As to the number of bombs per encounter, he only ran completely out of them once.It's not per encounter, it's per day. Also, the rogue doesn't run the risk of blowing his own party up, nor does he provoke 3 attacks of opportunity per attack, nor does he spend two move actions and a standard action per attack.
I have already addressed the Attack of Opportunity scenario. That said, I have no problem doing so again :) Smart players know how to avoid attacks of opportunity. The player in my group played the Alchemist like one would play a wizard...that is to *avoid melee like the plague.*
So AoO's aren't really an issue, if you play smart, like he did. As far as blowing up a party member, he nearly killed the fighter twice. Then he saw that Resist Energy appeared on his spell list. Guess who got that infusion?
I still don't get how a class getting an attack progression at 1/2 level makes the rogue obsolete. Clerics do that, after all, and it's even a 30' AOE, plus they can locate traps (find trap spell) and disarm some magical traps (dispel magic). Yet no one complains that Clerics are stealing the Rogues' thunder!
If a cleric is willing to donate spell slots to do the rogue's job (and not very well at that)...ick! Skills < spell slots.
As to the number of bombs per encounter, he only ran completely out of them once.It's not per encounter, it's per day. Also, the rogue doesn't run the risk of blowing his own party up, nor does he provoke 3 attacks of opportunity per attack, nor does he spend two move actions and a standard action per attack.
The Alchemist in our group nearly killed the fighter twice. Then the player saw that Resist Energy appeared on the Alchemist spell list. Guess who got that infusion? He got hit with an AoO once (maybe twice) until he decided to play the Alchemist like one would play a mage: *avoid melee like the plague.* He only ran out of bombs once. The other times, the rest of the party (with some infusion buffs from him) were able to handle things for the most part.
I still don't get how a class getting an attack progression at 1/2 level makes the rogue obsolete. Clerics do that, after all, and it's even a 30' AOE, plus they can locate traps (find trap spell) and disarm some magical traps (dispel magic). Yet no one complains that Clerics are stealing the Rogues' thunder!If a cleric is willing to donate spell slots to do the rogue's job (and not very well at that)...ick! Skills < spell slots.
And yet you don't see that bombs < sneak attacks .... same concept. Bombs are much more limited in every single way than sneak attacks (don't forget that an invisible rogue can sneak attack with a bow at 30' range), yet somehow just letting Alchemists perform a required role that only one class can currently fill is broken?
Again, there needs to be another class that can disarm any magical trap. That's a vital role in many, many adventures, yet only the Rogue can do it. There's no other role that can only be filled by one class, and frankly the Rogue is powerful enough that it doesn't need a protected role. There are plenty of reasons to play a Rogue even if they don't have an exclusive on Trapfinding. People still played Rogues in 3.5 when there were Scouts, Beguilers, Ninja and so on, after all, and Pathfinder Rogues are better than 3.5 Rogues.
I still don't get how a class getting an attack progression at 1/2 level makes the rogue obsolete. Clerics do that, after all, and it's even a 30' AOE, plus they can locate traps (find trap spell) and disarm some magical traps (dispel magic). Yet no one complains that Clerics are stealing the Rogues' thunder!If a cleric is willing to donate spell slots to do the rogue's job (and not very well at that)...ick! Skills < spell slots.And yet you don't see that bombs < sneak attacks .... same concept. Bombs are much more limited in every single way than sneak attacks (don't forget that an invisible rogue can sneak attack with a bow at 30' range), yet somehow just letting Alchemists perform a required role that only one class can currently fill is broken?
Again, there needs to be another class that can disarm any magical trap. That's a vital role in many, many adventures, yet only the Rogue can do it. There's no other role that can only be filled by one class, and frankly the Rogue is powerful enough that it doesn't need a protected role. There are plenty of reasons to play a Rogue even if they don't have an exclusive on Trapfinding. People still played Rogues in 3.5 when there were Scouts, Beguilers, Ninja and so on, after all, and Pathfinder Rogues are better than 3.5 Rogues.
Were it me, I would gladly take the ability to bomb from a distance (at lesser risk) than to expose my lightly armored, low hit point self to melee. But that's just me. The information I'm giving comes from actual playtesting. At what level did you playtest the Alchemist? Who were his party members? How did they mesh? Both Rogues and Alchemists can benefit from friendly spellcasters, so that's a wash for me.
I certainly understand your feeling that another class (other than rogue) needs to take up the trapfinding mantle (a very eloquently stated argument by you). However, I don't the Alchemist is the class that needs to fill that role.
But that's just me.
I think that's the problem. You are stating your opinion based on a narrow personal view and opinion of the two classes.
People who play rogues for other reasons (say, 8 skillpoints and the class skill list, sneak attack damage, or scout-based skill sets), would completely disagree that the Alchemist is a better option for them.
How does your playtest fare if the Alchemist had had the option of disarming magical traps? Did it even come up?
It's one thing to say that you don't like the flavour. That can't be disputed because it's a personal opinion. Fair enough.
It's entirely another point to say that the Alchemist makes the Rogue obsolete by sharing one class feature.
The Rogue still gets half-level bonus to perception and disable device. He still has the Quick Disable and Trap Spotter rogue talents. He still gets twice as many skillpoints and more class skills.
Quite frankly, the Rogue and the Alchemist really don't have that much in common, other than the one aspect (conceptually fitting to deal with magical traps). Other than that, they seem to approach combat and skills in a completely different way.
I can't see how the Alchemist being allowed to do this one thing alongside the Rogue would suddenly mean he supplants what the Rogue is used for in combat.
I mean.. you won't see the Fighter dipping level of Alchemist to make his melee combat better. With a few Rogue levels, he gets ~30 more skillpoints, stacking d6's to his melee attacks, and evasion/uncanny dodge. The Alchemist simply doesn't compete against that.
|
I'm going to have to throw my hat behind giving Alchemists the ability to detect and remove traps (magical and otherwise).
As well I'd also give them evasion as they have a wonderful dex and being around explosions all day makes sense to me that they might learn to get out of the way and how best to avoid it.
The rogue still shines as being a skill monkey as well as putting out amazing damage from sneak attacks. Despite the fact they may be in melee range to achieve this function, it's still their thing. Safely bombing from a distance has a limit to how often you can achieve this as well as being an element of some sort (which can be a very bad thing).
I would still play a rogue even IF alchemists achieved these abilities.
As for playtesting it was at level 11 with an Alchemist, a Summoner, a Wizard, and a Paladin that we ran through. Despite the Alchemist wasn't the most heavy damaging class in existance the player still had a lot of fun with them. It's a really great concept and I think the class could use a few more extras to make it mechanically a good choice. Having another class that could help out with the trap situation without a rogue is a great idea to me.
We have a lot of melee fighter types after all (Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/Melee Ranger) so I'd love to see someone that can kind of fill in for a missing rogue.
I certainly understand your feeling that another class (other than rogue) needs to take up the trapfinding mantle (a very eloquently stated argument by you). However, I don't the Alchemist is the class that needs to fill that role.Okay. We'll just have to wait for the next skill-focused, skirmishing base class with trap-themed abilities.
I think the Inquisitor fits the bill perfectly. But that conversation probably goes in another thread.
But that's just me.I think that's the problem. You are stating your opinion based on a narrow personal view and opinion of the two classes.
No. Based on actually playtesting the class. Using that data, I believe that the Alchemist does enough for the party without the Trapfinding ability.
We did not playtest the class *with* the Trapfinding abilitybecause that isn'thowtheclassjs written. Kinda defeats the purpose of the playtest, eh?
We did not playtest the class *with* the Trapfinding abilitybecause that isn'thowtheclassjs written. Kinda defeats the purpose of the playtest, eh?But that's just me.I think that's the problem. You are stating your opinion based on a narrow personal view and opinion of the two classes.
No. Based on actually playtesting the class. Using that data, I believe that the Alchemist does enough for the party without the Trapfinding ability.
Not so much as JB put in that IF you playtest with changes to post the changes and the effect they had on play.
Kind of invites it a little.
Well, you can playtest the lack by having the party face magical traps in some significant way.
If you feel the lack of it, or don't, then it's still a result.
Kind of invites it a little.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for altering the listed playtest. I think I'll stay with the listed plan JB has in place.
|
|
I think it would be nice to have another class that could find traps.
It makes sense; the explosives expert that is the "safe cracker" in Ocean's Eleven might as well be an alchemist. The role has about as much to do with safe cracking and trap finding as your general run-of-the-mill pickpocket or second story man. Why the hell not, says I.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement for altering the listed playtest. I think I'll stay with the listed plan JB has in place.
Kind of invites it a little.
Well yeah cause you know, there's nothing he could find out by someone experimenting with it and reporting back... as asked.
As though the alchemist weren't already pulled hopelessly in half a dozen directions, you want them to disable magical traps too? Great, now with their slow bomb tossing, limited 'spell' list, incidental poison abilities, underpowered mutagens, and complete ineptitude at conventional combat, they can be bad at *every* class' jobs!
"What, no rogue in the party? No problem, send the alchemist ahead to scout and disable those traps. He'll be fine. Sure, he's bad at stealth, can't evade traps if he accidentally sets them off, and has no native ability to escape pits, webs, grapples, or enchantments. He can do it all with extracts instead!"
Poor blighter.
Every build I've tried with the alchemist trying to fill another class' role has resulted in an ugly, inefficient mash that *still* doesn't match up.
Only thing they're fully useful at is the professional support role - let the rest of the party do the work and benefit from a hefty daily stock of potions.
Well yeah cause you know, there's nothing he could find out by someone experimenting with it and reporting back... as asked.
Which is exactly what I'm doing. If you want to alter what the Lead Designer has done with the *experimental* class and playtest it differently, feel free.
I think it would be nice to have another class that could find traps.
Any class can find traps, even magical ones. The only part that`s limited to the rogue is disarming magical traps.
As though the alchemist weren't already pulled hopelessly in half a dozen directions, you want them to disable magical traps too? Great, now with their slow bomb tossing, limited 'spell' list, incidental poison abilities, underpowered mutagens, and complete ineptitude at conventional combat, they can be bad at *every* class' jobs!
"What, no rogue in the party? No problem, send the alchemist ahead to scout and disable those traps. He'll be fine. Sure, he's bad at stealth, can't evade traps if he accidentally sets them off, and has no native ability to escape pits, webs, grapples, or enchantments. He can do it all with extracts instead!"
Poor blighter.
Every build I've tried with the alchemist trying to fill another class' role has resulted in an ugly, inefficient mash that *still* doesn't match up.
Only thing they're fully useful at is the professional support role - let the rest of the party do the work and benefit from a hefty daily stock of potions.
Potshots at the class aside, I have to agree that it's a slippery slope. First you give the Alchemist Trapfinding, then he'll need Evasion/Improved Evasion to help with the traps. Of course he'll need Stealth as a class skill as well so he can fully "sit in the Rogue's seat, etc..."
Yes, Maelocke, he's a *support* class. That's what he's best at. Not filling other roles.
|
|
I think it would be nice to have another class that could find traps.Any class can find traps. The only part that`s limited to the rogue is disarming magical traps.
No s&*!, right? ;) *goik*
Ergo, that makes sense then, that an alchemist could disarm magical stuff. He could throw some powder on it like sulfur on mercury and sweep it up.
I think it would be nice to have another class that could find traps.Any class can find traps. The only part that`s limited to the rogue is disarming magical traps.No s%##, right? ;) *goik*
Ergo, that makes sense then, that an alchemist could disarm magical stuff. He could throw some powder on it like sulfur on mercury and sweep it up.
Or you could even create a special skill that represents your knowledge of how to disarm traps, and anyone who invested ranks in it could use it. Nah, that`s crazy talk.
Adventures do not typically require evasion or stealth, and pretty much any role can be at least decently stealthy in PF. Adventures do, however, include traps, all the time. If nobody in the party can disarm magical traps, that's a fairly significant stumbling block, especially "Die, no save" is still considered acceptable trap design.
The rogue's seat consists of disarming these traps. Period. The rest of the things the rogue can do, anyone can do if they choose.
I am being good and not ranting about how "support" classes are code for classes which don't actually do anything useful. Yup.
So the *only* way to deal with a magical trap is to disarm it? My playtest group (the one without a rogue), managed to do just fine in bypassing it altogether.
Cleric, Wizard, Bard. Yeah, best not to mention those "support" classes
Potshots at the class aside, I have to agree that it's a slippery slope. First you give the Alchemist Trapfinding, then he'll need Evasion/Improved Evasion to help with the traps. Of course he'll need Stealth as a class skill as well so he can fully "sit in the Rogue's seat, etc..."
Yes, Maelocke, he's a *support* class. That's what he's best at. Not filling other roles.
Heh, my own torch is that more of the class abilities should be optional, so you could specialize and, you know, possibly match or surpass an existing class within some narrow bailiwick. Even in a fully support-oriented role, I suspect Mr. Alchemist is outdone by a cleric of even level.
I really enjoy playing backup/utility characters, but they have to have *some* spark of shiny awesome potential in there. Right now alchemists are just really good cohorts.
That only becomes more true if they get to disable magic traps.
Adventures do not typically require evasion or stealth, and pretty much any role can be at least decently stealthy in PF. Adventures do, however, include traps, all the time.
Sorry, but you really *can't* just declare an adventure ratio stealth<traps and have it be so. The only "all the time" kind of trap in D&D is Admiral Ackbar's kind.
Potshots at the class aside, I have to agree that it's a slippery slope. First you give the Alchemist Trapfinding, then he'll need Evasion/Improved Evasion to help with the traps. Of course he'll need Stealth as a class skill as well so he can fully "sit in the Rogue's seat, etc..."
Yes, Maelocke, he's a *support* class. That's what he's best at. Not filling other roles.
Heh, my own torch is that more of the class abilities should be optional, so you could specialize and, you know, possibly match or surpass an existing class within some narrow bailiwick. Even in a fully support-oriented role, I suspect Mr. Alchemist is outdone by a cleric of even level.
I really enjoy playing backup/utility characters, but they have to have *some* spark of shiny awesome potential in there. Right now alchemists are just really good cohorts.
That only becomes more true if they get to disable magic traps.
My playtest data does indeed compliment this statement. The Alchemist's damage, while useful, is not enough for him to be considered a primary damage dealer. His spell list is limited enough so that he can't be considered a primary caster.
But here's the thing. He *always* manages to do something to make the other people in his group BETTER. Whether it's using a buff/protection infusion, poisoning a weapon, tossing a tactical bomb, or using alchemical items he created on the cheap. All of this was invaluable to the party.
Maybe it's not all about the class, but how you PLAY the class that matters.
Whoa, whoa. I didn't say every adventure has more traps than stealth opportunities, far from it. I meant that adventures rarely have "Oh, you can't hide? You EFFING DIE" but a "Rocks fall, everyone dies" trap is considered acceptable.
I think this status quo is idiotic but then again I didn't design it.
In any case, it's HARDLY evident to me that this is an endemic problem with D&D. Perhaps you've had bad luck in modules, or maybe your DM just doesn't realize Tomb of Horrors is really a bad baseline for trap configuration.
I've never, ever seen a whole party simultaneously subjected to a save-or-die trap, much less a no-save-you-die one. Rockfalls deal damage, but ones that outright kill whole parties is asinine dungeon design, and definitely not the fault of the party for not packing a rogue, if they didn't.
It really depends on the trap.
That's my point. There's more than one way to solve a problem. If you run into a magical trap with no rogue to disarm it, maybe it's time for Plan B.
I am fortunate to have a group of players that know that not every character can do everything. Having a rogue in this situation makes it easier (assuming he rolls well), but NOT having one doesn't make it impossible.
Whoa, whoa. I didn't say every adventure has more traps than stealth opportunities, far from it. I meant that adventures rarely have "Oh, you can't hide? You EFFING DIE" but a "Rocks fall, everyone dies" trap is considered acceptable.
I think this status quo is idiotic but then again I didn't design it.
In any case, it's HARDLY evident to me that this is an endemic problem with D&D. Perhaps you've had bad luck in modules, or maybe your DM just doesn't realize Tomb of Horrors is really a bad baseline for trap configuration.
I've never, ever seen a whole party simultaneously subjected to a save-or-die trap, much less a no-save-you-die one. Rockfalls deal damage, but ones that outright kill whole parties is asinine dungeon design, and definitely not the fault of the party for not packing a rogue, if they didn't.
Very good point. Whether or not the party has a rogue (or an alchemist with the trapfinding ability) in it should NOT decide whether or not they die from a trap. Magical or otherwise. It begins and ends with the DM.
My playtest data does indeed compliment this statement. The Alchemist's damage, while useful, is not enough for him to be considered a primary damage dealer. His spell list is limited enough so that he can't be considered a primary caster.
But here's the thing. He *always* manages to do something to make the other people in his group BETTER. Whether it's using a buff/protection infusion, poisoning a weapon, tossing a tactical bomb, or using alchemical items he created on the cheap. All of this was invaluable to the party.
Maybe it's not all about the class, but how you PLAY the class that matters.
I completely agree that proper play is important for this guy. What I'm unconvinced of is that his mishmash of unimpressive abilities is not just that - a slightly flavorful, but mechanically aimless hodgepodge of mediocre support effects.
This effort you describe of fishing for ways to be useful in a fight - that's rather where I've seen the bard has been in combat, historically, and I can tell you its a rare, good player with the right temperament to really enjoy that. And to make up for the lackluster combat, at least the bard gets time in the sun when the party has to interact with society. This alchemist is perpetually second banana, if not third or fifth, with no chance to shine whatsoever.
Self effacing team players are great, but the specific margin of their in-game relevance is not something they'll generally care about. You don't build classes for this sort of person - you build a class with exciting, significant potentials, and you let players figure out for themselves how to best play the role they want.
At any rate, thats how *I* think a class should be made.
...I seem to have started ranting, sorry.
Started? I didn't know you'd stopped! :P
Trapfinding was a suggestion for how this class could have some time in the sun, without needing to, say, buff the heck out of bombs and give them discovery effects that aren't a bookkeeping nightmare and make their spellcasting not super weak and make mutagens an actual role instead of a horrible trap on par with monks and...
...I seem to have started ranting, sorry.
No worries, I definitely track with your motivations here. I want more oomph in the class as well.
I just think the ability to disable magic traps is one more jewel in the alchemist's crown of obsolescence. Its no more or less sensible than their poison use, but all having it will do is make the alchemist a still-not-as-good rogue proxy.
The alchemist deserves better than that. Lets make extracts or mutagens cool in their own right, not try and patch his inadequacies with borrowed rogue abilities.
The alchemist deserves better than that. Lets make extracts or mutagens cool in their own right, not try and patch his inadequacies with borrowed rogue abilities.I still think the alchemist should have trapfinding, just because it's really lame that magical traps boil down to "Does your party have a rogue (y/n)?"
Let me reiterate...with feeling...YOU DO NOT NEED A ROGUE TO HANDLE MAGICAL TRAPS.
Ahhh, much better.
The alchemist deserves better than that. Lets make extracts or mutagens cool in their own right, not try and patch his inadequacies with borrowed rogue abilities.I still think the alchemist should have trapfinding, just because it's really lame that magical traps boil down to "Does your party have a rogue (y/n)?"Let me reiterate...with feeling...YOU DO NOT NEED A ROGUE TO HANDLE MAGICAL TRAPS.
Ahhh, much better.
Why not? Detect Magic does not tell you if its a trap or not, only that there is something there. There are also spells to mask the aura a magical trap might have?
The alchemist deserves better than that. Lets make extracts or mutagens cool in their own right, not try and patch his inadequacies with borrowed rogue abilities.I still think the alchemist should have trapfinding, just because it's really lame that magical traps boil down to "Does your party have a rogue (y/n)?"Let me reiterate...with feeling...YOU DO NOT NEED A ROGUE TO HANDLE MAGICAL TRAPS.
Ahhh, much better.
You do if you're not using 3.5 splat classes that can handle magical traps.
Why not? Detect Magic does not tell you if its a trap or not, only that there is something there. There are also spells to mask the aura a magical trap might have?The alchemist deserves better than that. Lets make extracts or mutagens cool in their own right, not try and patch his inadequacies with borrowed rogue abilities.I still think the alchemist should have trapfinding, just because it's really lame that magical traps boil down to "Does your party have a rogue (y/n)?"Let me reiterate...with feeling...YOU DO NOT NEED A ROGUE TO HANDLE MAGICAL TRAPS.
Ahhh, much better.
Okay, I was going to post this example in the sticky thread for my 10th level Alchemist playtest results, but I suppose since you asked, I could post it here. This group consists of a ranger, a cleric, an alchemist, and a fighter going through a 10th level dungeon.
Ranger is scouting ahead, and discovers a magical trap using his perception. After warning the group, the cleric uses detect magic to gain information. The Alchemist used Knowledge (Arcana) to do the same. The fighter and ranger then took lookout positions.
After determining what the trap was (to the best of their knowledge), the cleric then cast a targeted dispel. He succeded on his roll, and the trap was dispelled. Just like that.
Would it have been easier with a rogue? Maybe. was a rogue ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY???? Heck no. Is it possible to handle magical traps without a rogue? Yes!
Not all magical traps can be dispelled, and even fewer can be dispelled permanently. Most of the time, if a trap can be dispelled, it only suppresses the trap for a VERY short time, leaving an active threat behind you.
Not all magical traps can be dispelled, and even fewer can be dispelled permanently. Most of the time, if a trap can be dispelled, it only dispels the traps for a VERY short time, leaving an active threat behind you.
Okay, let's go with that line of thinking. The group bypasses the trap the first time, making note of where it is, and what it does.
If they MUST go back the same way they came (I would instead look for an alternate route out), then the same cleric casts Summon Dead Celestial Monkey. Dead monkey obediently walks over, sets the trap off from a safe distance, and group runs by again.
Didn't need a rogue for that one either.
Why not? Detect Magic does not tell you if its a trap or not, only that there is something there. There are also spells to mask the aura a magical trap might have?The alchemist deserves better than that. Lets make extracts or mutagens cool in their own right, not try and patch his inadequacies with borrowed rogue abilities.I still think the alchemist should have trapfinding, just because it's really lame that magical traps boil down to "Does your party have a rogue (y/n)?"Let me reiterate...with feeling...YOU DO NOT NEED A ROGUE TO HANDLE MAGICAL TRAPS.
Ahhh, much better.
Okay, I was going to post this example in the sticky thread for my 10th level Alchemist playtest results, but I suppose since you asked, I could post it here. This group consists of a ranger, a cleric, an alchemist, and a fighter going through a 10th level dungeon.
Ranger is scouting ahead, and discovers a magical trap using his perception. After warning the group, the cleric uses detect magic to gain information. The Alchemist used Knowledge (Arcana) to do the same. The fighter and ranger then took lookout positions.
After determining what the trap was (to the best of their knowledge), the cleric then cast a targeted dispel. He succeded on his roll, and the trap was dispelled. Just like that.
Would it have been easier with a rogue? Maybe. was a rogue ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY???? Heck no. Is it possible to handle magical traps without a rogue? Yes!
If the trap had no magical aura before it was dispelled(assuming it was), and it has no magical aura after it was dispelled, how does anyone know it was dispelled. I also clearly noted the "foil detect magic" issue in my previous post so detect magic won't work anyway.
If the trap had no magical aura before it was dispelled(assuming it was), and it has no magical aura after it was dispelled, how does anyone know it was dispelled. I also clearly noted the "foil detect magic" issue in my previous post so detect magic won't work anyway.Why not? Detect Magic does not tell you if its a trap or not, only that there is something there. There are also spells to mask the aura a magical trap might have?The alchemist deserves better than that. Lets make extracts or mutagens cool in their own right, not try and patch his inadequacies with borrowed rogue abilities.I still think the alchemist should have trapfinding, just because it's really lame that magical traps boil down to "Does your party have a rogue (y/n)?"Let me reiterate...with feeling...YOU DO NOT NEED A ROGUE TO HANDLE MAGICAL TRAPS.
Ahhh, much better.
Okay, I was going to post this example in the sticky thread for my 10th level Alchemist playtest results, but I suppose since you asked, I could post it here. This group consists of a ranger, a cleric, an alchemist, and a fighter going through a 10th level dungeon.
Ranger is scouting ahead, and discovers a magical trap using his perception. After warning the group, the cleric uses detect magic to gain information. The Alchemist used Knowledge (Arcana) to do the same. The fighter and ranger then took lookout positions.
After determining what the trap was (to the best of their knowledge), the cleric then cast a targeted dispel. He succeded on his roll, and the trap was dispelled. Just like that.
Would it have been easier with a rogue? Maybe. was a rogue ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY???? Heck no. Is it possible to handle magical traps without a rogue? Yes!
Okay, I was giving an *actual* example of what was done with my gaming group for a magical trap. Honestly, placing magical traps and covering the magical aura absolutely reeks of DM cheesiness.
Summon Dead Riding Dog, FTW
Trap detonated.
Okay, let's go with that line of thinking. The group bypasses the trap the first time, making note of where it is, and what it does.
How, precisely, are they making note of what it does without triggering it?
If they MUST go back the same way they came (I would instead look for an alternate route out), then the same cleric casts Summon Dead Celestial Monkey. Dead monkey obediently walks over, sets the trap off from a safe distance, and group runs by again.
That might work with some traps, but not all; quite a number of magical traps reset instantly, and it's equally possible that the "safe distance" wasn't as safe as you thought. It's also, yet again, expending expensive resources (spell slots) to do something that the designers of the adventure expect you to be able to do without expending any resources.
Honestly, placing magical traps and covering the magical aura absolutely reeks of DM cheesiness.
Bull. It's one of two reasons that the spell magic aura even exists (the other is covering up disguising illusions).
Honestly you guys... how do your adventuring parties deal with villain spellcasters? Oh, right, you fight them, and make saves against their spells when they cast them at you. Is this somehow more unfair when you can (generally) spend as much time as you like preparing to face a *single* spell, cast by an inanimate object that cannot respond to your strategies?
A trap has a CR. It is an encounter. If you don't have a rogue there to disable the trap with near-zero threat to the party, there are decent odds someone will be injured... just like in any other encounter. Nobody complains that there aren't enough classes with a minimum-risk solution to a half-dragon ogre with levels of monk - you just fight it, and it probably mauls you a bit before it goes down. That's all there is to it.
I'm just astounded at this whole discussion. Clearly you all feel entitled to easy trap XP just because rogues are privileged enough to have a solution to them that other classes don't get. Stop doing that. A rogue ghosting you through a maze of traps is a boon, not a right.
I'm just astounded at this whole discussion. Clearly you all feel entitled to easy trap XP just because rogues are privileged enough to have a solution to them that other classes don't get. Stop doing that. A rogue ghosting you through a maze of traps is a boon, not a right.
Leave off the ad hominems. You know, as does everyone else reading this thread, that none of us feel that way; you're just trolling and trying to stir up trouble.
Okay, let's go with that line of thinking. The group bypasses the trap the first time, making note of where it is, and what it does.How, precisely, are they making note of what it does without triggering it?
If they MUST go back the same way they came (I would instead look for an alternate route out), then the same cleric casts Summon Dead Celestial Monkey. Dead monkey obediently walks over, sets the trap off from a safe distance, and group runs by again.That might work with some traps, but not all; quite a number of magical traps reset instantly, and it's equally possible that the "safe distance" wasn't as safe as you thought. It's also, yet again, expending expensive resources (spell slots) to do something that the designers of the adventure expect you to be able to do without expending any resources.
This was a Symbol trap, they figured out what the Symbol was. Safe distance can be defined as "around a corner." Since when was a first level summon spell considered expensive at level 10? Heck summon 2 dead critters, and send the second one after the first one bites it to check reset time.
Okay, I was giving an *actual* example of what was done with my gaming group for a magical trap. Honestly, placing magical...If the trap had no magical aura before it was dispelled(assuming it was), and it has no magical aura after it was dispelled, how does anyone know it was dispelled. I also clearly noted the "foil detect magic" issue in my previous post so detect magic won't work anyway.Why not? Detect Magic does not tell you if its a trap or not, only that there is something there. There are also spells to mask the aura a magical trap might have?The alchemist deserves better than that. Lets make extracts or mutagens cool in their own right, not try and patch his inadequacies with borrowed rogue abilities.I still think the alchemist should have trapfinding, just because it's really lame that magical traps boil down to "Does your party have a rogue (y/n)?"Let me reiterate...with feeling...YOU DO NOT NEED A ROGUE TO HANDLE MAGICAL TRAPS.
Ahhh, much better.
Okay, I was going to post this example in the sticky thread for my 10th level Alchemist playtest results, but I suppose since you asked, I could post it here. This group consists of a ranger, a cleric, an alchemist, and a fighter going through a 10th level dungeon.
Ranger is scouting ahead, and discovers a magical trap using his perception. After warning the group, the cleric uses detect magic to gain information. The Alchemist used Knowledge (Arcana) to do the same. The fighter and ranger then took lookout positions.
After determining what the trap was (to the best of their knowledge), the cleric then cast a targeted dispel. He succeded on his roll, and the trap was dispelled. Just like that.
Would it have been easier with a rogue? Maybe. was a rogue ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY???? Heck no. Is it possible to handle magical traps without a rogue? Yes!
I am not saying do it for every trap, and it is no more cheesy than spamming detect magic. Not all traps spring at the point where they are set off. Setting the trap off may activate the walls of crushing or the room may start to fill with water. Yes, such traps exist.
Edit: The point is that unless you know what the trap does, assuming you find it, you can't just say "let's set it off", and only the dog will die. If that was the case a wand of summon monster 1 would replace the rogue
Honestly you guys... how do your adventuring parties deal with villain spellcasters? Oh, right, you fight them, and make saves against their spells when they cast them at you. Is this somehow more unfair when you can (generally) spend as much time as you like preparing to face a *single* spell, cast by an inanimate object that cannot respond to your strategies?
A trap has a CR. It is an encounter. If you don't have a rogue there to disable the trap with near-zero threat to the party, there are decent odds someone will be injured... just like in any other encounter. Nobody complains that there aren't enough classes with a minimum-risk solution to a half-dragon ogre with levels of monk - you just fight it, and it probably mauls you a bit before it goes down. That's all there is to it.
I'm just astounded at this whole discussion. Clearly you all feel entitled to easy trap XP just because rogues are privileged enough to have a solution to them that other classes don't get. Stop doing that. A rogue ghosting you through a maze of traps is a boon, not a right.
Never thought I'd ever do this on the boards, but +1. It begins and ends with the DM.