are.
Speaking of which: I wouldn't mind an official option of trading ranger spells (and paladin spells, too) for something else, much like all the stuff from PF.
Speaking of which: I wouldn't mind an official option of trading ranger spells (and paladin spells, too) for something else, much like all the stuff from PF.
That'd be cool. It'd have to be a pretty awesome option to tear me away from the spells though. Do you have anything in mind? I can't think of anything suitably ranger-y....
tfad
Speaking of which: I wouldn't mind an official option of trading ranger spells (and paladin spells, too) for something else, much like all the stuff from PF.That'd be cool. It'd have to be a pretty awesome option to tear me away from the spells though. Do you have anything in mind? I can't think of anything suitably ranger-y....
tfad
Roundhouse kicks.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Rokugan d20, where rangers don't do magic, they got feats instead. Could work. Or some more druidic goodness, like trackless step, resist nature's lure, more powerful animal companions, maybe even a bit of wildshape.
Some Stuff
Roundhouse kick? Nah, but I'd trade spells for a Shatner-kick any day! ;)
I've never felt the strong pull that a lot of players apparently have, to give the ranger trackless step. You can use the Wilderness Lore/Survival skill to cover your tracks if necessary, and it's a very 'druidy' thing to have the ground refuse your tracks for you.
The modern 'classic' example is always the LotR movies, with Letgomyass or whatever he's called walking on top of the snow. I feel like that's an 'Elvy' thing, not a 'rangery' thing and cannot imagine Aragorn doing it.
Feats, a la the fighter, in place of spells would be a very welcome and no doubt very popular option.
Peace,
tfad
In one of the supplemental books (complete champion?) they have some very nice substitutes for the Ranger class. One being remove spellcasting and gain a feat at 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th from a list of ranger feats. I may have the specifics off.
But I did play one that way and took the loner flaw (never gain an animal companion) and the Item Familiar feat from Unearthed Arcana to get an Inherited Sword.
There are a lot of Ranger variant Ideas that are 3.5 compatible if not OGL. Though I can understand the desire to have things spelled out "in core rules".
Brian
Roundhouse kick? Nah, but I'd trade spells for a Shatner-kick any day! ;)
Shatner's no ranger, though.
Shatner's no ranger, though.
But he is a shaman...
Part of the problem is in the definition of "Trap".
From a pure rules point of view; Mechanical Traps, Tomb Protections, Ruins, Wards, Hazards and Haunts are all "Traps" as they use the same game mechanics. But even the basic mechanical traps can run the gambit of a little needle in a lock to Grimmtooth's huge room traps.
I would have no problem with a Ranger having a Hazard Sense, a Wizard being able to Sense Wards or a Cleric detecting a Haunt, so maybe these classes need a limited version of Trapfinding as either a cass feature or as a feat.
They would need to be tied to a skill they are good at, maybe Survial for Rangers, Spellcraft for Wizards and Religion for Clerics.
Knowledge (Religion) or Spellcraft won't help you if you don't notice anything, so perception still makes sense.
Spellcraft to spot Magical Wards, Religion to spot a Haunt, in fact considering that a Haunt makes you "see things", a high Perception might be a hinderance.
|
|
Part of the problem is in the definition of "Trap".
From a pure rules point of view; Mechanical Traps, Tomb Protections, Ruins, Wards, Hazards and Haunts are all "Traps" as they use the same game mechanics. But even the basic mechanical traps can run the gambit of a little needle in a lock to Grimmtooth's huge room traps.
I would have no problem with a Ranger having a Hazard Sense, a Wizard being able to Sense Wards or a Cleric detecting a Haunt, so maybe these classes need a limited version of Trapfinding as either a cass feature or as a feat.
They would need to be tied to a skill they are good at, maybe Survial for Rangers, Spellcraft for Wizards and Religion for Clerics.
For flavor I kinda like this:
Can you give an example of each of these classifications?
As for a "Haunt" I'm not sure what kind of trap a haunt is.....?
Robert
You haven't been reading your Pathfinder books?
In Pathfinder 2, the PCs enter a "Haunted House" and the Haunts are treated like traps, they have a CR and you can gain XP for beating them. One for example is a Burning Haunt, the person triggering it smells smoke the first time, but the second time an object in the room seems to burst into flame and the flames surge to the person being haunted. Only the person being haunted senses this and if they do not resist the effects, they will suffer real burns. A Haunt can be Turned by a cleric or paladin.
For mechanical traps, see Fantasy Flights Traps & Treachery, it is one of the best guides for making traps. And Grimtooth's Guide from Necromancer has some of the most elaborate death traps ever.
Tomb traps are like those Indiana Jones deal with. They are big they often have a combination of different trap elements; Magic, Mechanical and Haunt.
Ruins Trap are basically a wall about to fall down. They ususally cannot be "reset" and sometimes will destroy what you are trying to reach if they are "set off".
Hazzard traps are natural hazzards; quicksand, mudslide, hornet's nest, sinkhole and even weather can be a Hazzard trap if you don't see it coming or as the after effects; flash flood, weakened tree or flash fire.
Ward Traps are Glyphs, Symbols and and spell set to trigger with a contingency. They can be keyed to an object or word to allow passage and may be a charged effect so they can reset.
|
|
You haven't been reading your Pathfinder books?
In Pathfinder 2, the PCs enter a "Haunted House" and the Haunts are treated like traps, they have a CR and you can gain XP for beating them. One for example is a Burning Haunt, the person triggering it smells smoke the first time, but the second time an object in the room seems to burst into flame and the flames surge to the person being haunted. Only the person being haunted senses this and if they do not resist the effects, they will suffer real burns. A Haunt can be Turned by a cleric or paladin.
For mechanical traps, see Fantasy Flights Traps & Treachery, it is one of the best guides for making traps. And Grimtooth's Guide from Necromancer has some of the most elaborate death traps ever.
Tomb traps are like those Indiana Jones deal with. They are big they often have a combination of different trap elements; Magic, Mechanical and Haunt.
Ruins Trap are basically a wall about to fall down. They ususally cannot be "reset" and sometimes will destroy what you are trying to reach if they are "set off".
Hazzard traps are natural hazzards; quicksand, mudslide, hornet's nest, sinkhole and even weather can be a Hazzard trap if you don't see it coming or as the after effects; flash flood, weakened tree or flash fire.
Ward Traps are Glyphs, Symbols and and spell set to trigger with a contingency. They can be keyed to an object or word to allow passage and may be a charged effect so they can reset.
No i have not been reading my pathfinder books. I am in the middle of running Shackled City - to avoid getting distracted i have not read them - plus there is another DM in our midst that was considering running it so I didnt' read them - until such time that we decide as a group what the next project will be - I'm half-way done running SCAP - and it looks like I'll be running Savage Tide next. A third DM in our midst is starting a CotCT campaign less than two weeks - so I'm not reading those either.
That all being said - the Haunts sound REALLY cool.
After reading your definition I'm not so sure I think the breakdown of all of these is such a pragmatic notion - it certainly sounds interesting and has lots of flavor - but not really sure if it makes a good translation to game mechanics as you describe. How often does a group find "haunts" i mean (unless your running a campaign with a lot of haunted houses). As for Hazards - survival already has a built in method for avoiding natural hazards. Ruins dont sound like real traps at all - just a victim of chance. Tombs and Mechanical are pretty close to being similar for distinction.
So I dont know. I wont say I disagree with you nor will I say it's a bad idea - I think it has merit - just not sure if its pragmatic enough to do it.
I do think that everyone should be able to find traps, and the rogue "trapfinding" ability allows instead for the Secret Door Elfar trick just by moving near them....
Robert
Yeah, haunts rock. They can make you do all sorts of things, including turning on your friends or yourself.
I like how they came up with this concept as a matter of course.
I was not aware of the sneak peek but downloaded the newest version of the alpha that had rangers in it. And I must say: Wow! I was like a little kid opening up a birthday present and getting a brand new and improved toy. This is an improvement over the 3.5 Ranger and a step in the right direction. If I get a chance to paw through the 4E book, their ranger class will have to impress me more that what the folks at Paizo did. And considering how excited I am if I should find a local group to play this with either convincing a GM to let me a manimal wolf or bear ranger or bite the bullet and play an elven ranger this version of my favored class is tough to beat. Viva la Paizo!!