Yeah, I'm not a big fan of traps; they either reward slowing the game down to a crawl with Search checks every 5 feet. But some people love them; go figure.
Get the trapspotter talent and it's a thing of the past. Heck, give it to your rogues as a bonus talent and you can induce paranoia by asking rogues for perception checks in suspicious hallways!
I'm looking but I can't find were it says only rogues can find magical traps. It says they alone can disarm them but if others can find them well again a dispell magic should do the job for disarming the trap meaning you don't need a rogue in your group though there are certainly reasons to want one.
Ah, the old "dispel magic" trick. Where you dispel the force field that holds the avalanche in check. And then are buried. Gotcha!
when I get board
Is that boisterous barbarian slang for "getting wood"?
It's common practive in Paizo stat blocks to list the character's AC without Dex and dodge bonuses as their flat-footed AC, irrespective of the character's possession of uncanny dodge. It's something they've done consistently since the beginning, so it's not an error.
A consistent error is still an error. I think what you mean is that it's not an accident. :-)
On a serious note, I hope they cleaned up some of the flat-footed vs. no-Dex-bonus confusion for the final version of the rules.
explanations
Okay, maybe I've been misunderstanding Uncanny Dodge a bit then. Doesn't help that the character generator I've been using outputs a flat-footed AC that includes Dex for Uncanny Dodge. The description in the Beta gives only immobilization as a condition that denies a character with Uncanny Dodge her Dex bonus. Do feinting and flanking do that too?
|
Oh, and why does Merisiel have Gnome?Because she and Lini needed a common language to talk about Valeros's butt without him understanding them, and he knows elvish.
This has actually happened (sort of) in my party. Three of the party speak Shoanti and when talking to the Moon Clan they said ignore everything this other guy says, he's a moron, but he's really strong so we keep him around. As it was all in Shoanti, he didn't understand a word. One of the three is the party Paladin!
Flanking never causes you to lose your Dex bonus.
Feinting is a perfect example of Paizo's flat-footed vs. no-Dex-bonus confusion. In the description of the Bluff skill in the Pathfinder Beta rules, it says that feinting makes you flat-footed (in which case Uncanny Dodge would help). But in the combat section of the rules, it says that feinting makes you lose your Dex bonus (in which case Uncanny Dodge doesn't help).
|
Yeah, the text on feinting was clearer in 3.5 than in the Beta. To sum up;
Flanking: Flanked creature keeps their Dex bonus, but you may sneak attack them. If a creature has improved uncanny dodge, it cannot be flanked except by a rogue of at least 4 levels higher.
Feinting: Under 3.5, feinting causes the creature to lose their Dex bonus against your next attack. This worked irrespective of uncanny dodge, which only protected you against a) losing your Dex because you were flat-footed, and b) losing your Dex because you were being attacked by an invisible creature. I'm pretty sure the Beta intended feinting to do the same thing, but used the 'flat-footed' terminology, creating confusion.
And I'd agree that the term 'flat-footed AC' is misleading in a Paizo stat block, but I can't think of another short-hand term for 'your AC sans Dex and dodge bonuses'. Stupid terminology!
And I'd agree that the term 'flat-footed AC' is misleading in a Paizo stat block, but I can't think of another short-hand term for 'your AC sans Dex and dodge bonuses'. Stupid terminology!
During the playtest, I suggested "taken off-guard" or "off-guard", but nobody liked it. :-)
Honestly, they could've probably combined those two states (i.e. flat-footed == no Dex bonus) once and for all without hurting the game too much.
|
|
During the playtest, I suggested "taken off-guard" or "off-guard", but nobody liked it. :-)
Honestly, they could've probably combined those two states (i.e. flat-footed == no Dex bonus) once and for all without hurting the game too much.
I'm not sure if this is agreeing with your point or not, but I'd say that the easiest fix would be to change uncanny dodge to read: 'You retain your Dex bonus to AC when attacked in the surprise round of a combat, and when attacked by a hidden or invisible attacker.' That way, they can use flat-footed to mean 'denied Dex to AC' without running into the '...except for people with uncanny dodge' issue that forces them to go all round the houses when they do intend people with uncanny dodge to be denied their Dex.
And it'd make the Paizo stat block correct. ;)
Ah, the old "dispel magic" trick. Where you dispel the force field that holds the avalanche in check. And then are buried. Gotcha!
Oh… I'm stealing that one.
explanationsOkay, maybe I've been misunderstanding Uncanny Dodge a bit then. Doesn't help that the character generator I've been using outputs a flat-footed AC that includes Dex for Uncanny Dodge. The description in the Beta gives only immobilization as a condition that denies a character with Uncanny Dodge her Dex bonus. Do feinting and flanking do that too?
In 3.5, it's like this:
Uncanny dodge means that even if you're flat-footed, you retain your Dex bonus to AC.Improved UD means that you cannot be flanked unless the guy flanking you is a rogue with 4 more levels of rogue than you have in the class that gives you IUD (sneaking classes stack for the flanking part, and uncanny dodgy classes stack for the prevention part).
Attacking someone before he could act in combat, as well as attacking from hiding and while being invisible will render the victim flat-footed (and UD Helps). Sneak attackers can sneak attack flat-footed enemies (and UD prevents that).
Flanking doesn't do anything with your Dex, but it does allow sneak attackers to SA you (and IUD prevents that).
Beyond this, there are a few possibilities to sneak attack someone who has IUD (beyond the "be powerful enough to flank him"), as there are situations where you lose your dex to AC without being considered flat-footed, and these are being feinted, and being immobilised.
Stuff"Trap breaker" is -one- build for rogues and maybe Skill mastery needs to be taken a look at. I think the non-trap breaking build rogues would suffer if you swing the DCs too far in the other direction.
It would also make other classes, comparatively, inept in disarming traps (again) as opposed to having at least a shot at it. This seems to be something they are trying to address in PF.
Did I mention recently that I don't like the term "build"? It sounds all so mechanical, as if this was some mere combat game.
"Finally, trap spotter gives Merisiel a Perception check to notice a trap the moment she moves to within 10 feet of it."
Could this be one o the best things that has happened to the game since they invented skills?
No more:
Player: I search this square and that...and that one. And I search the door.
GM: Bang. You didn't chech that square.
This will speed up the game. Nice :-) (and so will the new PA)
This is a fine new special ability,
but if your players are going square by square making Search checks, you're not doing it right.
...or maybe you are doing it right! :)
To me, Traps are not about sapping x number of HP from the party, they're about . If that fear has induced your player to build his whole character around not succumbing to deadly traps, I think that's awesome. You should be throwing false alarms at him all the time, to be befit such a paranoid character.
|
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of traps; they either reward slowing the game down to a crawl with Search checks every 5 feet. But some people love them; go figure.
I dislike endless roll-offs, which is why, when I DM, I stopped doing them.
Have the Perception bonuses for your PCs written down, and if it becomes relevant, roll it.
Make rolls all the time, even when nothing is happening.
Make some rolls in advance of events you know are coming up (the ambush, the disguised spy, the sound of pursuit).
Make some of those rolls relate to secret, passive Perception checks, where the players shouldn't have to declare intent.
If they want to search a 300' passage with one or two traps/secret doors/treasure in it, tell them how long it will take to make one check per square, ask them if they're OK with that, what order they're doing it, and if the others want to do something else while they wait.
Roll several dice at once, for misdirection (so they don't now how many items needed to be found).
Only one die per item (pre-chosen before the roll) needs be accounted for by you, the DM. Ignore the decoy dice.
You tell the player "After [insert time], you find nothing/a wobbly flagstone/a breeze/a glint of gold, at that point there [point at map]. What do you do?"
Cuts down the table time, and helps cut out a lot of the metagaming that occurs when a player gets asked to make a passive roll, rolls low, and then 'suddenly gets a hunch' that they need to start examining every pebble with a magnifying glass.
And I'd agree that the term 'flat-footed AC' is misleading in a Paizo stat block, but I can't think of another short-hand term for 'your AC sans Dex and dodge bonuses'. Stupid terminology!During the playtest, I suggested "taken off-guard" or "off-guard", but nobody liked it. :-)
Honestly, they could've probably combined those two states (i.e. flat-footed == no Dex bonus) once and for all without hurting the game too much.
While we're mincing terms: "Dexterity" has a decidedly hands-oriented connotation. So losing your Hand-bonus by being Flat-footed makes even less sense.
Add it to the list of terms with "Spell Level" and "Enchantment".
Beyond this, there are a few possibilities to sneak attack someone who has IUD (beyond the "be powerful enough to flank him"), as there are situations where you lose your dex to AC without being considered flat-footed, and these are being feinted, and being immobilised.
Although rare, I believe being in tight spaces would also deny you a dex bonus to AC. "Squeezing" in Beta p.144.
I dislike endless roll-offs, which is why, when I DM, I stopped doing them.
[...]
Make rolls all the time, even when nothing is happening.
You dislike endless roll-offs, so you roll dice endlessly? (just kidding)
In my experience, PCs usually check doors for traps by default, but that's about it. At least until they get hit by a trap when walking down a corridor (say); then they search for traps every 5' for the rest of the module. That's not creating fear and tension, that's creating busy work.
|
Beyond this, there are a few possibilities to sneak attack someone who has IUD (beyond the "be powerful enough to flank him"), as there are situations where you lose your dex to AC without being considered flat-footed, and these are being feinted, and being immobilised.Although rare, I believe being in tight spaces would also deny you a dex bonus to AC. "Squeezing" in Beta p.144.
As does Climbing, using Acrobatics to balance, and Running.
--Vrocktoberfest!
At least we should get no flames over this preview. Very little changed from Beta, and there's not a lot of change from 3.5. Then again, honestly, the rogue has always been one of the most popular classes as is.There were big changes from 3e to Beta: d8 HP is very nice (and logical - never understood while the priests got more HP than the rogues), and of course there are rogue talents! And sneak attacking almost everyting!
Honestly, those really aren't that big a change. It amounts to changing the hit die by one stage and giving some feats that have to be selected from a list. Certainly nothing like bloodlines, rage abilities, etc. If you look at it closely, you'll see it's a fairly minor modification. Even the sneak attack most things could be done in 3.5 with a couple of feats from splatbooks.
Ah, the old "dispel magic" trick. Where you dispel the force field that holds the avalanche in check. And then are buried. Gotcha!Oh… I'm stealing that one.
We had a druid try and dispell a ruin that was holding back a rather nasty demon once. It can happen but as I said nothing I read says others can't find magical traps, only that rogues are the only ones able to disarm them. So bard can find the magical trap and then use dispel magic to remove it as needed.
Honestly, those really aren't that big a change. It amounts to changing the hit die by one stage and giving some feats that have to be selected from a list. Certainly nothing like bloodlines, rage abilities, etc. If you look at it closely, you'll see it's a fairly minor modification. Even the sneak attack most things could be done in 3.5 with a couple of feats from splatbooks.
At least we should get no flames over this preview. Very little changed from Beta, and there's not a lot of change from 3.5. Then again, honestly, the rogue has always been one of the most popular classes as is.There were big changes from 3e to Beta: d8 HP is very nice (and logical - never understood while the priests got more HP than the rogues), and of course there are rogue talents! And sneak attacking almost everyting!
I would say the reason for no flames is that nothing really changed much from beta and people are in general happy with beta so....
When I see a Rogue that actually takes Skill Mastery I'll start complaining about him being able to use his class feature effectively... oh .. wait.
One of my player *always* takes it as his first special rogue ability. I hope that explains my frustration with the topic... for my last three campaigns traps were completely useless after level 10.
...
1.) Which rogue doesn´t max out his perception? It´s one of his most valuable skills.
2.) It´s useless increasing the possible CR for traps to 20 when a rogue will automatically find and disable them. It´s simply not a challenge in that certain case, and if I´d build a dungeon, I´d be *crazy* to include a trap which costs 50k in gold to put in, if I could be 90% sure that it won´t do any harm to intruders ( of course the guy who built the dungeon could well *be* crazy... but that´s beside the topic ^^).
My question still remains, and I hope I can get an answer from Jason or James... are there mechanics in the finished product to increase DCs for traps?
When I see a Rogue that actually takes Skill Mastery I'll start complaining about him being able to use his class feature effectively... oh .. wait.
One of my player *always* takes it as his first special rogue ability. I hope that explains my frustration with the topic... for my last three campaigns traps were completely useless after level 10.
...
1.) Which rogue doesn´t max out his perception? It´s one of his most valuable skills.
2.) It´s useless increasing the possible CR for traps to 20 when a rogue will automatically find and disable them. It´s simply not a challenge in that certain case, and if I´d build a dungeon, I´d be *crazy* to include a trap which costs 50k in gold to put in, if I could be 90% sure that it won´t do any harm to intruders ( of course the guy who built the dungeon could well *be* crazy... but that´s beside the topic ^^).
Stuff"Trap breaker" is -one- build for rogues and maybe Skill mastery needs to be taken a look at. I think the non-trap breaking build rogues would suffer if you swing the DCs too far in the other direction.
It´s very easy to make your rogue a "trap breaker". Two skills the rogue will take anyway, a normal rogue talent and an advanced rogue talent.
As I said above, my problem is with the fact that against such rogues you might as well not include traps, which takes out one of the iconic thing of dungeons.
My question still remains, and I hope I can get an answer from Jason or James... are there mechanics in the finished product to increase DCs for traps beyond standard CR's?
When I see a Rogue that actually takes Skill Mastery I'll start complaining about him being able to use his class feature effectively... oh .. wait.One of my player *always* takes it as his first special rogue ability. I hope that explains my frustration with the topic... for my last three campaigns traps were completely useless after level 10.
Ah.. Yes! That does explain it perfectly.
1.) Which rogue doesn´t max out his perception? It´s one of his most valuable skills.
A few don't, particularly those that multiclass of course, but you're quite right, most do.
2.) It´s useless increasing the possible CR for traps to 20 when a rogue will automatically find and disable them. It´s simply not a challenge in that certain case, and if I´d build a dungeon, I´d be *crazy* to include a trap which costs 50k in gold to put in, if I could be 90% sure that it won´t do any harm to intruders.
Mmm... not quite what I meant. I meant at Level 20, when parties run into CR 20 traps, the trap Notice/Disable DCs will have to vary between those that *can* potentially challenge a rogue - and impossible for anyone else - and those that challenge non-rogues and are auto for max-perception rogues.
*Not* placing traps b/c of a PC in your group that will rarely miss them is meta-game thinking. That can be good (saves you semi-wasted time), and can be bad (denies the rogue some spotlight time for his focus). Primarily you should probably toss in the occasional nasty trap that the rogue laughs at, the occasional nasty trap that is *hard* to detect, and the occasional trap that can be detected but not disarmed from the rogue's location.
My question still remains, and I hope I can an answer from Jason or James... are there mechanics in the finished product to increase DCs for traps?
I believe the CRs and prices are based on the DCs, so yes. I'm not sure if there's a "add 5 DC, raise price/CR by X" factor, but certainly info enough to handle it.
As for non-Rogues detecting magic traps, let's check the preview:
#1 Now that all characters can locate and disarm mechanical traps regardless of the DC, #2 the trapfinding ability now grants a bonus on Perception checks to notice traps and Disable Device checks equal to half the rogue's level. #3 It also grants rogues the ability to disarm magic traps.
Okay, so previous rule starting point: Only Rogues can detect/disarm mechanical traps with DCs higher than 20, and only Rogues can detect/disarm magic traps (which was redundant, since the DC defaults to 25+spell level).
First part of that old rule, gone for sure from #1. #2 Bonus to checks, yay. #3 ability to disarm magic traps - reaffirming the disarm part of the old rule. So we just don't know if the detect part was left out, or if anyone can now detect magic traps. My guess, probably anyone can detect, just not disarm, but we have yet to find out.
I know when I play in RPGA/Society and we say to the rogue, "can you check the door?" (because they haven't). 95% of the time they respond "I'm not 'that' kind of rogue."
That's fairly likely to change, given that there's no more need to invest in "Search" vs. Listen/Spot. Any Rogue without a rank in Perception is just kinda wasting a good bit of class features.
|
|
I dislike endless roll-offs, which is why, when I DM, I stopped doing them.
[...]
Make rolls all the time, even when nothing is happening.
You dislike endless roll-offs, so you roll dice endlessly? (just kidding)
In my experience, PCs usually check doors for traps by default, but that's about it. At least until they get hit by a trap when walking down a corridor (say); then they search for traps every 5' for the rest of the module. That's not creating fear and tension, that's creating busy work.
Maybe saying I roll 'all the time' is an exaggeration. LOL
But it does save time, because you only need to register the rolls where the result is relevant. If there's 20 places to look in the room, but only one thing of interest, then roll for that one thing (with maybe some decoy dice, so the players can't meta that there was only one thing to find). The other 19 searches are totally irrelevant, and they're the ones I despise having to play out, as they bore the non-rogue players, who drift out of the moment, or even away from the table altogether.
Yes, if the PCs think there are traps everywhere, and check every inch, it will slow the party down, but you can fast-forward through this at the table. You still tell them it takes them an hour to turn the Baron's study upside down, but there's no reason it has to waste 2-3 hours of your game night. You can do it in five minutes, tops.
<clatter>
<clatter>
<clatter>
<clatter>
As for passive checks, I can be doing them in advance of events I know are coming up, or while the players are deciding their next move, or debating some rule between themselves.
It's a few seconds of work for me, vs several minutes of fannying around for the whole group, because;
- someone has to find their 'special' die, the one that saved their favourite character at GenCon 1979, the one with no wax in the numbers, and all the corners knocked off, which takes forever to stop rolling, and so goes off the table and under the fridge, and we have to stop the game to go fish it out, because no other die will do, and then we have to repeat the debate about all rolls have to be on the table, disregard any that land on the floor, but oh no, you're only saying that because it was a natural twenty, honest, it was, if you'd grovelled around on the floor and sprained your neck, you'd have seen it, but it's too late now, because someone's knocked it, but I want that twenty to stand, and if I can't have it now then I want it to be for my next roll....Wah wah wah....
- the guy with the transparent die, or the un-inked die, or the die with swirly-whirly colours that make the thing totally unreadable from more than eight inches away, so you have to get out of your seat to go round and check it, because if you don't, he'll 'accidentally' mistake a 3 for a 5 or 8, or a 6 for a 9, or what the hell, just lie to your face.
- the person who packs their f***ing dice away, after every roll, like they're his lickle-wickle children being tucked up for the night, and he'll crack one day, and read them a g##-d!@ned bedtime story between every one of his actions.
- the person who has to be told that they need a d20 for this roll, and then have to be told which is the d20, at which you realise why their contribution to combat has been so s#+&ty-awful, because they've been attacking everything with a d12 for weeks.
- the guy who has to give you the Spanish Inquisition every time you ask for a roll; what am I rolling for, is it a Spot, what do I see, you do know I've got Alertness, and Skill Focus, and I did say I was standing nowhere near those two when they open that chest, I'm thirty feet away over the other side of the room, so I can't be caught in the blast, so I don't need to make a save, and if I did, I have Evasion and a ring of fire resistance that the others don't know about, so they'll get caught in the blast and I've got first dibs on their stuff. Unless of course there is no trap, and it's treasure, in which case, I'll be right over it like a fly round a cowpat, and you do realise I was there first, right? You do remember me saying I was the one opening the chest, right? And I have Sleight of Hand +10, so I should be able to pick the best stuff out before they have time to see it, right? What am I rolling for again?
Any of that sound familiar?
<groan>
Director of Games
|
Hi there everybody,
Couple of quick points here this morning.
1. The flat-footed AC is listed because it is a handy value to have due to the fact that there are other ways that rogue can lose here Dex (and dodge) bonus to AC, such as feint.
2. Speaking of feint, this language has been cleared up. Neither the Bluff skill or the combat chapter reference the flat-footed state, which means that feint is the one way that rogues can sneak attack each other with some consistency.
3. Traps. Yes, some rogues are going to be very good at finding and disabling traps. That is one of their focus areas and I am not going to deny them that. The new trap rules certainly allow for traps with a Perception DC that is much higher than 20 if your group needs the extra challenge and at higher CRs, this should be a bit more common. That said, the rogue is still going to be good at it. I suggest you embrace this fact and work with it. Characters should be good at some things.. If everything is a difficult challenge, there is no difference between a high level character and a 1st level common (for which everything is a difficult challenge). Those things said, lets not dwell on this topic.. some characters focus to become masters at some talents, and there is no way I could (or would really want to) create rules to prevent this.
That is all for now..
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
As I said above, my problem is with the fact that against such rogues you might as well not include traps, which takes out one of the iconic thing of dungeons.
I have a completely opposite view than you of this. When my players make choices on background, deities, domains, quirks, feats, or skills I try and fold all of that into whatever I run. So if a player of mine chose to be the "trap breaker" rogue, I would continue to use traps as normal or maybe even include a place where there were many traps. Otherwise I would feel like I am just punishing my players for making character choices.
At 10th level, sans magic items, ability score bonus/penalty or anything else, based on PF Beta, a trained Perception skill at the maximum of 10 ranks is a +13, not a +18. This is universally true of all skills at 10th level that are trained (on a character's class skills list). EDIT: Ah, I see - selecting the particular talent at 10th adds on another +5 (1/2 rogue level) for the +18 total. Oops!
A "trap breaker" will spend feats that tack on another +10 at 10th level (Skill Focus and the relevant +2/+2 feat) bringing that total to +20. Masterwork tools improve this to a +22. At 10th level a 5th level magical trap (as in, 5th level spell) has a DC of 30 (requiring 2d4 rounds), which means that only Skill Mastery guarantees success in disabling the trap IF they have enough uninterrupted time to do so by being able to take 10 for a check result of 32. Which is enough to disable a trap packing a 7th level or lower spell. Some times, even most of the time, the "trap breaker" can count on disabling the trap. They cannot count on bypassing the trap, however (requiring a PF Beta check total of 42), which can be important. In order to achieve this +22 result they have to invest 3 general feats and their very first Advanced Rogue Talent to do so. This is a rather significant investment of focus on the dungeon delver's part, as those 3 feats are - for a human character - a substantial chunk of their total number of feats. Presuming they went "trap buster" as early as possible, they are left with 3 general feats gained at 5th, 7th and 9th level. If they are not, they have but 2 general feats remaining to them. Investing half of your first six feats into "trap busting" is not insignificant IMO. Some times traps are placed for a combination of traffic control (mechanical traps) and security of valuables (mechanical and magical traps). One of the biggest reasons to place such traps is to acquire valuable time on the part of any active defenders of the location.
Granted, the "trap breaker" can probably cease investing skill ranks in Disable Device at 10th level presuming Skill Mastery and high-ish ability score bonuses to Perception and Disable Device. This may also be the intent for the new rules, as once such a character hits 11th level they may branch out into new skills to do other things besides bust traps, without requiring massive up-scaling of the various DC's. Keep in mind the time requirements and that some times one's trap-buster may well be tied up for anywhere from two to nine full rounds dealing with a killer trap while the rest of the characters are holding off a brain-munching horde of spectral-lich-dragons (or whatever), at least once or twice in a career. It may even require concentration (which it should), say if the rogue is fireballed, denying the chance to make a saving throw. Layered traps could also be involved, requiring potentially minutes of time as the trap buster is busily chiseling through four or five traps/locks to free the party from an otherwise certain, grisly demise.
It seems that being able to perceive a magical trap is often really not that big a deal since many of them are rather obvious. Glyphs of Warding, magical Symbols, and more are often required to be placed in plain sight to even operate. Disabling them is another matter, one requiring substantial finesse (as outlined above). The concealed magical traps are dangerous, as detect magic requires that one is able to perceive the magical item in the first place. That is why the cantrip / orison does not detect magically invisible creatures and objects - you have to be able to see what is not visually perceivable in order for the detect magic to operate in the first place. If such magical traps are not easily picked out by detect magic, or at least require a Perception check while using detect magic on the 2nd or perhaps even the 3rd round, then it is a more reasonable situation. Concentration slows the caster down considerably - roughly 1/4 to 1/6 speed that could otherwise be achieved - again providing valuable time for any active defenders to potentially take necessary measures.
A very significant change from the new ability is that the venerable magical alarms that were so often overlooked / not found and disabled are now subject to "autodetect", albiet not until much higher level. At the low levels, with a DC of 26 , they will be unlikely to be found, even with a "trap buster" (1 rank +3 trained +3 skill focus +2 skill feat and let us say a modest +1 ability score bonus) packing a +10 bonus, giving a poor likelyhood indeed of being perceived (20%) and disarmed. Not until the earliest of say 7th level or so will an alarm be considered auto-detectable (+18 total bonus including 6 additional ranks and masterwork tools, resulting in a 65% likelyhood of noticing the alarm in question). At 10th level an alarm for the Skill Mastered "trap buster" is automatically detectable and disarmable, provided that they have the time available with which to do so, averaging 36 seconds / 6 rounds at a minimum (1 round to search and 5 on the 2d4 to disable) for even the lowliest of magical traps. The argument can be made of course that "why shouldn't we be able to breeze through such paltry magic at 10th level?", which may be the case here.
As has already been pointed out - and I've certainly seen at the table many times - there are often impatient players and/or characters that go bouncing on ahead setting off traps willy nilly. Fear effects have the potential to channel characters directly into various traps as well, especially when panicked and taking a random path away from the source of the effect. Not every group has remove fear available to them for various reasons, and certain high land speed characters can quickly find themselves out of their allies' ability to remedy such a situation.
Some traps of course on occasion prove to be escape routes of desperation - jumping down into a pit to escape something that you *know* is going to frag you may well seem to be a better option, for example.
EDIT: 10th level "trap buster" indeed ... a +27 or so!
It will be interesting to see the "fine print" on both magical and mechanical traps in the new rules. :)
1. The flat-footed AC is listed because it is a handy value to have due to the fact that there are other ways that rogue can lose here Dex (and dodge) bonus to AC, such as feint.
That's fine, but it's not a flat-footed AC, at least not the way "flat-footed" was defined in 3.5.
|
I personally, don't like the PF rogue. I think they made them even more of a combat class, and I think they are both to powerful in and out of game. When I say out of game, I mean that they mechanically are too easy to step one everyone elses toes, and I don't like that their abilities are near impossible to defend against (its almost all on the attacker, not the defender).
Now they have an autosneak attack in surprize rounds, too?
I like that anyone can find traps. Every group I've played with for years now house rulled that. So that's good that it is finally official.
I like thay in 3.5 a rogue could take feats and PCs to sneak attack undead, constructs, etc. . . But I hate that in PF just any rogue can do it. It takes away the threat that those monster types had, and really unbalances those types of encounter themes. And it makes no sense that a rogue can get in and hurt something that may not even exist and serves no function to a zombie or golem (like a kidney) while no one else can land a lucky blow. At least than it was possible but the rogue had to give up something or go into a specific class to do so. It also usually cut down the sneak attack, as well, which helped mantain party diversity and that some classes are better against some creatures.
I know that rogue is the most popular class, it's just always been way to powerful in all the groups I've played 3E with, and now seems even stronger. And now even way more custimizable. Normally I wouldn't say that is bad, it is just that rogue particularly has always (3Ewise) outclasses all other classes in the shear number of things that you can do with the base class. While that's still debatably valid in all editions, I really think all classes should have a lot more possible options or kits. That's just my opinion, and I know a lot of people here don't agree.
|
|
I have a completely opposite view than you of this. When my players make choices on background, deities, domains, quirks, feats, or skills I try and fold all of that into whatever I run. So if a player of mine chose to be the "trap breaker" rogue, I would continue to use traps as normal or maybe even include a place where there were many traps. Otherwise I would feel like I am just punishing my players for making character choices.
As I said above, my problem is with the fact that against such rogues you might as well not include traps, which takes out one of the iconic thing of dungeons.
Welcome to the Tomb of Horrors
|
|
I personally, don't like the PF rogue. I think they made them even more of a combat class, and I think they are both to powerful in and out of game. When I say out of game, I mean that they mechanically are too easy to step one everyone elses toes, and I don't like that their abilities are near impossible to defend against (its almost all on the attacker, not the defender).
Now they have an autosneak attack in surprize rounds, too?
I like that anyone can find traps. Every group I've played with for years now house rulled that. So that's good that it is finally official.
I like thay in 3.5 a rogue could take feats and PCs to sneak attack undead, constructs, etc. . . But I hate that in PF just any rogue can do it. It takes away the threat that those monster types had, and really unbalances those types of encounter themes. And it makes no sense that a rogue can get in and hurt something that may not even exist and serves no function to a zombie or golem (like a kidney) while no one else can land a lucky blow. At least than it was possible but the rogue had to give up something or go into a specific class to do so. It also usually cut down the sneak attack, as well, which helped mantain party diversity and that some classes are better against some creatures.
I know that rogue is the most popular class, it's just always been way to powerful in all the groups I've played 3E with, and now seems even stronger. And now even way more custimizable. Normally I wouldn't say that is bad, it is just that rogue particularly has always (3Ewise) outclasses all other classes in the shear number of things that you can do with the base class. While that's still debatably valid in all editions, I really think all classes should have a lot more possible options or kits. That's just my opinion, and I know a lot of people here don't agree.
Well you could always auto sneak during the surprise round, now it allows you sneak attack even those that aren't surprised as they seize the moment. (personally I don't like that for my rogues, since it's too situational)
I'm going to link they sneak attack for non-humanoids to be a skill related ability...Knowledge (Religion) to know that smashing the zombies head kills it...
NOW, the rogue doesn't have to make the roll, the Cleric could make the roll and tell the rogue. Anything I can do to have my players feel knowledge skills be worth it, I do.
At 10th level, sans magic items, ability score bonus/penalty or anything else, based on PF Beta, a trained Perception skill at the maximum of 10 ranks is a +13, not a +18. This is universally true of all skills at 10th level that are trained (on a character's class skills list). EDIT: Ah, I see - selecting the particular talent at 10th adds on another +5 (1/2 rogue level) for the +18 total. Oops!
I see you edited :) - however it's not the talent - ALL Rogues get 1/2 level to Perception and Disable Device for traps.
+18, +10 from two feats, +2 tools, and skill mastery = 40 auto, before ability modifier.
So, if I recall, in the Beta the dodge bonus increased an additional +1 after some time (maybe 10th level?). Is that no longer true?
Only with 10 ranks in Acrobatics.
|
|
someone has to find their 'special' die, the one that saved their favourite character at GenCon 1979, the one with no wax in the numbers, and all the corners knocked off, which takes forever to stop rolling, and so goes off the table and under the fridge, and we have to stop the game to go fish it out, because no other die will do, and then we have to repeat the debate about all rolls have to be on the table, disregard any that land on the floor, but oh no, you're only saying that because it was a natural twenty, honest, it was, if you'd grovelled around on the floor and sprained your neck, you'd have seen it, but it's too late now, because someone's knocked it, but I want that twenty to stand, and if I can't have it now then I want it to be for my next roll....Wah wah wah....
the guy with the transparent die, or the un-inked die, or the die with swirly-whirly colours that make the thing totally unreadable from more than eight inches away, so you have to get out of your seat to go round and check it, because if you don't, he'll 'accidentally' mistake a 3 for a 5 or 8, or a 6 for a 9, or what the hell, just lie to your face.
the person who packs their f***ing dice away, after every roll, like they're his lickle-wickle children being tucked up for the night, and he'll crack one day, and read them a g&@-d!&ned bedtime story between every one of his actions.
the person who has to be told that they need a d20 for this roll, and then have to be told which is the d20, at which you realise why their contribution to combat has been so s~~!ty-awful, because they've been attacking everything with a d12 for weeks.
the guy who has to give you the Spanish Inquisition every time you ask for a roll; what am I rolling for, is it a Spot, what do I see, you do know I've got Alertness, and Skill Focus, and I did say I was standing nowhere near those two when they open that chest, I'm thirty feet away over the other side of the room, so I can't be caught in the blast, so I don't need to make a save, and if I did, I have Evasion and a ring of fire resistance that the others don't know about, so they'll get caught in the blast and I've got first dibs on their stuff. Unless of course there is no trap, and it's treasure, in which case, I'll be right over it like a fly round a cowpat, and you do realise I was there first, right? You do remember me saying I was the one opening the chest, right? And I have Sleight of Hand +10, so I should be able to pick the best stuff out before they have time to see it, right? What am I rolling for again?Any of that sound familiar?
<groan>
This is hilarious. Sadly....it IS all too familiar.
Robert
Interesting the debates going on about the flexibility of the rogue having increased from 3.5, eh?
Given how there are times that a rogue used to basically be effectively dead characters walking - such as the Age of Worms, they are now a more effective character class.
I would refute that they are the "most powerful" class in the game, as there are many ways to define "most powerful", since there are difficult-to-bypass (or outright impossible) countermeasures / defenses in the game for virtually everything oft-defined as powerful.
YMMV
|
|
I'm going to link they sneak attack for non-humanoids to be a skill related ability...Knowledge (Religion) to know that smashing the zombies head kills it...
NOW, the rogue doesn't have to make the roll, the Cleric could make the roll and tell the rogue. Anything I can do to have my players feel knowledge skills be worth it, I do.
I like this. And it helps perpetuate groups of PCs working together - as teamwork.
I like it.
Robert
At 10th level, sans magic items, ability score bonus/penalty or anything else, based on PF Beta, a trained Perception skill at the maximum of 10 ranks is a +13, not a +18. This is universally true of all skills at 10th level that are trained (on a character's class skills list). EDIT: Ah, I see - selecting the particular talent at 10th adds on another +5 (1/2 rogue level) for the +18 total. Oops!I see you edited :) - however it's not the talent - ALL Rogues get 1/2 level to Perception and Disable Device for traps.
+18, +10 from two feats, +2 tools, and skill mastery = 40 auto, before ability modifier.
Hrm - interesting, and rather disgusting - but then, not an insignificant early investment on the rogue's part either, so a tolerable one. After all, just because one has disabled/bypassed one trap does not mean that something else is not going to happen. And the time sink is still there (3 to 9 rounds), so it adds up. ^_^
I'm going to link they sneak attack for non-humanoids to be a skill related ability...Knowledge (Religion) to know that smashing the zombies head kills it...
NOW, the rogue doesn't have to make the roll, the Cleric could make the roll and tell the rogue. Anything I can do to have my players feel knowledge skills be worth it, I do.
I agree with Robert; that's a really good idea!
|
|
Actually, detct magic, (and evil, etc) will detect an invisible creature to a point and under the right circumstances. The first round, it will just show you an aura of illusion somewhere in the cone. 2nd round tells you the general lication and strength (only if the creature is still within the cone at the beginning of your turn or you turn the cone to the location they now enter). 3rd round, if the above is still true, you can fully see thelack of creature under the aura, possibly getting general details (male/female, size, armor, some gear), and can pinpoint them. They are still invisible, so 50% miss chance, but can be followed and pinpointed.
If the invisibility is natural, not a spell or item, it depends on if Detect Magic, or alignment or whatever, would be able to see that aura normally. If it is extraordinay, no.
|
|
I personally, don't like the PF rogue. I think they made them even more of a combat class, and I think they are both to powerful in and out of game. When I say out of game, I mean that they mechanically are too easy to step one everyone elses toes, and I don't like that their abilities are near impossible to defend against (its almost all on the attacker, not the defender).
Well I don't completely disagree with you.
First off - great preview, and I think the rogue is really great.
The problem is that the rogue was always great - easily one of the most lucrative classes to play all along.
Now even more so.
However, the other classes (paladin, bard, fighter, barbarian) have all gotten significantly better - there's no reason we should deny the rogue getting some bennies herself.
That all being said, the addition of CMD - and working off of touch AC does give the rogue another significant advantage (notice she's better than the cleric and druid at resisting being bullrushed, sundered, or disarmed etc, and she's two levels behind those two previews), and the sneak attack to all creatures was a good thing, but I feel done so without restriction was a bit much.
I like the skills idea that someone mentioned - but I already have other facets in my combats that use group-think knowledge skills and shared info to affect the PCs positively.
What I did was make the ability to sneak attack such creatures as oozes, plants, undead, and constructs as talents that can be selected as part of individual rogues choices, and made the sneak attack work against such a creature as half their rogue level. (so a 10th level rogue w/ the undead slayer trait gets a 5th level rogue's sneak attack damage to all undead - 3d6).
Someone mentioned the Age of Worms as an example of when rogues felt feeble. I can't disagree with that. I am now running AoW (in chapter 5) using the Beta rules with the above change included - the 9th level rogue has taken the Undead Slayer talent and it's working quite well, and I feel the rogue is better than her 3.5 counterpart still, but not as big of a boost as this rogue is (and in my opinion it didn't need that big of a boost).
That being said - as for the rest of the preview - LOVED the trap-finding for all classes, love the boon for rogues to do so (both of which I have included in my house rules for a while now), and I love the poisons.
Robert
Welcome to the Tomb of Horrors
Funny that you mention this! One of my players just bought a netbook and on it had a sticker that said "I survived the Tomb of Horrors". I asked if that was really true and he said no I have never played it.
I decided at that point that a one night Tomb of Horrors run was going to have be done. Now just to decide to run it with 1st ed or use a 3.5 conversion I found for it that I could port to PF. That could be fun to test out the new rogue abilities.
|
|
Perfect!
Trapfinding is open to everyone, rogues get a bonus to it, and they can get a talent to autonotice traps. This is just what I asked for!
Yeah, I remember that KY. I was fully on board with that one, and supported it a great deal.
In fact I started doing that for new BETA Rules based campaing that I started in February (Age of Worms).
Robert
|
|
My question still remains, and I hope I can get an answer from Jason or James... are there mechanics in the finished product to increase DCs for traps beyond standard CR's?
Try this - something that I've been doing with traps in my games - which increases their effectiveness, without having to increase search/disarm DCs.
(I had posted this once, but the post monster ate it).
notice that traps have a random dice roll # of rounds required to disarm......in 3.5 that timespan is assumed in one die-roll; all or nothing. By breaking that up rolling each round could be dangerous and fun.
Here's how. Include in the trap specifics an extra mechanic next to Search and Disarm DCs. "Success/Failure: 5/3"
This means that THIS particular trap requires 5 successful disarm checks before 3 failures. If it's a trap that needs to be removed during a combat or during the party being hit by the trap (as in the example trap provided by Jason), the rogue would not be able to "Take 10" (unless he took the Skill Mastery - which few rogues in my experience takes them - the guy in your game is an exception I think to the general population).
But lets look at Jasons' trap....let's say the rogue in question needs a pretty simple roll of a 6 to disarm, and you've made the trap have a 5 success / 5 Failure - meaning that the rogue needs 5 successful attempts to disarm it - if he reaches 5 failures first, he screws it up and would ordinarily spring the trap but since in this example the party has already sprung it and the party is taking damage while the rogue tries to disarm it, the 5 failures means he screws it up and the trap become undisarmable (hopefully by that level the party has other means of escaping for most of them).
Round One Rogue rolls a 12 (success 1 - party takes damage)
Round Two Rogue rolls a 17 (success 2 - party takes damage)
Round Three Rogue rolls a 2 (Failure 1 - party takes damage)
Round Four Rogue rolls a 9 (Success 3 - party takes damage)
Round Five Rogue rolls a 4 (Failure 2 - party takes damage)
Round Six Rogue rolls a 10 (success 4 - party takes damage)
Round Seven Rogue rolls a 19 (Success 5 - party takes damage - trap disarmed!)
That took 7 rounds - commensurate of the 2d4 rounds that the 3.5 rules stipulate it would take to disarm.
I can't count the number of times the party is needing the rogue to disarm a trap on a door per se - meanwhile the party is hard-pressed in a fight -they need to get through the door, and after the fourth (of 5) successes the rogue player is yelling "I think I've almost got it); meanwhile his 2 failures looming over his head - not knowing how many failures it might take before he springs it - and each player is taking a vested interest in the rogues turn each round watching that D20; the cleric decides to break from combat to cast a spell on the rogue to give him a luck bonus, the bard has decided to use inpire competence - they all know the importance of the next roll.... (the trap could be listed as 5/3 - which means the next roll either makes or breaks for all they know.
If you want the trap to be easier you decrease the first number and increase the second, and if you want the trap to be harder, just reverse that.
It works pretty well when I've used them. Most mundane traps I just use a 3/5 and it's usually pretty easy, but some of the most memorable moments come from trap disarming during a combat that the PCs need the trap to be overcome in order to defeat the foe and the success/failure is a 5/3 or so....
Robert
|
Director of Games
|
The DC of a trap can be scaled up or down by adjusting its CR. So, it might be harder to find or disarm, but it would deal less damage or have a lesser effect as a result. Its a tradeoff to be sure, but you can use the rules to modify how a trap works to be a more interesting part of the adventure.
Just thought I would clear that up...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing