Title says it all. Like Track, Trapfinding is an advanced use of a skill. Unlike Track, Trapfinding is a rogue only class feature, which means every party has to include a rogue or suffer horrific penalties as they stumble through traps.
If Trapfinding was a feat, and rogues got it as a bonus feat like Rangers get Track, this reliance on the rogue class would be lessened. It would still be a good idea to include a rogue, but if you didn't, someone could still be the scout/trapfinder by taking the feat.
Agreed. Besides, it doesn't make sense for non-rogues not to be able to find disguised traps...they can pick out the detail on a hummingbird's wings in flight, basically, so why can't they spot the hidden crossbow?
I like this idea, albeit maybe with the restriction that the feat have an ability pre-req (Int 15+ perhaps) to prevent "everyone" from taking it.
Although it would be useless without search and disable device, so the ability pre-req is probably a moot point, since you wouldn't take it unless you had a high int or were a rogue anyways.
One of my favorite alternate class features were the ones from Dungeonscape that allowed non-rogues to take Trapfinding. It alleviated the need to have a rogue in every party, as the OP noted.
|
I'll second this concept. However, we houserule this anyway and if the guys don't throw it into the official rules I guess I'll just keep doing this.
We do that with a few things (healing wands and scrolls can be used by anyone when they buy the feat if we have no medic type class), Tracking can be done by anyone by taking a feat, and the trap finding you just suggested. It means we can have people build anything they want without worrying too much about the idea of "oh bugger, we don't have our cleric"
Turns out to be quite useful as our Rogue just left the party I DM for and our ranger took the feat when they levelled.
Prereqwise, I'd make it the same as Track. *Checks feat* None.
Really, those that take it without a good Int or Search (Perception) are wasting the choice, just like those that take Track without good Wis and Survival. I don't think a prereq is needed here, and seems to just add another layer of discouragement in favor of 'realism' rather than fun.
In my games, the current uses of trapfinding are something everyone can do now. Yes, even a fighter could find that DC45 supertrap.
Trapfinding now grants rogues an automatic perception check to notice the trap as if he had actively searched for it (like elves and secret doors or dwarves and unusual stonework).
And before anyone objects, because "it's something else the GM has to think of all the time": Just give him the check at the time you would have to spring into action, anyway - when someone would normally spring the trap. If he doesn't make the check, the trap is sprung, but if he succeeds, he can warn his friends (or himself).
|
Strongly concur.
Personally I'm in the "everything should be a feat" camp when it comes to class features. Well, not everything, but most class abilities (certainly low level ones) should be feats (with appropriate pre-requisites as needed) to remove the "need" for people to multi-class for a single level to get an ability that should be available to them normally.
In 3.5, Trapfinding should be a feat. Like Track.
In PFRPG, Trapfinding should be rolled into Perception. Like Track is to Survival.
I agree with the concept of Trapfinding being just an application of the Perception skill. The current Trapfinding class feature could be turned into something like the Rangers Track class ability and giving the Rogue a bonus to the Perception skill that other classes don't get.
Doug
|
I'm on the fence with this one.
While I like the idea of Trapfinding being converted into a feat, I also understand why making it a feature of perception makes sense.
In 3.5, Trapfinding as a feat (much like Track) would have made sense, with Rogues and Barbarians gaining it for free (Why Barbarians? because it is a listed class feature; I don't understand it, but it's there).
In Pathfinder, the Track feat is gone, absorbed into the skills mechanic. Therefore, a Trapfinding feat should also be absorbed into a skill mechanic such as Perception. Heck, I still think Endurance and Run could be made into a skill mechanic, much like Star Wars Saga (a rant for another time).
The main reason I'm uncertain about it though has to do with backwards compatibility. My players have, for the most part, backed pathfinder based on the idea that they will be replacing only the corebooks with the Pathfinder RPG, leaving their libraries of 3.5 books relatively intact. And they like there sourcebooks.
Why is this important? Because Trapfinding is one of the first features offered for trade in with alternate class abilities in some of the later sourcebooks, such as Cityscape, and Complete Champion.
As a feat replacement, it could work. As a skill replacement, not so much.
"Trapfinding" as a class feature could be, as mentioned above, a bonus to Perception checks to find traps, or perhaps a passive ability like the elf's always-on secret door finding, while trapfinding as it currently stands could be rolled into Perception, thus allowing for anyone with a good Perception check to notice the traps, but still giving Rogues and other classes that get the class feature a bit of an edge in it.
|
|
All I ask is that it be consistent. Trapfinding and Track are part of the same meta-group of "finding things" abilities, so they should both work the same way. If Track is a feat, Trapfinding should be a feat; if you can do tracking off the base use of the skill, then you should be able to find traps off the base use of the skill. In my home games, I just toss Trapfinding out the window and let anyone trained in Search find traps.
Jeremy Puckett
I agree with the OP. Trapfinding should be a feat, and rogues should get it at first level as a bonus feat, the same way rangers get Track or wizards get Scribe Scroll.
|
|
If you want the rogue to be totally useless, may I suggest playing 4e?
Hmmm, not useless, just not essential. Rogues would still be better at this than most given the sheer number of points they can spend in skills. Rogues are also good at sneaking around , and also...you know, sneak attacking. Rogues are also still the only ones who can disable magic traps as far as I can tell, even with this change.
Getting this feat for free at first level gives them some joy whereas others have to sacrifice a feat to get the ability. While this means not much to a fighter, they'll rarely have enough points in perception to use the feat. It does mean more versatility for certain characters like rangers or bards who also have the skills to use this. Overall, this just allows more versatility to groups in general and means people can try other builds without worrying that the group hasn't got balance.
hopefully we can keep this as an on topic discussion as well, and not turn it into another edition slugfest.
Cheers
If you want the rogue to be totally useless, may I suggest playing 4e?hopefully we can keep this as an on topic discussion as well, and not turn it into another edition slugfest.
Cheers
No kidding. Take your trolling elsewhere.
This has nothing to do with making the rogue useless and everything to do with making sure the players and the team work well.
The game doesn't owe a damn thing to the idea of 'the rogue class'. The concern is to ensure that the players who play the game can have one. Spellcasting and healing are divided up among other classes so not to demand a cleric in every party...why should trapfinding be any different?
If Pathfinder changed Track (and I see now that they did) then I agree...give trapfinding a Perception DC and grant rogues the ability to either automatically get a check to sense them within a certain range even if not actively searching, or a +1/2 level bonus to such checks. If you don't want to rearrange a ton of written adventures, I'd suggest the auto-check.
Also, the barbarian doesn't have trapfinding, they have trap sense, which is a bonus against traps that are sprung, it has nothing to do with being able to find the trap.
This has nothing to do with making the rogue useless and everything to do with making sure the players and the team work well.
And the rogue won't be useless, either. Not by a long shot. Rogues still get more skill points than everyone (and with the newly consolidated skills and the improved cross-class skill handling, they can do even more with their skill points), they have sneak attack, both evasion and uncanny dodge, and a number of really nice rogue talents to choose from every couple of rounds. Oh, and nowadays, they get more HP than ever before!
Yeah I have been using an idea like KaeYoss', anyone with a rank in search can find traps equally. Rogues can use spot to find traps with their passive senses like the elf and secret doors.
So for Pathfinder anyone with ranks in Perception can locate traps, but the rogue class can discover traps through the use of passive senses.
This is also nice because with a Rogue in the party you eliminate the need to announce you are looking for traps, he or she is always passivly looking for traps.
This is also nice because with a Rogue in the party you eliminate the need to announce you are looking for traps, he or she is always passivly looking for traps.
That works well for me. I hate when players announce, "unless otherwise specified, we search every 5-ft. square in the entire place for traps." And then I have to sit there and say, "OK, 10 x 20 squares = 200 of them, at a minute apiece is 200 minutes, or three hours, 20 minutes... yeah, I guess they can do that before the end of the day..." But I hate even more being a jerk and saying, "No! You have to announce it every time, or you automatically forget!", which just seems petty to me... unless there's an obvious threat, they're not going to forget something like that, especially if they've been doing it minute after minute for hours.
This is also nice because with a Rogue in the party you eliminate the need to announce you are looking for traps, he or she is always passivly looking for traps.
That right there is ample reason for this change. I've played a rogue and it's tedious to say 'I search X for Traps' every time your party decides to go into a new room. I'd like search to handle finding traps and the feat to give an automatic check, but then with my DM a rogue is never weak or useless.
|
|
The game doesn't owe a damn thing to the idea of 'the rogue class'. The concern is to ensure that the players who play the game can have one.
This is usually accomplished by someone choosing 'the rogue class' rather than creating a feat of the same name.
ROGUE [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Any non-rogue class.
Benefit: You are now a rogue.
The game doesn't owe a damn thing to the idea of 'the rogue class'. The concern is to ensure that the players who play the game can have one.
This is usually accomplished by someone choosing 'the rogue class' rather than creating a feat of the same name.
ROGUE [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Any non-rogue class.
Benefit: You are now a rogue.
Is there really nothing more to the rogue than trapfinding? Now I can see why people complain that there are 19 useless levels of rogue in the books.
The game doesn't owe a damn thing to the idea of 'the rogue class'. The concern is to ensure that the players who play the game can have one.
This is usually accomplished by someone choosing 'the rogue class' rather than creating a feat of the same name.
ROGUE [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Any non-rogue class.
Benefit: You are now a rogue.
:) One being a trapfinder, not one being a rogue. Cute though. Although I think I meant to type 'fun', not 'one'.
Trapfinding, like healing, spellcasting, etc, is a near essential resource in the game. Opening it up to more than just a single class is a good decision, just like the game doesn't have only a single spellcaster or single healer.
You realize the second iconic party, the ones in Curse of the Crimson Throne...every single trap they encountered, they triggered? No matter how clever Lem and Harsk were, they sprung the trap. Seelah never got a flash of divine insight suggesting she must be careful of the the hallway. Ezren, despite being capable of telling the laws of reality to sit down and shut up, gets nailed by a simple pit trap, every time.
Trapfinding would be a good feat, and better yet to simply revise into Perception like Track was into Survival.
You realize the second iconic party, the ones in Curse of the Crimson Throne...every single trap they encountered, they triggered? No matter how clever Lem and Harsk were, they sprung the trap. Seelah never got a flash of divine insight suggesting she must be careful of the the hallway. Ezren, despite being capable of telling the laws of reality to sit down and shut up, gets nailed by a simple pit trap, every time.
Trapfinding would be a good feat, and better yet to simply revise into Perception like Track was into Survival.
Same thing for Second Darkness.
Also, nice OotS reference.
|
|
Is there really nothing more to the rogue than trapfinding? Now I can see why people complain that there are 19 useless levels of rogue in the books.
It is THE key rogue/thief feature (no it's not the monkey skills or the sneak attack/backstab), going back to the old-school days when thieves were the only ones who could handle traps. I know Kain and some others don't feel that the rogue class is owed anything, but it just feels like the one little thing rogues can do that others can't is being ripped away. I mean wizards are essentially gods and can blow entire planets to kingdom come and they can probably mimic "trapfinding" anyway (don't know...never play magic-users). I always play a rogue and I'm biased...I just want to defend their one little bit of turf they've had since the beginning. Soon, there won't be any classes and there will just be one feat: "I choose Blob as a class. Blobs can do anything they want, especially if they take the Blob feat."
BLOB [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Having a PC
Benefit: You can do anything you want.
I'm anti-blob. I like that wizards can do things rogues can't and vice-versa. I like that not all classes are the same. But I'm old-school.
As a rogue, I have no interest in doing any wizard stuff...if I did, I would take levels in Wizard. I mean multi-classing is available guys. Is that not enough? You'd have to take a whole 1 level in rogue to get trapfinding.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'm of mixed opinion on this issue. On one hand, it's one of the rogues signature abilities, and letting anyone have it with a feat does weaken this. However, I think it makes sense to let others learn this ability, since a feat is a non-trivial cost.
One thought I wanted to add to the conversation, however, is that parties without a rogue and therefore without trapfinding, aren't as helpless vs. traps as many have stated. There's at least four methods to detect and/or overcome traps without the trapfinding feature.
1) detect magic - against magic traps, this gives warning at 60' range that there's something magic ahead, and that's generally enough to either avoid or dispel the magic trap.
2) physical prodding - use a spear or 10' pole (unless you play 4E, since they don't have a 10' pole on the equipment list). This can spring many types of non-magical traps before they would affect the PCs.
3) summoned creatures used as trapspringers (or captured goblins, etc.) Send some conjured, summoned, or compelled critter out 20 feet in front of the PCs and let THEM trigger the trap. Bags of tricks are cheap ways to accomplish this.
4) Find Traps or detect snares and pits spell - These allow trapfinding without the class feature. Sure you have to have a decent perception skill to find them, but that's easier in PRPG even as cross class, and with more feats to spend on skill focus. A wand of find traps and the UMD skill can work too.
It is THE key rogue/thief feature (no it's not the monkey skills or the sneak attack/backstab), going back to the old-school days when thieves were the only ones who could handle traps. I know Kain and some others don't feel that the rogue class is owed anything, but it just feels like the one little thing rogues can do that others can't is being ripped away. I mean wizards are essentially gods and can blow entire planets to kingdom come and they can probably mimic "trapfinding" anyway (don't know...never play magic-users). I always play a rogue and I'm biased...I just want to defend their one little bit of turf they've had since the beginning. Soon, there won't be any classes and there will just be one feat: "I choose Blob as a class. Blobs can do anything they want, especially if they take the Blob feat."
BLOB [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Having a PC
Benefit: You can do anything you want.I'm anti-blob. I like that wizards can do things rogues can't and vice-versa. I like that not all classes are the same. But I'm old-school.
As a rogue, I have no interest in doing any wizard stuff...if I did, I would take levels in Wizard. I mean multi-classing is available guys. Is that not enough? You'd have to take a whole 1 level in rogue to get trapfinding.
Nobody is going to make it so that you can't play a rogue. And when you play, you will be the only one in your party who can handle traps.
But it would be nice if, in a party where no one wanted to play a rogue, someone could find traps. Just like it's nice that in a party with no ranger, someone can track.
And it's silly to think that a high-level Bard with a +15 perception (or Search) check, who can find any secret door imaginable, can't find the poorly masked pit trap in the floor, unless he sweettalks his DM into agreeing that a pit trap is just a secret door in the floor that leads to a room with spikes in it. At which point the Elf will get huffy that he didn't get to automatically check for the pit trap he fell into LAST adventure.
It is THE key rogue/thief feature
I disagree. I played many a rogue who had this only as an afterthought. They weren't any less roguish than those who are knee-deep in traps.
Dealing with traps is but one of the thing they're supposed to be very good at. Others are fighting dirty, sneaking around, noticing everything, fast-talk and general conning, and being master acrobats.
I just want to defend their one little bit of turf they've had since the beginning.
I don't say that they should stink at it. I just say that it doesn't make sense that it's just impossible for others to find traps with a DC over an arbitrary mark. It's not as if it's magic or anything.
I do say that they should be better at it then others, which can be achieved by giving them the ability to find them automatically, or giving them a flat bonus (like bards get with knowledge skills, and rangers with following tracks), or both.
Soon, there won't be any classes and there will just be one feat: "I choose Blob as a class. Blobs can do anything they want, especially if they take the Blob feat."
"Soon"?
Yeah, "soon", the sun will run out of hydrogen and then swallow the earth as it expands. "Soon", entropy will make all action in the universe impossible, consigning it to its (actually very cold) heat death. "Soon", gravity will fail and atoms will be ripped apart.
While restrictions are increasingly abolished, that doesn't mean that Pathfinder is in any danger of changing to a practically classless system.
I don't see the change as taking away the rogue's identity. In fact, if a relatively trivial ability such as trapfinding was the very thing that defined the class, the class would be worthless, anyway, and should be replaced by a feat. But it isn't, rogues are far more than trapfinding, and this would hardly encroach on their terrain.
I'm anti-blob. I like that wizards can do things rogues can't and vice-versa. I like that not all classes are the same. But I'm old-school.
You're oversimplifying things. There is no switch "Rigid classes with 0% overlapping abilities/class-less system"
I prefer that some logic is applied to everything. I prefer choice (and consequences) to restrictions.
Instead of making a game where only rogues can sneak, make it so that they're really good at it (i.e. it's a class skill, they get lots of skill points so that they can easily afford it, they get a special ability that lets them sneak at full spead, and generally their typical make-up means that they're good at sneaking, with their emphasis on high dexterity and light armour). Insteat of a rule that only fighters can use a sword, make them really good at it (i.e. they're getting the best BAB, don't need to spend a feat or take a -4 penalty when using the sword, they get bonus feats that can improve their swordmanship).
And instead of making a game where only rogues can deal with traps with a DC of over 20, make them really good at dealing with traps (i.e. both perception and disable device are class skills, they have many skill points so they can easily afford both, and they also get a special ability - either automatic detection, a class bonus to the rolls, or both)
Is that not enough? You'd have to take a whole 1 level in rogue to get trapfinding.
Is that what the rogue is reduced to? One level? Instead of a ruleset that encourages people to take many levels or rogue in order to be good trapfinders, you want something that lets people become the most iconic of rogue (your words basically, since you said that trapfinding is THE key ability for rogues) with a one-level-dip? *That* is not a class, it's a feat.
|
|
I disagree. I played many a rogue who had this only as an afterthought. They weren't any less roguish than those who are knee-deep in traps.
I did a search on “rogues (and only rogues)” and got 2 hits, both under trapfinding. If there is one rogue trait that is proprietary to the rogue, it is trapfinding. I agree with you that rogues can do lots of other great things, but their one core competency has always been traps.
Is that what the rogue is reduced to? One level? Instead of a ruleset that encourages people to take many levels or rogue in order to be good trapfinders, you want something that lets people become the most iconic of rogue (your words basically, since you said that trapfinding is THE key ability for rogues) with a one-level-dip? *That* is not a class, it's a feat.
I think there’s a hint here. By giving trapfinding at Rogue 1, the authors are indicating something. Something like “You need to be a rogue to do this.” Perhaps it isn’t the hardest thing to excel at, and that’s why it’s given at first level. But it’s not so easy that any Joe Schmoe can do it, a la a feat. You have to commit to being a rogue, at least for the duration of 1 level.
BTW, did anyone read Joel’s post? I thought it was a great read. Sometimes when faced with one of life's challenges, it's best to explore all possible options and maybe go a little MacGyver before raiding stuff that belongs to others. (Yes, I do get the irony that I’m pissed about people trying to steal from thieves.) :)
What they are indicating is that they didn't consider this. In the big rush to ensure that clerics aren't walking band-aids and wizards aren't pimping out their fellow party members for cheap kicks after level 13, it possibly got overlooked that trapfinding is a basic staple of adventuring that more than one type of party (that being one with a rogue) should be capable of doing. Let's not make any grandiose statements about what 'stands' the designers are taking on the matter, unless they are backed up by a quote from the designer in question. For my part, I don't see Jason B. as the type of designer that says "yes, I want to punish parties that don't have a particular class. DnD is only played right when it is played a certain way. My way."
Some traps aren't going to be found with 10 foot poles or detect magic, just like 4e isn't going to crumble under weak arguments like suggesting that because an object isn't in the rulebook, it doesn't exist.
For instance, a boulder trap in the wall that goes off when you lift the statue. Or a foot lancer trap designed to be turned off by the switch in the north east chest.
And keep in mind, making something non-unique doesn't take away from the class that gets it better or for free. In all suggested scenarios by me, where rogues get to auto Search for traps in range, or where they get the feat free, or where they get a bonus to searching for them...everyone of these options makes the rogue your best choice to deal with traps. As it should be. But they shouldn't be the only choice to deal with traps. Particularly not when you have rangers who should be aware of basic traps, given their hunting. Or bards who struggle to be mediocre at everything except singing.
For the simulationists, it can't possibly make sense that someone can find the sequestered body of a 3 inch tall faerie, or locate a master assassin cloaked in silence and invisibility, or count the feathers on an eagle soaring a mile in the sky while looking into the sun, but they cannot find a simple pit trap, tripwire, or pressure plate.
I did a search on “rogues (and only rogues)” and got 2 hits, both under trapfinding. If there is one rogue trait that is proprietary to the rogue, it is trapfinding.
Of course, there's other classes that have it, too. They're not OGL, but they were in the apparently quite popular Complete series (Complete Adventurer, to be precise).
I think there’s a hint here. By giving trapfinding at Rogue 1, the authors are indicating something. Something like “You need to be a rogue to do this.” Perhaps it isn’t the hardest thing to excel at, and that’s why it’s given at first level. But it’s not so easy that any Joe Schmoe can do it, a la a feat. You have to commit to being a rogue, at least for the duration of 1 level.
Commiting for a single level doesn't sound like real commitment to me.
And "it's not so easy that anyone can do it, but rogues get it right away, without any prerequisites" doesn't make sense to me, either.
And, of course, as others have said: The fact that a level 80 ranger with wis 50 could read the writing off the clawring of an eagle who's half a continent away - on a moonless night, mind you - and will find that DC 20 trap every time, but does have no chance whatsoever of spotting that DC 21 trap.... that makes even less sense.
Snobi, a Ranger19/rogue1 isn't a rogue. It's a Ranger.
|
Agreed with ditching the "trapfinding" class feature.
Yay!
I've been pushing for this for years, but just met a blank wall. It's refreshing to see the concept is growing some legs in the past 6 months.And for the record; I do play a lot of rogues.
I'd say replace it with some kind of level based skill bonus.
They have one already; it's called 'Ungodly Skill Points/Level'.
They have one already; it's called 'Ungodly Skill Points/Level'.
I think you know we're talking about making rogues still have features that emphasize they are the best men and women for the trapfinding job. Like I said, I don't want to rob rogues of their ability, I want to eliminate them as only ones who can do it.
By the rules, a 3000th level DvR 50 god can't find DC 21 traps unless he is a rogue.
That's why the discussion turned to making sure that Rogues are still BEST at trapfinding. For instance, in Alpha 3, everyone with survival can track, but Rangers get a bonus to tracking.
So, instead of making Trapfinding Rogue only, we can allow everyone to find traps, but give rogues a bonus equal to half their rogue level to trapfinding checks. That way, a rogue will always be the best trapfinder, but a party without a rogue will be able to at least cope.
Just like a party with a Cleric should still be able to heal(even though clerics are best at healing). They could have a druid, or have multiple characters with low power healing. The Cleric should always be BEST at healing, but a party without one should have options.
The question is do the players ignore it, carefully SEARCH it, or ignorantly try looking through it while standing on the pressure plate.
Part of the problem is that if the party does decide to search it, they still won't find it if the DC is over 20. I hate the situation where the players KNOW there is a trap in the hallway and can't do anything about it, because they can't officially find it in order to disable it. Especially when it's an automatic reset trap, because they can't just set it off with a 10ft pole or a summoned fiendish dire rat.
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that its not just trapfinding is a staple to D&D (which is very important. Just because you say its archaic doesn't mean the play style changes.) Its also very important the availability of this option.
That last sentence (and your point with it) didn't make sense. However, if you meant to say that 'it is very important to have limited availability on trapfinding, unique only to the rogue', I'll disagree, for reasons stated in this post and previous ones on the thread.
Trapfinding as a feat would make a lot of people as capable or better than Rogues in regards to finding traps. Search, rolled into Perception, means that A LOT of people are going to have maxed out skills in regards to this. Worse still, rogues have lost Int and now its Wis, which also drops their effective roll by anywhere from 2 to 4. Trapfinding as a feat would allow Rangers to completely usurp Rogues in this regard.
Ross pointed this out, but it bears repeating and a suggestion to go read through the entire thread. While my original suggestion was to make it comparable to Track (in 3.5), it was quickly brought up that Pathfinder had made some changes to Track, ensuring that the ranger was still the best tracker, despite the fact that anyone could track. I realized the advantage in this tack, and we came up with two ways that rogues could be the best trap finders, even if anyone with Perception could find a trap.
You say the 'amazing amount of skill points Rogues get' makes up for this deficiency, but with the same max number of ranks Rogues are becoming more jacks of all trades (especially with the skill consolidation). The new Rogues have just enough skill points and so few skill choices that they're almost equally maxed out in everything!
Actually, only one person said that, and the rest of us who support the change feel they are wrong. It is a distraction from the real issue.
Hating trapfinding because it was a hindrance in 3.5
You've totally missed the point. The problem is actually this one.
"Restriction While anyone can use Search to find a trap whose DC is 20 or lower, only a rogue can use Search to locate traps with higher DCs."
Hating trapfinding? No. Hating not being physically capable of finding a trap, no matter how epic and god-like you are, or blatantly obvious that the trap is there? Yes.
All those tricks you covered don't actually allow you to find a trap, just maybe avoid it. What's really ridiculous is that if a rogue does point out the trap, anyone with Disable Device can disarm it. But Bob "Trapmaster" Ranger can't even find his own pit trap if he hid it well enough.
It's a bad rule for the simulationist aspect because it doesn't make sense and it is a bad rule for the player aspect because it forces at least 1 rogue level to show up in the party.
The main point though, Trapfinding as a feat, I don't think this is a solution to the greater problem. This is just a bandaid that hurts the rogue (no matter how small a hurt, its a hurt).
I'm so tired of hearing people describe a benefit to other people as a hurt to people that don't get the benefit. If people who wear glasses get a scholarship, that doesn't hurt my non-glasses wearing self. Same goes for the rogue. You could give their sneak attack (assassin), trap sense (barbarian) and evasion (ranger) away to other classes, and you wouldn't hurt the rogue one tiny bit.
Since Pathfinder is going to be the new assumed core rulebook for their adventures, maybe they should realize that we're not playing WoW and have LFPed until we had every part we need. Every party doesn't need a rogue, but giving rogue abilities away doesn't fix the problem. Every party doesn't need a healer either, so should we give feats that allow anyone to get cure light wounds? No.
Oh, the WoW reference that is SO popular to invoke in D&D discussions these days. What part of WoW has anything to do with traps? No, don't answer that, because it is no doubt another red herring to chase after instead of the core issue here.
Instead, let's look at your examples. "Every party doesn't need a healer either....cure light wounds."
Funny you should mention a spell that is on no less than five core classes' spell-lists to prove a point that the rogue should be kept sacred and unique in its ability to find traps.
Healer is a role that can be filled by 5 classes. Best by the cleric, but four other classes can accomplish healing. *All* classes can accomplish healing by purchasing potions. So even if you were a party consisting of a fighter, barbarian, wizard and monk, you could have a party 'healer' with a ton of potions in their bag. Or a wand of cure and UMD.
"Rogue" is a single class. It isn't a role. Trapfinder would be the role. And as it stands, trap finder is a role that can ONLY be filled by the rogue. That's bad design. That's shoehorning.
Name me a single other iconic role that can ONLY be done by a single class? Spellcasting? 7 classes. Hell, and anyone can spell cast if they Use Magic Device with wands and staves. Unarmed combat? You might not be as good as the monk at it, but it is possible for anyone. Tracker? The ranger is supreme, but someone who wants to invest Survival ranks into it can at least follow their breadcrumbs out of the forest. Ranged combatant? Melee combatant? Even the wizard can play in melee if they want. The game doesn't reward that choice, but the choice is there.
Only trapfinding remains "impossible" for characters not of the proper class. Why?
|
|
Erm I should point out Druid and rangers already get a spell that allow them to detect none magical traps and anyone with detect magic can already detect magical ones so at the moment 6 of the core classes can detect magical traps and 3 of the core can detect none magical. Also anyone with ranks in UMD can just buy a wand of detect magic so every class can potentialy detect magical traps.
|
|
Erm I should point out Druid and rangers already get a spell that allow them to detect none magical traps and anyone with detect magic can already detect magical ones so at the moment 6 of the core classes can detect magical traps and 3 of the core can detect none magical. Also anyone with ranks in UMD can just buy a wand of detect magic so every class can potentialy detect magical traps.
Thank you!! This whole "make class features feats" trend is out of control. If you want Trapfinding that bad, take a level of rogue.
Erm I should point out Druid and rangers already get a spell that allow them to detect none magical traps and anyone with detect magic can already detect magical ones so at the moment 6 of the core classes can detect magical traps and 3 of the core can detect none magical. Also anyone with ranks in UMD can just buy a wand of detect magic so every class can potentialy detect magical traps.Thank you!! This whole "make class features feats" trend is out of control. If you want Trapfinding that bad, take a level of rogue.
Really? Which class features currently have become feats that you can call it a 'trend'?
The forum just ate a really long and detailed reply. Shoot. I'm trying to remember the highlites.
That happened to my previous post to you too, but luckily my browser retained it when I hit back. That sucks though. :(
Healers are not special, but the system still treats clerics are the expected healer.
Absolutely, but that's fair in a class based system. And I would like it that trapfinders are not special, but the system treat rogues as the expected trapfinder.
I've even had adventure specifically call for turn undead at certain moments without a cleric or paladin in sight. It happens, it stinks. This is the adventure's fault, not the systems.
Don't try to suggest that 'traps' and 'turn undead based obstacles' are remotely the same. They aren't, pure and simple. One is generic and pops up in nearly all adventures, the other is specific and pops up in very few. Same with your bardic music example later.
Yes I did read the whole thread, I just didn't cite every idea. Even with his idea of level bonuses than the rogue's search or perception mod is too high to make much of a difference. By level 8 they have 13 + ability mod + magical bonuses which is high enough to find even the most hidden of traps I think. This isn't the answer in my opinion.
The two ideas put forth were +1/2 rogue level on Perception checks for traps and Automatic Check when within X feet of traps. I think you are missing the point here....we WANT other classes to be able to find traps. Just not as well as the rogue.
Not every adventure NEEDS traps. Its more than expectable that they need a fighter, and then a healer to heal the fighter, and then a mage to act as toolbelt. This box stinks, and adventures that make assumptions as such annoy me. Part of what I liked about the first RotRL campaign was that no matter what was played it seemed like everything worked out.
Barbarians can do a fighter's job, sorcerers can do a wizard's job, and everyone can do a cleric's job...but there is nothing you can switch out of the party and still find traps. And nearly every adventure HAS traps, whether they need them or not.
Making it a feat makes it too easy for other to specialize at trapfinding.
Stop. That idea isn't even on the table any longer, despite my thread's title. We've moved past that. You still being fixated on the trapfinding=feat concept is what makes me think you haven't really read the thread. Now, you said you did so I have no reason to think otherwise, but why are you still arguing against ideas that were discarded within five posts of the beginning?
Perception is going to be very standard, and trap DCs aren't that high. Increasing the trap DCs and included a Rogue level bonus just means they're even more special, because the search 19 traps will get boosted out of reach of even people without trapfinding.
Um, no. Given a 10th level rogue with max Perception, he will have a modifier of +18 plus his Wis. A 10th level fighter with max Perception will have +10 plus his Wis. The rogue will have a much better chance of finding the trap, because rogues are supposed to find traps and fighters not so much. But the point of it is that the fighter CAN find the trap if he looks for it.
The WoW reference was lame, but it harks back to this assumption that's turning me off of 4E and starting to pathfinder is that there are roles players must fit into. Where is it written the party NEEDS a trapfinder? I didn't read that page of the rulebook I guess.
DMG pages 67-76. Also, PHB, page 81, first column, second paragraph. And finally, Paizo Pathfinder RPG Beta (v3), page 38, second column, last three paragraphs.
|
|
Barbarians can do a fighter's job, sorcerers can do a wizard's job, and everyone can do a cleric's job...but there is nothing you can switch out of the party and still find traps. And nearly every adventure HAS traps, whether they need them or not.
A spellcaster with detect magic can find magical traps and a druid or Ranger with detect pits/snares can find non magical ones. or a cleric with the spell find trap can detect any sort of trap therefore any of them could be traded in for the rogue.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Just to add to the 4 points I made earlier about other ways to find traps in the rules other than trapfinding ability - dwarves all have stonecunning, which gives them an automatic check to find traps that are built into the stone walls or floors, and I think adding ceilings would be reasonable.
Snobi, a Ranger19/rogue1 isn't a rogue. It's a Ranger.
Maybe it's one of those monikers you can never get rid of? Like the old man in the bar said when asked why he was so grouchy:
"In my life, I built over 100 bridges. Big ones, small ones, really beautiful ones. But am I called a Bridge Builder? No!
I also saved the lives of over 30 people over the years in the aux fire brigade. But do they call me a Life Saver? No!
In my free time, I get envolved with foresting, to save the planet, you know. I must have planted thousands of trees in my long life. But am I known as the Tree Planter? No!
But if you **** ONE goat...."
And finally, Paizo Pathfinder RPG Beta (v3), page 38, second column, last three paragraphs.How'd you get Beta already, and how much of a bribe did you have to pay Jason??! :)
Heh. Oops. Alpha.
Detect Pits and Snares has a duration of concentration. If you run into an enemy before you run into a trap (made out of natural materials), you need to cast the spell again.
Detect Magic might detect that there is magic in the area, but it doesn't tell you that it is a trap. So even forewarned that there might be a magic trap in the area, you can't actually find it, thanks to the "only a rogue" clause. In fact, even if someone tells you, "there's a trap", you can't find it, thanks to that rule.
The only real other option is find traps, which gives you 10/min per level per casting, for a 2nd level cleric only spell.
Which doesn't allow you to disable it...something else Pathfinder made rogue only.