I was looking at some my players choices for PCs and none want to roll a rogue. I'm ok with that since one is going for Bard and another for Ranger, so two skill monkeys should be good at covering what the rogue did skill wise. Surely the ranger can act as a scout and the bard will be great for bluff, sleight of hand, and the like. Fine. But unless the Gnome Cleric wants to burn one of his two skill points on perception and unless he wants to wait till he has find traps the group has no way to find traps without tripping over them.
The party can live without a fighter, the paladin, barbarian, ranger, or a combat focused cleric can do the job.
They can live without a cleric, if they use a druid or bard to cover the healing, the bard isn't optimal but he can do it with scrolls if needed.
Clearly the wizard can be replaced with the sorcerer, bard or heck a druid or cleric can in a pinch make it happen.
But because no one except the rogue gets Trapfinding, no one can replace him. I see no point in that. Make it a feat anyone can take but that rogues get for free. End of issue.
That's my thoughts what are yours?
|
I think it's a slippery slope. Trapfinding and sneak attacks are the two class features of a Rogue. That'd be like making Rage into a feat. Or Channel Energy. etc.
Personally, I think some things should just remain accessible only to members of that Class. If they changed it at all, I would up the DCs of traps and give Rogues a bonus to Perception checks for trapfinding, ala the new Ranger bonus to Survival for Tracks. But a Rogue should be supreme at it over any other class with the same ranks, wisdom, etc.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My take on Trapfinding as a class ability.
1) Search checks can be used by anyone as an active action. The 'traps of a DC 21 or higher can't be found by non-rogues' doesn't exist.
2) Trapfinding as a class ability gives the rogue a passive 'danger sense' The DM makes a search roll whenever the character is within 5' of the trap or its trigger. The player can still state he is searching as a standard action (Which does give the rogue two rolls, one passive from the DM and one active)
Our group is holding on making new house rules until we have the new rules in hand, but this is one we've been contemplating for a while ...
I like the notion of giving the rogue a good bonus in finding traps, and allowing others to have a go at it, ala track, as stated above. It allows flexibility without having folks need to "dip" a level of rogue, or spend monies on find trap wands (which are dandy, but don't allow you to remove 'em once you know were they be <G>)
|
I've taken a different approach on this in my own games, trying to keep the rogue special in their own way and also saving some of the annoyances that come with trapfinding.
What I've normally done, is allowed anyone with disable device to find traps, however a rogue has the ability to automatically detect traps within 10 feet, much like a elf can detect secret doors.
It lets the game move forward more smoothly as well, taking out the rogue having to ask every other step to detect for traps. Instead, they can look to get an extra roll if they think a hallway looks suspicious and they think they may have missed something but otherwise you can roll secretly for them just when they are nearby an actual trap.
Edit: Wow, totally ninja'd. Glad to see I'm not alone in this.
|
|
Amazingly enough, only one of the three groups I've run through Paizo APs has had a rogue. Both the group that went through CotCT and the group that is now going through RotRL lack a rogue.
Summons, ten foot poles, and other creativities help 'set off' traps so that the players don't. Granted, they still stumble into some, but they get by.
I allow my players to take pretty much any Extraordinary class ability as a feat if they want. It's never caused any issues in my games, allows for diversification of the character types, and just makes sense to me. That said, I may be going with a "pure Pathfinder" approach for my next campaign, just to see how it goes.
Clezillla for the win again with Find Traps, which at 2nd level can be made into wands and then used by just about everyone in the party under Pathfinder (assuming they put ranks into Use Magic Device).
Although I do agree that not having a secondary class with Trapfinding does rather limit party composition. Instead of a Feat I would see this as a good excuse to build it into class variant or substitution level of another class.
Clezillla for the win again with Find Traps, which at 2nd level can be made into wands and then used by just about everyone in the party under Pathfinder (assuming they put ranks into Use Magic Device).
Although I do agree that not having a secondary class with Trapfinding does rather limit party composition. Instead of a Feat I would see this as a good excuse to build it into class variant or substitution level of another class.
Yeah, trapfinding spell finds it, now disarm it...
Yeah, trapfinding spell finds it, now disarm it...
Firstly a Rogue does all this better, at lower levels, and it should.
In the case of mechanical traps Disable Device remains a viable option, although without the class +3 bonus it does become a more difficult task. For magical traps Dispel Magic can be used to suppress them as a bypass measure (magical traps are created with the Craft Wondrous Item feat). From 5th level on up a cleric can offset the lack of a rogue.
Again this is like saying a Bard or Druid can take up the Clerics healer position in party. They can, just not as good as the class they are trying to replace.
|
|
At lot was said during development of the Pathfinder RPG Beta about making Trapfinding work much as Track was re-envisioned with the Ranger.
Simply put, anyone would be able to look for traps with a Perception check vs. the DC. Rogues would gain an automatic bonus to Perception checks to find traps (add half his level, just like the Ranger's Track ability as described in Beta, pg. 36).
I am waiting patiently for the final product to be released, but this is one "no-brainer" solution I hope made it into print. If not, there is always house rules...
Trapfinding as a feat? Nah, I don't want that.
I want trapfinding (as it is in 3.5e) simply part of the Perception and Disable Device skills. No feat needed. No class level needed. Just make your checks and go from there.
Traps being magically invisible to everyone but a rogue (and this everyone includes the very hyperbolic 1000th-level elf ranger with wisdom a million and all that, who can tell you the gender of a fly three planes away, but will stumble over a trap with a spot dc of 21.) just doesn't make sense.
Now I don't say the rogue should not be better at this than the rest. Make trapfinding (the new trapfinding, i.e. what rogues get) an ability that makes dealing with traps easier for rogues. Maybe a bonus to the necessary skills (just like rangers now get bonuses for tracking skill checks), or even something similar to what elves do with secret doors: If you come near a trap, you get to roll automatically.
Yeah, a first level commoner can set a trap that no one but a rogue can find...
Seems a little off to me too. "Oh sure anyone can set a trap... but even though you make traps, and you know traps and your whole life has been devoted to improving the traps in Undermountain, because you don't have 1 level in rogue you may not find traps you spoony bard (silly wizard, crazied cleric, Raunchy Ranger, et al)."
|
|
My tables use the 10' passive trapfinding for rogues, but everyone at the table may actively search for, and if they have disable, attempt to disable traps. I give rogues a bonus to perception and Disable = to their Trapsense. Also I only allow the rogue the 1 passive chance within 10' unless they use a rogue talent
Nervous trapfinder: Every round a rogue is within 10' of an undetected trap they receive another free perception check to detect the trap.
Yes, this means they may wind up standing at the mouth of a cave for rounds receiving two perception checks (1 passive and 1 active) but I haven't really seen this to be a problem. Besides, if they want to wait that long to be absolutely sure there is no trap it gives me more time to spring the ambush ;)
Has anyone noticed that there are MANY traps in the DMG with a Search (now Perception) check of 20 or less? As the Beta says:
Rogues (and only rogues) can use the Perception skill to locate traps when the task has a Difficulty Class higher than 20.
Even high-CR traps have Perception checks of 16-20. Perhaps we DMs can include more of those easy-to-see traps when there are no rogues in the party rather than re-writing the mechanics of Trapfinding? Just a thought...
Nice to find some like minds now and again.
2) Trapfinding as a class ability gives the rogue a passive 'danger sense' The DM makes a search roll whenever the character is within 5' of the trap or its trigger. The player can still state he is searching as a standard action (Which does give the rogue two rolls, one passive from the DM and one active)
however a rogue has the ability to automatically detect traps within 10 feet, much like a elf can detect secret doors.
I agree, though I don't exactly call it passive. An elf with sharp eyes can spot a secret door passively, but IMO, a rogue needs to actively search for traps. I just don't make my players say so every step of the way - I assume their rogue is doing his job unless he says otherwise.
I'm not DMing right now, we rotate, but I sure wish the current DM shared my take on this.
For three reasons:
1. Becaues it's tiresome to hear...
"I move forward a few feet and search the floor for a trap." ...roll... "Then I search the ceiling." ...roll... "Now I search the left wall." ...roll... "And now the right wall." ...roll... "And now th door on the right wall. What? Oh, I have to say which part of the door? Oh, OK, I search the lock."...roll... "The handle."...roll..."The top hinge"...roll..."The middle hinge."...roll..."The bottom hinge"...roll...
Sheeeeeeeesh!
2. Because it keeps it sneaky, and requires less metagaming from the group.
Rogue: I search the lock before I open the chest...Roll... I got a 2 +12 is 14.
DM: You didn't find a trap.
Rogue: (gulp) I suddenly have a bad feeling about this chest. My intuition says I might have hurried my search and I should try again.
DM: No it doesn't.
Rest of the party: We back up 30' down the hall and wait to see what happens.
One player: Not me. That's metagaming. I stand right here and blow up with the rogue.
Rest of the party: But you're our cleric. You're wise enough to know he might have missed something. Would't it be wise to stand down here with us just in case.
Cleric: Well, maybe, but it would be metagaming, so I'll stay right here and act on my character knowledge instead of my player knowledge.
Rest of party: But your charcteer is WISE. He wouldn't risk it.
DM: Too late. Chest goes BOOM. Rogue and cleric roll your saves.
If the DM rolls as needed, the group won't know the die came up a 2, or the total was just a 14. He says the chest isn't trapped, and the players are allowed to react to that based on their own knowledge and instincts, and they can roleplay their own character, without having to metagame or feel compelled to make deliberately non-metagame choices to prove they're not metagaming.
3. And most of all, because the player who is currently playing our rogue seems to always remember to check the safe places, wasting tons of our time, but never remember to check the places that actually have traps, so because of his forgetfulness, we seem to set off more traps than we find. There are even times when we say "check for traps, rogue" and he says "I walk down this corridor" and the DM says "Well, you didn't say you were checking, so you fell in the pit in the middle of the corridor".
What a waste of resources.
So we're wasting time (checking for traps in all the wrong places), wasting resources (healing people after traps go off because someone forgot to say "I check that for traps"), or forced to metagame/not-metagame (because we saw the dice rolled).
It's so much better for everyone at the table if the DM just rolls, and only rolls when needed, so the game can move along at a faster pace with player wonkiness.
Oh, and 4. When I'm DMing, sometimes it's more story driven to decide in advance that the rogue will find trap a, b, and d (the boring but deadly ones) but miss trap c (the interesting one) so that the rogue feels useful (.750 is a great batting average!) but the story gets to have an interesting trap go off at the right time, too. I can do this if the players don't see the rolls... (maybe that's wrong of me to do, but no more wrong than creating trap a, b, and d with search DCs of 12 and trap C with a search DC of 40 - tell me there aren't DMs who do this, or even published adventures with wildly varying DCs like this).
Searching again if you roll low is metagaming, and I have ways to discourage it, like automatically springing the trap when you try again. After all, you're searching more thoroughly, and that means touching stuff you previously thought is save.
Is it fair? Hell no. But I never said I'd be fair. I might as a courtesy if the players do the same, but if players treat it like a game, I do so, too. And I always play to win }>
Even high-CR traps have Perception checks of 16-20. Perhaps we DMs can include more of those easy-to-see traps when there are no rogues in the party rather than re-writing the mechanics of Trapfinding? Just a thought...
It's the principle of the thing. When I see rules that make no sense whatsoever, I ask myself if it makes sense that the rule is like this. And unless I come up with a really, really good reason, I change it.
Crippling the skills for everyone who isn't a rogue makes no sense. Either it's a skill, and open to everyone, or it's a class ability, open only to that class. And looking for stuff? Sounds like a skill. Called Search (or Perception nowadays). I mean, lets say you have an elven ranger 20, with maxed out perception, alertness, skill focus (perception), in his favoured terrain, with wis 20 (items) with magic lenses of the eagle-eye or something thag grants +10 to Perception. We're speaking about a Perception bonus of nearly +50 here. Why should this guy be unable - completely and utterly and totally unable - to spot a DC 21 trap while rogue 1 with only a 1 rank in perception and bad eyesight has a small chance of seeing?
So is there a really good reason why this should stay? I don't see one. Trapfinding might be a "rogue thing", but fighting's a fighter thing, and rogues can do that, too. But fighters are better. So make rogues better. Give them a bonus, or a perk. But don't turn a mundane (albeit extraordinary) ability that is supposed to be a skill into a supernatural power.
Hmm, something that I was considering for trapfinding is that classes with trapfinding make 2 rolls and take the better on searching for traps and disabling them, while any other class can attempt to find traps at any DC. How do you think that would work out?
I am the current Rogue in Brutes group. I can say I find our system works perfect. I pretty much just have faith in my pre rolled perception checks in hallways and rooms etc, anywhere non suspicous. Then when I reach something that actually looks suspicious I double check. Like doors, chests,unique features etc. they get that extra look over to ensure safety. It speeds up movement through the dungeon a great deal, and I feel it even adds a layer of strategy to my game. Now I am actually looking for the trap situations as opposed to blanketing every flat space with a "check". I am sure the rest of the party is happier not having to travel square by square through a 3000 square foot facility!
Edit: this also adds an out for the metagaming arguement for re-roll, because if I was concerned enough to double check despite not finding anything it is not a stretch to presume I would triple check. I do however draw the line at a second roll and proceed as though I am confident despite the numbers from that point.
Hmm, something that I was considering for trapfinding is that classes with trapfinding make 2 rolls and take the better on searching for traps and disabling them, while any other class can attempt to find traps at any DC. How do you think that would work out?
It's overkill.
Especially in Pathfinder, it's so easy to get skills very high. Max, plus other modifiers.
If you make a 10th level rogue (roll him up at 10 or build him up level by level) then throw him into some 3.5 dungeons that are appropriate for his level, his Perception skill will be above max (if you built him right) and he will almost never fail on trap finding.
When he does, it will be because he rolled very very low.
Give him two dice, and the odds of both being very very low become incredibly small.
If he can fail on a 10 or less with one die but rolls two dice, he goes from 50% failure to 25% failure, which might be cool.
But with Pathfinder ability scores, feats, and racials, your rogue is more likely to only fial on a 2 or less (muc of the time). With 2 dice his chance of failure goes from 10% to 1%. That's probably not cool.
You get odds that good in favor of the rogue, why even put traps in the game?
Might as well DM like this:
"Your party reaches the door at the end of the hall and the ranger begins to listen at the door. Oh, by the way, FYI: the rogue disabled a pit and a fire-jet trap in corridor along the way."
|
|
The way I've always done searching for traps, (and this is funny because 4ed stole my schtick) was to always assume the character with the highest perception was taking 10 on search checks, 4ed calls this passive perception, but I was doing this way before 4ed was announced. If a player told me he was actively looking for traps, I would allow them to roll their perception and use that roll until they either
A) found a trap
B) triggered a trap
C) had a combat encounter
at which point unless they told me otherwise they revert back to passive perception.
This saves a lot of time in game. As a player doesn't have to re-roll search/perception checks constantly in game either way, either he uses his rolled search or passive search and the party moves as normal (half normal speed for active searching).
Anywho in 3.5 if a trap had a DC higher than 20 I just added +10 to the DC for non-rogues. We will see how it goes in the final beta, but if it doesn't change that quick and dirty house rule will return.
Seems in general you all don't favor making it a feat so much as making it something other can do, but a rogue does better.
Ie Tracking with rangers.
You also seem to favor auto rolls for passing by a trap for rogues.
How about you throw them together, rogues get effectively skill focus in both finding and disabling traps, and throw in they can find them just by passing within 10 feet of them. Would that see fair?
((Other players do not auto detect them they must declare they are searching for them first, exception might be stone traps for dwarves and the like))
The way I've always done searching for traps, (and this is funny because 4ed stole my schtick) was to always assume the character with the highest perception was taking 10 on search checks, 4ed calls this passive perception, but I was doing this way before 4ed was announced. If a player told me he was actively looking for traps, I would allow them to roll their perception and use that roll until they either
A) found a trap
B) triggered a trap
C) had a combat encounter
at which point unless they told me otherwise they revert back to passive perception.
This saves a lot of time in game. As a player doesn't have to re-roll search/perception checks constantly in game either way, either he uses his rolled search or passive search and the party moves as normal (half normal speed for active searching).
Anywho in 3.5 if a trap had a DC higher than 20 I just added +10 to the DC for non-rogues. We will see how it goes in the final beta, but if it doesn't change that quick and dirty house rule will return.
The trouble with passive perception (by any other name) is twofold.
One, many traps are just out of reach of 10+skill level. Passive perception means the PC has a zero chance of finding these traps.
zero
Any player who has ever crunched even one number when creating/leveling his character will quickly realize that passive perception means there are some traps, usually the nastiest ones, that he can never ever find with passive perception.
Knowing this, he will actively search anyway, just for the chance that he rolls high on the d20 and finds something he would never find passively.
It could be the difference between life or death, and chances are, the rogue's player knows it.
Two, this can quickly become a source of abuse for DMs. Heck, even just looking at the published 4e adventures you can spot the traps the authors wanted to ensure that they would go off, because their Search (Perception) DC was several points above the typical skill +10 passive peception value of a typical level-appropriate rogue.
The DM wants a trap to be found, set it at a level where passive perception will find it. But if he wants his clever trap (ala Grimtooth) to be sprung, he knows exactly what value to set as a DC to make sure it will go off.
Maybe YOU wouldn't do that. Maybe I wouldn't. But if we're proposing it as a possible game system rule, or even suggesting it for wiedspread houserule consideration, I'm sure this DM "price fixing" would be see at some game tables.
Heck, it can be seen in 4e published adventures, by professional adventure designers who are paid for their work, and then edited by other professionals, and it still gets into print - so yeah, what chance do the teeming masses of amature DMs have to avoid this, er, trap (no pun intented)?
|
|
The way I've always done searching for traps, (and this is funny because 4ed stole my schtick) was to always assume the character with the highest perception was taking 10 on search checks, 4ed calls this passive perception, but I was doing this way before 4ed was announced. If a player told me he was actively looking for traps, I would allow them to roll their perception and use that roll until they either
A) found a trap
B) triggered a trap
C) had a combat encounter
at which point unless they told me otherwise they revert back to passive perception.
This saves a lot of time in game. As a player doesn't have to re-roll search/perception checks constantly in game either way, either he uses his rolled search or passive search and the party moves as normal (half normal speed for active searching).
Anywho in 3.5 if a trap had a DC higher than 20 I just added +10 to the DC for non-rogues. We will see how it goes in the final beta, but if it doesn't change that quick and dirty house rule will return.
The trouble with passive perception (by any other name) is twofold.
One, many traps are just out of reach of 10+skill level. Passive perception means the PC has a zero chance of finding these traps.
zero
Any player who has ever crunched even one number when creating/leveling his character will quickly realize that passive perception means there are some traps, usually the nastiest ones, that he can never ever find with passive perception.
Knowing this, he will actively search anyway, just for the chance that he rolls high on the d20 and finds something he would never find passively.
It could be the difference between life or death, and chances are, the rogue's player knows it.
Two, this can quickly become a source of abuse for DMs. Heck, even just looking at the published 4e adventures you can spot the traps the authors wanted to ensure that they would go off, because their Search (Perception) DC was several points above the typical...
Um you did catch that whole part where I said that players could still say they were actively searching for traps right, Passive perception in my games was the go to if no one remembered to search, instead of just automatically hitting the characters they could instead at least have passive. I don't think I ever actually used a passive check on them for traps though because it became standard for the rogue to just roll a search when entering a dungeon and then roll again after A/B/C since it then carried until they found a trap or not. I never intended passive perception to replace actual searching, and my system doesn't encourage it either. So the rogue in your example is doing exactly what I wanted him too in the first place. Every once in a while though players just plum forget to do things that are their characters schtick, I've had players forget animal companions in battle, forget to search, etc. etc. passive perception is just an in case player forgets thing.
Um you did catch that whole part where I said that players could still say they were actively searching for traps right, Passive perception in my games was the go to if no one remembered to search, instead of just automatically hitting the characters they could instead at least have passive. I don't think I ever actually used a passive check on them for traps though because it became standard for the rogue to just roll a search when entering a dungeon and then roll again after A/B/C since it then carried until they found a trap or not. I never intended passive perception to replace actual searching, and my system doesn't encourage it either. So the rogue in your example is doing exactly what I wanted him too in the first place.
As predicted.
Which means, my points (fairly pertinent to 4e) were supported by your own.
Which then makes it redundant to offer both, since the rogue player ignores the passive perception in favor of actively searching.
By contrast, why not allow them to actively search, and assume they are always actively searching, and a d20 will be rolled each time a trap is encountered.
But the rogue's player doesn't have to declare out loud where he is searching - we'll assume his character is a professional, knows what he's doing, and believes his life is on the line so he takes it very seriously. Ergo, no chance that he forgets to search the door or chest before it's opened, no chance he forgets to check the hallway for traps, etc.
But, we don't make him declare it a thousand times during the dungeon crwal, and the player doesn't have to roll a thousand d20, when there are only three traps in the dungeon.
Just allow the PCs to roleplay, to deal with the more active challenges in the dungeon, and when they walk into one of those traps, the DM can quietly roll (or even ask the player to roll) a Perception check to find the trap.
Three traps, three rolls.
Nothing passive. And no need to roll the other 997 times the player (or the rogue) thinks there might be a trap to be found.
Just a thought.
|
|
Um you did catch that whole part where I said that players could still say they were actively searching for traps right, Passive perception in my games was the go to if no one remembered to search, instead of just automatically hitting the characters they could instead at least have passive. I don't think I ever actually used a passive check on them for traps though because it became standard for the rogue to just roll a search when entering a dungeon and then roll again after A/B/C since it then carried until they found a trap or not. I never intended passive perception to replace actual searching, and my system doesn't encourage it either. So the rogue in your example is doing exactly what I wanted him too in the first place.As predicted.
Which means, my points (fairly pertinent to 4e) were supported by your own.
Which then makes it redundant to offer both, since the rogue player ignores the passive perception in favor of actively searching.
By contrast, why not allow them to actively search, and assume they are always actively searching, and a d20 will be rolled each time a trap is encountered.
But the rogue's player doesn't have to declare out loud where he is searching - we'll assume his character is a professional, knows what he's doing, and believes his life is on the line so he takes it very seriously. Ergo, no chance that he forgets to search the door or chest before it's opened, no chance he forgets to check the hallway for traps, etc.
But, we don't make him declare it a thousand times during the dungeon crwal, and the player doesn't have to roll a thousand d20, when there are only three traps in the dungeon.
Just allow the PCs to roleplay, to deal with the more active challenges in the dungeon, and when they walk into one of those traps, the DM can quietly roll (or even ask the player to roll) a Perception check to find the trap.
Three traps, three rolls.
Nothing passive. And no need to roll the other 997 times the player (or the rogue)...
Because I've witnessed too many professionals screw up accidentally. Even in instances where lives were on the line (I work in aviation) and I'm sure people in the military can equally tell you of times where they've lost comrades in arms to doing something stupid or forgetting something critical. So I make players declare, and I have passive perception if they forget, and it works for my games.
Really though I don't wind up having players roll that many search checks, they only have to re-roll when something interrupts their searching.
Hmmm,
After reading through all this, how does this strike everyone?
A) Trapfinding can be done by anyone. Rogues get a bonus equal to 1/2 Rogue level + Int Modifier (At low levels, it's native intelligence, at higher levels, experience) to search check for the purposes of finding traps.
B) General Searching: When entering a dungeon (or other place where traps may be), the PC's must declare they are 'actively looking' for traps. This cuts movement to 1/2. The GM makes a roll for everyone with Search, and uses this as their 'default' search roll. Then they proceed as they want through the dungeon, with the GM using their rolls by default. Any player can, at any time, specify they are checking something specific, and get a roll specific to that. Also, any character can, at any time, request all general search rolls be redone (The GM then rerolls everyone's default search check).
C) Disable Device: Anyone with the skill can attempt to bypass a trap/lock. No need to give Rogue bonus's, it's already a class skill for them, they get bonus's already.
|
|
Hmmm,
After reading through all this, how does this strike everyone?A) Trapfinding can be done by anyone. Rogues get a bonus equal to 1/2 Rogue level + Int Modifier (At low levels, it's native intelligence, at higher levels, experience) to search check for the purposes of finding traps.
B) General Searching: When entering a dungeon (or other place where traps may be), the PC's must declare they are 'actively looking' for traps. This cuts movement to 1/2. The GM makes a roll for everyone with Search, and uses this as their 'default' search roll. Then they proceed as they want through the dungeon, with the GM using their rolls by default. Any player can, at any time, specify they are checking something specific, and get a roll specific to that. Also, any character can, at any time, request all general search rolls be redone (The GM then rerolls everyone's default search check).
C) Disable Device: Anyone with the skill can attempt to bypass a trap/lock. No need to give Rogue bonus's, it's already a class skill for them, they get bonus's already.
It's a little weird because you give them their int bonus doubled, once in the skill check and once in the trapfinding class feature in 3.5, and in pathfinder you're giving them int+wis on the check. Your better off just giving them a min +1 at level 1 for the 1/2 class level.
It's a little weird because you give them their int bonus doubled, once in the skill check and once in the trapfinding class feature in 3.5, and in pathfinder you're giving them int+wis on the check. Your better off just giving them a min +1 at level 1 for the 1/2 class level.Hmmm,
After reading through all this, how does this strike everyone?...
Geh,
You're right. +1/2 Rogue Level (Min +1) sounds better.|
|
It's a little weird because you give them their int bonus doubled, once in the skill check and once in the trapfinding class feature in 3.5, and in pathfinder you're giving them int+wis on the check. Your better off just giving them a min +1 at level 1 for the 1/2 class level.Hmmm,
After reading through all this, how does this strike everyone?...
Geh,
You're right. +1/2 Rogue Level (Min +1) sounds better.
With the change to rogue's bonus it sounds good to me.