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.
A symbol isn't a very good example of a magical trap -- and it should have been triggered, because the ranger saw it ("spotted the trap with Perception"...) and symbols are instantly triggered and discharged when they are seen.
Try using an actual magical trap, rather than a spell. They're suppressed for 1d4 rounds when you succeed at dispelling them. That's quite likely to not even give you time to move out of the area it guards.
Never thought I'd ever do this on the boards, but +1. It begins and ends with the DM.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.
If the DM had to change an AP's trap then obviously you need a rogue.
...Okay, I was giving an *actual* example of what was done with my gaming group for a magical trap.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!
Well, if there's no rogue in the party, a wand of summon monster I is better than nothing at all.
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.
A symbol isn't a very good example of a magical trap -- and it should have been triggered, because the ranger saw it ("spotted the trap with Perception"...) and symbols are instantly triggered and discharged when they are seen.
Try using an actual magical trap, rather than a spell. They're suppressed for 1d4 rounds when you succeed at dispelling them. That's quite likely to not even give you time to move out of the area it guards.
What traps are placed in my campaign are up to me. But thanks for the suggestion.
Wow. Disappointed in this entire discussion so far. Apparently, if your party doesn't have a rogue, why bother getting out of bed in the morning? Glad my group doesn't think that way.
What traps are placed in my campaign are up to me. But thanks for the suggestion.
I don't give a flying donkey what traps you use. I do care when you try to shout down a valid suggestion by using faulty examples and faulty logic.
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.
A symbol isn't a very good example of a magical trap -- and it should have been triggered, because the ranger saw it ("spotted the trap with Perception"...) and symbols are instantly triggered and discharged when they are seen.
Try using an actual magical trap, rather than a spell. They're suppressed for 1d4 rounds when you succeed at dispelling them. That's quite likely to not even give you time to move out of the area it guards.
What traps are placed in my campaign are up to me. But thanks for the suggestion.
Wow. Disappointed in this entire discussion so far. Apparently, if your party doesn't have a rogue, why bother getting out of bed in the morning? Glad my group doesn't think that way.
Nobody is telling you how to play. The point was not all traps can be bypassed with the detect magic and then summon monster/dispel magic/10 foot pole trick.
It works sometimes, but I would not be willing to bet my life or the life of my party on it.
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.
I apologize if my tone was inflammatory, but I really do want to know why you, Wraithstrike, and MIB think it's completely evident that encountering a magical trap without a rogue to nullify it is any different from a regular old spell cast by a regular old spellcaster, only much easier to deal with.
Sure, it sucks that sometimes you have to walk knowingly into danger... But you can send in a summoned creature to figure out what happens, or the paladin with her sexy saves, or just the party barbarian with a rope around his waist. Then you cast spells to resist or nullify the trap's effects, find natural devices, items, and solutions to accomplish the same, or gosh, just dispel magic (which works perfectly on more traps than you're suggesting it does).
You burn resources, you take damage. Thats what an encounter is about. Rogues make trap encounters free, if you're lucky, but that's all. Trapfinding is a privilege!
EDIT: And before someone brings up the insta-death traps again, I'll reiterate that any trap which can annihilate a party in such a fashion is a BADLY DESIGNED TRAP. You do not say the 8th level party failed because they did not anticipate the demilich... you say the DM is a jerk who needs to reconsider his style.
What traps are placed in my campaign are up to me. But thanks for the suggestion.I don't give a flying donkey what traps you use. I do care when you try to shout down a valid suggestion by using faulty examples and faulty logic.
Here, lemme whisper it this time so you don't get upset...
You don't need a rogue to deal with magical traps
There ya go.
By the way, it doesn't matter what I example I use, real or imagined, you'll just twist it to your purposes anyway.
Another thing, Maelocke gave a couple of other reasons (not rogue related) as to why Trapfinding for an Alchemist was a bad idea.
In my playtest group, the class does enough for the party without having to add that aspect at all. That's not to say it's perfect, but I dont' think Trapfinding is an absolute necessity. Neither is a rogue for that matter (there I go again).
Regardless, this discussion with you has gotten a bit snarky and I'll just agree to disagree.
For an example of a true magical trap that dispel magic does jack-all to help against...
In a published module (I won't say which one, to avoid having to spoiler everything), the PCs can encounter a lich. If the encounter with the lich turns sour, he retreats to his stronghold room, which has a negative energy pulse trap that triggers whenever a living creature enters the room and resets every (IIRC) 1d4 rounds.
It's not a spell, so it cannot be dispelled permanently. Casting dispel magic at it is a waste of time because that only suppresses the trap for 1d4 rounds (IF you succeed at the caster level check) and wastes one of your combat actions to do it. Without a character able to actually disable the trap, the party is forced to fight a lich in a room that is constantly doing unavoidable AOE damage to them and simultaneously healing the lich.
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.
A symbol isn't a very good example of a magical trap -- and it should have been triggered, because the ranger saw it ("spotted the trap with Perception"...) and symbols are instantly triggered and discharged when they are seen.
Try using an actual magical trap, rather than a spell. They're suppressed for 1d4 rounds when you succeed at dispelling them. That's quite likely to not even give you time to move out of the area it guards.
What traps are placed in my campaign are up to me. But thanks for the suggestion.
Wow. Disappointed in this entire discussion so far. Apparently, if your party doesn't have a rogue, why bother getting out of bed in the morning? Glad my group doesn't think that way.
Nobody is telling you how to play. The point was not all traps can be bypassed with the detect magic and then summon monster/dispel magic/10 foot pole trick.
It works sometimes, but I would not be willing to bet my life or the life of my party on it.
So none of your PC's is willing to risk their lives on a magical trap, but they are perfectly willing to walk into an underground dungeon chock full of critters waiting to rip them to shreds without a second thought? How does that make sense?
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.I apologize if my tone was inflammatory, but I really do want to know why you, Wraithstrike, and MIB think it's completely evident that encountering a magical trap without a rogue to nullify it is any different from a regular old spell cast by a regular old spellcaster, only much easier to deal with.
Sure, it sucks that sometimes you have to walk knowingly into danger... But you can send in a summoned creature to figure out what happens, or the paladin with her sexy saves, or just the party barbarian with a rope around his waist. Then you cast spells to resist or nullify the trap's effects, find natural devices, items, and solutions to accomplish the same, or gosh, just dispel magic (which works perfectly on more traps than you're suggesting it does).
You burn resources, you take damage. Thats what an encounter is about. Rogues make trap encounters free, if you're lucky, but that's all. Trapfinding is a privilege!
EDIT: And before someone brings up the insta-death traps again, I'll reiterate that any trap which can annihilate a party in such a fashion is a BADLY DESIGNED TRAP. You do not say the 8th level party failed because they did not anticipate the demilich... you say the DM is a jerk who needs to reconsider his style.
Some traps are not instadeaths, but slow painful deaths(crushing wall, traps that drown you, etc). Now some of these traps have switches or other means of escape, but some don't. I would rather not have to be in a position to find out. One adventure, which I can't recall the name of has flesh to stone as a trap. That is only part of the trap however. It's really nasty. I can't recall if it requires a rogue or not, but I am sure it helps. Some traps can't just be bypassed. They have to be disabled, and if the rogue who has a bonus to traps had to roll above a 10, then the ranger and his party are really in trouble. If you could just bypass a trap with a summon monster wand and dispel magic there would be no need for the class feature.
A particular campaign/AP has a trapped item that sucks you into it. The item is normally an item that is not magical so you would never think to cast detect magic on it. It can potentially do up to 24-96 ability damage per day, and then your character is gone, once that ability score reaches 0, that is.Edit: Just because you don't like instadeath traps that does not mean they don't exist. I think the same campaign/AP has at least one of those also. Many people don't like SoS or SoD spells. That does not mean they don't have to be dealt with.
So none of your PC's is willing to risk their lives on a magical trap, but they are perfectly willing to walk into an underground dungeon chock full of critters waiting to rip them to shreds without a second thought? How does that make sense?
Monsters can be reasoned with, outsmarted, charmed, killed, and maybe other things. In other words they can normally be handled by more than one party member. Traps are not always so variable in the ways they can be dealt with.
For an example of a true magical trap that dispel magic does jack-all to help against...
In a published module (I won't say which one, to avoid having to spoiler everything), the PCs can encounter a lich. If the encounter with the lich turns sour, he retreats to his stronghold room, which has a negative energy pulse trap that triggers whenever a living creature enters the room and resets every (IIRC) 1d4 rounds.
It's not a spell, so it cannot be dispelled permanently. Casting dispel magic at it is a waste of time because that only suppresses the trap for 1d4 rounds (IF you succeed at the caster level check) and wastes one of your combat actions to do it. Without a character able to actually disable the trap, the party is forced to fight a lich in a room that is constantly doing unavoidable AOE damage to them and simultaneously healing the lich.
This sounds to me like a fairly challenging encounter. I don't know the module or the specific numbers, but a cr 12 lich plus a cr 8 trap is definitely a killing ground for a party below level 10. I imagine it was intended that way.
If I'm understanding you correctly though, the trap will likely only go off once - when the first character moves into the room. That triggers the trap (healing no damage for the lich, as presumably he hasn't been hit yet) and then the rest of the party enters that round safely, while the trap resets.
Even if the trap actually does trigger every d4 rounds, we're talking about an adventuring party, stuck in a room with a lone undead caster. I give the lich poor odds unless it's got 3+ levels on the party, in which case they'd be in trouble no matter the circumstances. If they're up to the task, I'd number the lich's rounds at less than 4; a party that can focus on one opponent does tons of damage, even through DR. On a bad day for the party, the pulse goes off twice while the fight persists. If it's killing people after two activations, then the trap alone was a match for the party, and the whole situation is untenably difficult. Such an instance of Rogue or Die is, I have to say, poor adventure design.
Honestly though, replace the trap with another monster beastie to fight beside the lich, say a skeletal dragon or a vampire cleric, and you'd have an encounter that was just as dangerous. Combined encounters just go like that.
Some traps are not instadeaths, but slow painful deaths(crushing wall, traps that drown you, etc). Now some of these traps have switches or other means of escape, but some don't. I would rather not have to be in a position to find out. One adventure, which I can't recall the name of has flesh to stone as a trap. That is only part of the trap however. It's really nasty. I can't recall if it requires a rogue or not, but I am sure it helps. Some traps can't just be bypassed. They have to be disabled, and if the rogue who has a bonus to traps had to roll above a 10, then the ranger and his party are really in trouble. If you could just bypass a trap with a summon monster wand and dispel magic there would be no need for the class feature.
A particular campaign/AP has a trapped item that sucks you into it. The item is normally an item that is not magical so you would never think to cast detect magic on it. It can potentially do up to 24-96 ability damage per day, and then your character is gone, once that ability score reaches 0, that is.Edit: Just because you don't like instadeath traps that does not mean they don't exist. I think the same campaign/AP has at least one of those also. Many people don't like SoS or SoD spells. That does not mean they don't have to be dealt with.
Instadeath traps are fine at appropriate levels. At level 12, I *expect* to be making saves versus Disintegration when fighting enemy casters, and it's quite fair to expect the same from traps encountered around then. That's high level play, and saves are important.
You, however, are describing a one-of-a-kind effect of artifact-level power. If the module designer thought that was cute or dramatic, fine, but it's not something you should take as a precedent. Moreover, what on earth does that have to do with trapfinding? If nobody sees it coming, the rogue never even gets a chance to do the disable device jig.
Magical traps are spells made into fixtures. They are as powerful as the spells they contain, and no more. If a 10th level party is subjected to a 9th level spell in the form of a trap, they are being challenged beyond their abilities, as simple as that. The rogue skews peoples' perception of this because they're so friggin' good at disabling traps, but thats all.
And, for the record, there is no spell effect in the book that can actually cause a party of proximately-leveled characters to all have to save vs. death. The best you get is damage equivalents and single targets, which is a far cry from the sorts of menace you're envisioning.
At any rate, I'm with SithHunter. If you guys are this worried about traps, I can't make you see them our way. But I will pray for your DM's mercy, 'cause clearly they're a vengeful sort.
When did the discussion move into the usage of magical traps? Aren't we talking about the role of the alchemist in the group?
Whether or not magical traps can or can't be bypassed makes no difference. What the actual thread and discussion has been about is allowing the Alchemist to have the Rogue's capability of making magical traps easier.
No, he doesn't get stealth to run ahead and get rid of traps and "ghost" a dungeon.
However, here's the things that make him thematically appropriate to dealing with Magical Traps:
1. His skill list gives him the necessary tools (Perception, Disable Device). Knowledge (arcana) helps with those "spells as traps". Knowledge (nature) helps with the natural dangers/traps.
2. He's fairly good a surviving if a trap goes off. He'll likely have a decent Dex (throwing things), and the class has a high Reflex save. Plus, he gains a bonus against poisons and formulae for dealing with poisons (delay and neutralize), as well as energy damage... spell resistance... restoration...
3. Okay, formulae should have it's own section. Stuff that can help deal with traps: Protection from Arrows, Arcane Sight, Remove Curse/Disease/Blindness/Deafness, True Seeing. I'm probably missing inventive uses of other formulae.
4. Finally, a flavour reason: The Alchemist is already someone who deals with magical things, and in a way that is more like "tinkering" or "crafting".
I can almost imagine that a Alchemist would be the perfect person to seek in making some of those traps, let alone knowing how they work enough to disarm them.
.
Ultimately, it's really a matter of how you feel the Alchemist should be played, and whether or not you feel he needs the extra spotlight position.
I personally don't feel the flavour reasons given for not giving him the ability holds water. A tinkering, skilled class with arcane ties just feels "right" messing around with magical traps.
And I personally feel that Rogue has enough going for him that the Alchemist can share in that spotlight, just a little. The Rogue seemed fine next to the Factotum or Beguiler classes...
Some traps are not instadeaths, but slow painful deaths(crushing wall, traps that drown you, etc). Now some of these traps have switches or other means of escape, but some don't. I would rather not have to be in a position to find out. One adventure, which I can't recall the name of has flesh to stone as a trap. That is only part of the trap however. It's really nasty. I can't recall if it requires a rogue or not, but I am sure it helps. Some traps can't just be bypassed. They have to be disabled, and if the rogue who has a bonus to traps had to roll above a 10, then the ranger and his party are really in trouble. If you could just bypass a trap with a summon monster wand and dispel magic there would be no need for the class feature.
A particular campaign/AP has a trapped item that sucks you into it. The item is normally an item that is not magical so you would never think to cast detect magic on it. It can potentially do up to 24-96 ability damage per day, and then your character is gone, once that ability score reaches 0, that is.Edit: Just because you don't like instadeath traps that does not mean they don't exist. I think the same campaign/AP has at least one of those also. Many people don't like SoS or SoD spells. That does not mean they don't have to be dealt with.
Instadeath traps are fine at appropriate levels. At level 12, I *expect* to be making saves versus Disintegration when fighting enemy casters, and it's quite fair to expect the same from traps encountered around then. That's high level play, and saves are important.
You, however, are describing a one-of-a-kind effect of artifact-level power. If the module designer thought that was cute or dramatic, fine, but it's not something you should take as a precedent. Moreover, what on earth does that have to do with trapfinding? If nobody sees it coming, the rogue never even gets a chance to do the disable device jig.
Magical traps are spells made into fixtures. They are as powerful as the spells they contain,...
Most of the traps I have seen are published. I do make sure the occasional trap can't be done away with by the above mentioned tricks though. The 24-96 ability damage trap does 1d4 per hour. It could be discovered by a rogue but the search DC is so high that without the bonus from trapfinding it is hard to find without a 10 or better on the dice most likely. That means that most non rogues have at best a 50% chance to find it. I think that is harsh, but the campaign was made to be harsh. I do realize traps like this are not the norm, but most campaign that have traps, seem to have at least one trap that can't be bypassed with a dispel magic or summon monster.
I think its a design failing to have an encounter type(traps) that only one class can potentially bypass, but that does not change the fact, that the failure exist. I would not mind seeing the inquistor and/or the alchemist be able to bypass traps.
Kaisoku, I think this started when it was suggested that the alchemist be able to take someone's spot in a game. The rogue was chosen, but he needs to be able to do the trapfinding is. Then the sub-debate started about how essential trapfinding is. To me it's not always needed, but when you need, you really need it.
Meh, I still don't see the need to have a heated debate over how powerful disabling magical traps is in this thread. It'd be better to discuss if it makes the Alchemist too powerful/overshadowing... which I'm firmly in the camp of "it doesn't".
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)?"
You still haven't explained why you think it's good for the game to only allow certain classes to use Disarm Device on magical traps, though. Or is that beyond the scope of the discussion? I admit that it's unlikely to change in the near future...
You still haven't explained why you think it's good for the game to only allow certain classes to use Disarm Device on magical traps, though. Or is that beyond the scope of the discussion? I admit that it's unlikely to change in the near future...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)?"
No offense meant, truly, but that's a useless discussion. The Rogue is already in print with the specially-called-out ability to disarm magical traps, meaning they can't just go and change it so everyone can do it. I agree that it's a stupid protected role and that anyone with Disable Device high enough to make the attempt should be able to, but we have to work within the system. I'm sure if and when Paizo is ready to do a Pathfinder v1.5, they'll solicit ideas for what could be improved, and that would be a perfect time to float the idea that trap disarming be universal. Until then, I'm going to campaign for more classes to get Trapfinding.