I'd just as soon get rid of current trapfinding, so everyone can potentially find traps, limited only by their perception, and disarm them, limited only by their disable device.
Rogues would get something extra at level 1 so they remain kings of traps. Either a bonus to trapfinding skills or an autoroll (like elves and secred doors).
|
I would prefer to make trapfinding just part of the perception skill that anyone can use and the trapfinding ability (ie the rogue and all those splat book spin off's) the ability to passively spot traps, and then add the trapsense bonus to the rogue's perception check. The rogue will be the obvious trap finder still but you won't be out of luck if you have no rogue character.
|
I've been pushing for an end to the Trapfinding class feature for years, as well, despite playing Rogues (or multi-classed Rogues) more often than any other class. It doesn't devalue any class, since you still need a high skill bonus to succeed, and that is usually going to be gained via high Int, and/or levels in high-skill-point classes,... like Rogue.
Disable Device is a catch-all Craft skill for any 'device' that needs 'mechanical tweaking'. This includes building, and mending such machines.
Is every watchmaker automatically assumed to be trained to Sneak Attack?
Is Leonardo da Vinci famous for his Uncanny Dodge?
Was Archimedes immune to fireballs, thanks to his awesome Evasion?
The game needs to allow for Rogues who are not engineers, and engineers who are not Rogues.
|
|
I'd just as soon get rid of current trapfinding, so everyone can potentially find traps, limited only by their perception, and disarm them, limited only by their disable device.
Rogues would get something extra at level 1 so they remain kings of traps. Either a bonus to trapfinding skills or an autoroll (like elves and secred doors).
Ooh I like the autoroll idea. It would lessen the whole stopping to search for traps every five feet. I find that very breaking as far as flow of play goes.
Graywulfe
I'm going to agree with KaeYoss.
Trapfinding should be like Tracking. Everyone can do it, rogues get a bonus.
The current system is just silly. Same as in 3.0 when Rangers (and ONLY rangers) could track.
I'm going to agree with KaeYoss.
Trapfinding should be like Tracking. Everyone can do it, rogues get a bonus.
The current system is just silly. Same as in 3.0 when Rangers (an ONLY rangers) could track.
I'm with KaeYoss and Ross Byers on this. The OP's proposal is a good one, but simplifying the process is a better route to go.
|
|
Snorter, I believe you're thinking of the expert class. I'm pretty certain the philosophers you mentioned aren't known for battling orcs, which means that they should have NPC classes.
Which is my point, exactly.
The game needs to allow for engineers who invent, build, disassemble, mend or bypass complex machinery, without being Sneak Attacking, Evasive, Uncanny Dodging, Bleeding Attacking, Crippling Striking, Defensive Rolling, Tumbling, Sleight-of-Handing, Bluffing, Feinting Rogues.
Maybe then you can go get your cuckoo-clock mended, without taking your life in your hands.
And if you have a quibble with his bill, you no longer have to strap on your fortification armour, to protect yourself against the potential disembowelment.
|
|
"Yes, my Lord, this is the invention I spoke of, built with my own hands, and tested in my own grounds. This wonderful device will revolutionise the yield from your fields, and free up your serfs to shore up the fortifications on your borders."
"As you can see, the seeds go in the hopper at the top, and the horse is hitched to the harness. As the machine is pulled, it not only plows a furrow, but this gearing mechanism oscillates the sieve, feeding the seeds down this slide at a constant rate. The real innovation, however, is down... here, which, if you'll just lean forwards..."
Is every watchmaker automatically assumed to be trained to Sneak Attack?
Sylar
Is Leonardo da Vinci famous for his Uncanny Dodge?
No. He never bragged about it much, having so much else to brag about. But progress never managed to sneak up on him.
Was Archimedes immune to fireballs, thanks to his awesome Evasion?
Of course not. Don't be silly. He only had one level of rogue, after that he turned sorcerer over his obscession with fire. Damn powergaming Greeks
|
Is every watchmaker automatically assumed to be trained to Sneak Attack?Sylar
Is Leonardo da Vinci famous for his Uncanny Dodge?No. He never bragged about it much, having so much else to brag about. But progress never managed to sneak up on him.
Of course not. Don't be silly. He only had one level of rogue, after that he turned sorcerer over his obscession with fire. Damn powergaming Greeks
Was Archimedes immune to fireballs, thanks to his awesome Evasion?
Actually, I think all these things should be Rogue Talents -- if someone wants to play a "Face" rogue with lots of Diplomacy and Bluff, let them take Rogue talents that promote that. If they want to be ninjas, let them take Evasion ...
Actually, I think all these things should be Rogue Talents -- if someone wants to play a "Face" rogue with lots of Diplomacy and Bluff, let them take Rogue talents that promote that. If they want to be ninjas, let them take Evasion ...
So there's no such thing as an NPC trapsmith who is just an Expert? I mean, obviously they can find their own trap, they remember where they put them, but I'd like to think a Kobold Trapmaster (Expert 10) would have a non-zero chance to find a trap with a search DC of 21.
|
|
My current campaign is at 12th level. Three of four PCs have Spot/Perception as a class skill with max ranks. With other bonuses, their modifiers are +17 and higher. It is rather silly that they have no chance of spotting most traps simply because they never took a dump level of rogue.
Even going the other way and having a penalty of -5 or -10 for non-rogues to find traps would still result in a reasonable chance for higher level non-rogues to locate a trap.
And as a general note, I would suggest extending this to all skills usually considered exclusive to a class.
Anyone can take ranks in perception, disable device, a knowledge skill, or spellcraft. They may not get the +3 for it being a class skill, but that in no way stops a fighter from identifying a spell being cast, a wizard locating a trap, or a cleric picking a lock. Reducing or limiting class only skill applications across the board may be a good idea. Give them bonuses, but do not make it impossible for others to try.
Even going the other way and having a penalty of -5 or -10 for non-rogues to find traps would still result in a reasonable chance for higher level non-rogues to locate a trap.
I'd rather give Rogue the half-level bonus and increase trap DCs than give a penalty to non-rogues. It's less clunky.
Give them bonuses, but do not make it impossible for others to try.
Sounds like a good idea. Letting everyone find traps would go a long ways towards making Disable Device worth taking by a non-Rogue, instead of Disable Device being a class feature of the Rogue.
I would suggest coupling such a change with a change to the rules for trap DCs. Perhaps by tying them into the CR of the trap rather than just the level of spell attached.
-Matt
|
|
So there's no such thing as an NPC trapsmith who is just an Expert? I mean, obviously they can find their own trap, they remember where they put them, but I'd like to think a Kobold Trapmaster (Expert 10) would have a non-zero chance to find a trap with a search DC of 21.
Actually, in a previous post somewhere, I suggested that Trapfinding should be available as a feat. I originally allowed it in my 3.5 game with the prerequisite of 4 ranks in Search and Disable Device, but under the Pathfinder rules, I think a good prerequisite would be Skill Focus (Perception), or 2 ranks Disable Device and Perception.
Yes, Experts, Wizards, and anyone else should be able to find a trap ...
|
|
The beauty of using the trap sense to improve a rogues perception (or search if it gets split back out) and disable checks is that the rogue would be better at finding the traps than everyone else without touching the DC's of the traps at all. Yes they are going to be really good at it, but I don't think that a rogue being able to find traps is really a game breaker. (Unless you really wanted to kill them with that trap and then perhaps you are playing the wrong game?)
As for taking 20, its going to happen if the party is suspicious that there's a trap. They will do it with or without a rogue. But the passive search isn't an issue. No one in their right mind is going to let someone "Passively search" Taking 20 or even 10 for that matter.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
The beauty of using the trap sense to improve a rogues perception (or search if it gets split back out) and disable checks is that the rogue would be better at finding the traps than everyone else without touching the DC's of the traps at all. Yes they are going to be really good at it, but I don't think that a rogue being able to find traps is really a game breaker. (Unless you really wanted to kill them with that trap and then perhaps you are playing the wrong game?)
As for taking 20, its going to happen if the party is suspicious that there's a trap. They will do it with or without a rogue. But the passive search isn't an issue. No one in their right mind is going to let someone "Passively search" Taking 20 or even 10 for that matter.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Many, if not most, trapped doors and chests will not have an active defender (or will have had the active defender killed prior to dealing with the door or chest) and the PCs can take as much time as they want with the trap.
For traps where the main purpose is to raise an alaram, the PCs will also have lots of time to take 20, so you want the DCs to be high enough that it's not an automatic success for a rogue to find while taking 20, otherwise, why have them at all?
|
|
'Taking 20' is the equivalent of rolling all results from natural 1 and up. Hence, if there is a trap, you will set it off. This is why the 3.5 rules prohibit tking 20 if there are consequences of failure. It also takes 20 times as long.
It's only there to speed up the game by hand-waving away stuff that is too boring to roll for, when it's within the PCs capabilities, and they're under no time pressure.
Snorter, rolling a 1 on a Perception check won't trigger the trap. Even if there was critical failure on skill checks, you're not actually touching the trap.
That's why you can take 20 to FIND the trap, just not to disarm it.
|
|
The issue with taking 20 to find a trap is the perceived game balance, and the design of most encounters that feature traps. As long as there is typically no penalty at all for taking 20 when searching, players would simply be irrational not to do so. The issue is then how many rolls do you make for wandering patrols to find them, or the bad guys in nearby rooms to become aware of them and buff before the party comes after them?
Without such a mechanism, it is actually rather silly to require search rolls for traps. Either the PCs automatically find them and the only challenge is the disable check, or the traps are part of the encounter (like pits in a large room the bad guys know of but the PCs do not) and the challenge is a perception/spot check anyone can make with no disabling and only avoidance. That of course is primarily a design issue and not a rules mechanics issue, and would be addressed in a separate section of the book.
|
|
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Many, if not most, trapped doors and chests will not have an active defender (or will have had the active defender killed prior to dealing with the door or chest) and the PCs can take as much time as they want with the trap.
Correct, these the party will probably take 20 on (which is my point). But they already do. Now they just have the rogue do it. Nothing changed. If the rogue only adds trapsense to the perception check the DC doesn't have to change. They still have to take a chance and disarm it (no possible take 20 or 10 allowed there) Besides, haven't you ever put a few chests in a room and not bothered to trap them, but knew that the party would take the time to take 20 thus giving your bad guys more time to flee/prepare for assault?
For traps where the main purpose is to raise an alaram, the PCs will also have lots of time to take 20, so you want the DCs to be high enough that it's not an automatic success for a rogue to find while taking 20, otherwise, why have them at all?
The key to these traps is to not put them on the door but some place that they wouldn't normally think to check. 10' before the door in a hall or 5' just inside the room. That is where the Passive check would happen. There wouldn't be a take 10 or 20 unless they think there is a good chance there is a trap there. And even if they find it, they still have to disable it or run it. See above...
|
I posted this on a Rogue thread some time back and never got any feedback, so I figured I would post this feat here and the reasoning behind it. First here is the feat:
TRAPFINDING [GENERAL]
Benefit: To find traps in order to disarm them (see the Disable Device skill) in a 5 ft. square requires a successful Perception check. You must make another Perception check every 5 ft. square you search.
You move at half your normal speed (or at your normal speed with a –5 penalty on the check, or at up to twice your normal speed with a –20 penalty on the check). The DC depends on the nature of the trap and how well it is hidden. Finding a nonmagical trap has a DC of at least 10, or higher if it is well hidden (as determined by the DM). Finding a magic trap has a base DC of 25 + the level of the spell used to create it.
Special: Rogues (and those with the Trapfinding class ability) can use this feat to find magic traps.Next is the actual class ability:
Trapfinding (Ex): A rogue adds half her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps.
Swift Trapfinding (Ex): Beginning at 8th level, a rogue can move at her normal speed while using Perception to find traps without taking the normal –5 penalty. She takes only a –10 penalty (instead of the normal –20) when moving at up to twice normal speed while trapfinding.Then there would be an addition to the skill as follows:
DISABLE DEVICE:
Special: Rogues, and only the rogue class, who beat a trap’s DC by 10 or more with a Disable Device check can study a trap, figure out how it works, and bypass it (with her party) without disarming it.This keeps the Rogue in line with the Ranger, who is better than anyone else at tracking, and allows other classes to do the same with traps.
What do you folks think?
I prefer trapfinding the way that it is now (a class ability and not a feat). As it stands, anyone can try to find traps; it's just that rogues are better at it. Anyone can try to use disable device and once again rogues are going to be better at it. Considering that only thieves could find and remove traps back in the day, this is a good thing. Not saying that it couldn't be improved upon, only that I'd like the ability to stay a class feature. I think that both the barbarian and ranger should have some sort of trapfinding ability that functions in the wild and that disable device should be a class skill for those classes.
|
|
Most trap-fest dungeons are pointless.
Unless the PCs are being attacked, rushed for time, or double-bluffed.
They have to be forced to make split-second decisions, which hinge on a single d20 roll. Otherwise, you have to assume they will take their time and thus will be automatically successful, unless you set the DC way above their maximum capabilities, which is equally pointless, and unfair on top.
I prefer trapfinding the way that it is now (a class ability and not a feat). As it stands, anyone can try to find traps; it's just that rogues are better at it. Anyone can try to...
No. Only a rogue can find a trap with a DC of 21 or higher. No one else can even try. (Well, they could try, the same way I could try to fly by flapping my arms.)
So even a master tracker (Ranger 20) can't find a trap that a peasant (Commoner 1) couldn't find, given time.
But yeah, something should be done about taking 20 to find traps. It means that the roll isn't actually relevant, and means that the rogue's perception bonus is essentially binary, either the trap is found of it isn't. This complicates things because for most classes a +1 is a +1, but to a rogue it means finding a new category of traps that they just couldn't before.
|
'Taking 20' is the equivalent of rolling all results from natural 1 and up. Hence, if there is a trap, you will set it off. This is why the 3.5 rules prohibit tking 20 if there are consequences of failure. It also takes 20 times as long.
As Ross says, you can take 20 on searching for a trap (but not on disabling it). Bear in mind that there are times often enough where you still have to disable it, so it's not as if having traps is therefore entirely pointless.
I don't see how you can remove the Take 20 for finding traps in a sensible way other than to try to make it that way for game purposes. However, there are certainly times when there isn't 2 minutes to spare for every 5' by 5' square.
If it's a chest or something, though, I have no problem with taking 20. You can spend the time studying and thinking and should, as a result, produce your best game.