For those that want to just cut the wire, there are traps where that sets off the trap, because the wire is holding the trap from going off.You've seen a copy of Grimtooth's?Have a copy right here.
You probably understand what I'm getting at. Most of those traps are not 'I rolled a 30, it's disabled' sort of traps. You actually have to figure them out.
PS: Somewhere around here, I have one through ate.
No most of those traps are made in such a way, that once you figure out the trap and go to bypass it, some other part of the trap kills you.
And again, there is no check for "I walk across the street," not even a DC 0 check. There is no check for "I pick up an object my PC can carry." These are both house rules. Maybe reasonable house rules, but house rules.
No where in the encumbrance section does it say anything about needing a check to lift an object. If it did, you would have to require each character who wants to pick up, say, a dagger he dropped to roll a check if he were in the middle of combat (since you can't take 10 and you might conceivably fail the check given a negative Str mod). But the rules on encumbrance don't say "roll a check to lift an object you can carry," and the combat rules for "pick up an item" don't mention it either.
Not everything is a check. Things that say "this requires a check" require a check (which you may then skip blithely by if the check cannot be failed). Things that do not say "this requires a check" don't require checks.
There are no listed checks. Because it'd be dumb and unnecessary. If they're so low that 99.999% of the time the character will succeed, then there is no point in listing them.
When you take make an usual action, you don't do it in the worst way possible (roll a 1), you do it in a average way (Take 10, which is more than enough to succeed at a DC 0 check even if you have no skill ranks and a 1 in the relevant ability score).
Most things don't require a check because rolling for every little thing you do would make the game unplayable.
|
No most of those traps are made in such a way, that once you figure out the trap and go to bypass it, some other part of the trap kills you.For those that want to just cut the wire, there are traps where that sets off the trap, because the wire is holding the trap from going off.You've seen a copy of Grimtooth's?Have a copy right here.
You probably understand what I'm getting at. Most of those traps are not 'I rolled a 30, it's disabled' sort of traps. You actually have to figure them out.
PS: Somewhere around here, I have one through ate.
Some most definitely are like that. Nasty stuff. Some were an exercise in pure sadism, that I'd never inflict on a party. Others, not nearly that bad...but devious.
Some most definitely are like that. Nasty stuff. Some were an exercise in pure sadism, that I'd never inflict on a party. Others, not nearly that bad...but devious.No most of those traps are made in such a way, that once you figure out the trap and go to bypass it, some other part of the trap kills you.For those that want to just cut the wire, there are traps where that sets off the trap, because the wire is holding the trap from going off.You've seen a copy of Grimtooth's?Have a copy right here.
You probably understand what I'm getting at. Most of those traps are not 'I rolled a 30, it's disabled' sort of traps. You actually have to figure them out.
PS: Somewhere around here, I have one through ate.
And quite a few, either impossible to build, or at least so expensive to not be worth it. And others with such improbability to work, that they are just too silly.
|
|
And quite a few, either impossible to build, or at least so expensive to not be worth it. And others with such improbability to work, that they are just too silly.Some most definitely are like that. Nasty stuff. Some were an exercise in pure sadism, that I'd never inflict on a party. Others, not nearly that bad...but devious.No most of those traps are made in such a way, that once you figure out the trap and go to bypass it, some other part of the trap kills you.For those that want to just cut the wire, there are traps where that sets off the trap, because the wire is holding the trap from going off.You've seen a copy of Grimtooth's?Have a copy right here.
You probably understand what I'm getting at. Most of those traps are not 'I rolled a 30, it's disabled' sort of traps. You actually have to figure them out.
PS: Somewhere around here, I have one through ate.
Oh absolutely. A few are so ungodly elaborate...ugh. A few were even too out there to be an exercise in...well...anything...but there were so many gems.
Lemmy, there are listed DC 0 checks. There are even listed DC -10 checks. Heck, there's no lower limit to the DC on Survival checks to track large groups. Under usual circumstances, you cannot possibly fail such easy checks, and I agree, there's no need to roll them. Nevertheless, those DCs exist, and the checks exist likewise; under circumstances where you cannot take 10 and could fail those checks, you must roll them.
Let's take a simple example. Under Acrobatics, we see that the DC to walk across a wide surface is 0. The ground is such a surface. There are listed modifiers for things like slope, rubble, slippery ground, and so forth. Let us assume that we are in a case where none of these modifiers apply. The DC is therefore explicitly 0.
Suppose now that my PC is Clem the Clumsy. He has Dex 6, is wearing half plate and has a tower shield, and has no ranks in Acrobatics. His Acrobatics modifier is thus -19.
- Under your rules - that everything is a check, though often a check we don't bother making - I must succeed on a DC 0 Acrobatics check to walk (and I cannot take 10 and succeed). When I am moving, I am moving at half speed. I am flat-footed, I lose my Dexterity bonus to AC, and I must check again if I take any damage. If I do not roll a 19 or 20, Clem the Clumsy falls down every time he tries to walk.
- Under the rules as they are written, it's not that this is a DC 0 check. Rather, there is simply no check:
No Acrobatics check is needed to move across these surfaces unless the modifiers to the surface (below) increase the DC to 10 or higher.You're simply wrong here. The rules don't say "the check is so easy that you don't have to roll it," the rules say "there is no check at all."
I will, of course, happily concede if you can show me a single shred of evidence that your position has rules support. I see nowhere that it does.
A single shred? I can do that. I don't even have to look beyond your post:
No Acrobatics check is needed to move across these surfaces unless the modifiers to the surface (below) increase the DC to 10 or higher.
Now, in order for a DC to increase, there must be a DC to start with. I'll admit, not all everyday actions have a DC 0. As you said, some of them have negative DCs, which means you can always succeed even if you roll a 1.
Let's say the DC to walk is -20. Clem doesn't want to be flat-footed and move half-speed, so he makes a harder check, which increases the DC to -10, then he rolls a 1, with his -6 modifier, for a total of -5. Still more than -10, so he succeeds anyway. No check needed. Therefore, the check is not necessary.
Also, I couldn't find the post I was looking for... But I think this one is close enough.
A poster was commenting about how his GM considered a natural 1 on a skill check to be an auto-failure, to what SRK responded:
agreed, a DM I play with likes to use this always fail on a roll of 1 and always roll checks rule, doesnt really bother me.. much, heck he is DM I'll let him have his fun when my awesomely dexterious and skilled rogue slips and falls while running over the top of a wall of stone even though I only needed a roll of 3 to succeed *grumble* afterall he spends a few hours preparing to supply us with a fun game.So, 1 out of every 20 times, you fail to...
... tie your shoes (Disable Device)
... climb the stairs (Climb)
... make a paper airplane (Craft)
... draw a line on a piece of paper (Perform)
... sing "Mary had a little lamb" (Perform)
... pet your cat or dog (Handle Animal)
... apply a Band-Aid bandage (Heal)
... remember your name (Knowledge)
... remember what country you live in (Knowledge)
... remember what deity Christians worship (Knowledge)
... resist the lies of advertising (Sense Motive)
... follow a painted line on the sidewalk (Survival)
... move in a calm swimming pool (Swim)Strange world your GM lives in. ;)
So apparently SKR considers all those to be skill checks, and yet, I'm pretty sure he would never bother to demand that a player roll a die to succeed at any of those tasks.
Maybe I was wrong... Maybe the DC is not 0, maybe it's -10 or -20 or whatever... It's so low that even after rolling a 1 with a -5 penalty you still succeed.Anyway, I see your point about those skill checks not existing. I really do. What I'm trying to point out is that the reason these skills "do not exist" or are "not necessary" is simply because they are too freaking easy! You auto-succeed because the assumed DC for these challenges would be so freaking low that there is no point in even making a check.
Now, now. Those count as at least 2 shreds of evidence!
That said. I think we are now discussing RAW more than game play style.
And where is the evidence in RAW that you auto-succeed and finding/disabling traps just because you describe it really nicely?
EDIT: Oh, and RAW says "No Acrobatics check is needed to move across these surfaces unless the modifiers to the surface...", but it never says that check doesn't exist. Which is basically my point (just like I don't demand Perception check to note the not-invisible enemy right in front of you, but there's a check, the DC is just too low to be significant)
So that's 3 shreds of evidence.
Think we've gotten a little off-topic here, but I'll try to clarify what I see happening here.
There's a difference between what I'll arbitrarily define as puzzles and traps, as far as how they are used in the game. Loosely-speaking, puzzles are for players. Traps are for characters. You give the players a puzzle not so they can turn to the highest-Int player and have the GM describe how the character solved the devious puzzle, but so the players can solve it.
A puzzle shouldn't require anything more than what the players might reasonably know or be able to deduce with maybe a hint or two sprinkled in from good skill checks (or the opposite from bad ones).
"Traps" are just another obstacle that can be overcome like any other -- skill checks, attacking it until it doesn't move anymore, or reasonably clever thinking.
If disabling a trap can be role-played out, I'd define it as a puzzle. If the players can figure it out and it's justified that their characters would be able to trace the same reasoning -- no metagaming -- then they've beaten the challenge the trap was supposed to pose. I wouldn't call for an all-or-nothing Disable Device roll at the end because I never intended to. I might call for rolls while they were handling the trap, or for a roll to actually perform the disarming procedure (raw Dex or Disable Device if they have it).
Now, not every trap should be like this unless the group really digs that kind of play. Using Disable Device can be a shorthand for dealing with these obstacles as traps and not as puzzles.
It's possible the Fighter can describe exactly how they disarm the trap without bypassing rolls -- just not using Disable Device. Perception can notice something awry, and Knowledge Dungeoneering or Engineering can give valuable clues as to the trap's construction and purpose. From there, it's up to the players as to how they handle it. Remotely detonate, try to disarm it with brute force? Up to them. Hopefully they didn't fail any rolls and accidentally try the wrong thing.
Not all traps are going to be in the character's range to reasonably figure out. This is a case where the GM informs them after multiple attempts at knowledge rolls that they can't make heads or tails of the trap, and they don't know if cutting the wire will set it off or not.
If the players take a risk and try to disarm the trap without knowing if that's how it works -- well that's legit. GM needs to make a call or a roll. If they've put effort into it beyond "we try to disable the trap without anyone trained in Disable Device" then they might, depending on the trap, succeed by sheer dumb luck.
Basically, Disable Device and traps shouldn't be -- and no one is proposing that it is -- bypassable by making up stuff or metagaming. But, like any obstacle, there should be multiple ways to approach it both for the players and the GM.
As for the grappling hook and key example, unless such paranoia or cleverness was unusual for the character, I'd say that such precautions are more than justified and should be rewarded. In the same situation, I'd assume that there were traps no matter how good I knew I was at finding them. And if there were no traps, it's not like you've lost anything. Besides the rest of the party snickering at your paranoia.
Short version: traps can be puzzles. Reward players for figuring them out.
|
|
Think we've gotten a little off-topic here, but I'll try to clarify what I see happening here.
There's a difference between what I'll arbitrarily define as puzzles and traps, as far as how they are used in the game. Loosely-speaking, puzzles are for players. Traps are for characters. You give the players a puzzle not so they can turn to the highest-Int player and have the GM describe how the character solved the devious puzzle, but so the players can solve it.
A puzzle shouldn't require anything more than what the players might reasonably know or be able to deduce with maybe a hint or two sprinkled in from good skill checks (or the opposite from bad ones).
"Traps" are just another obstacle that can be overcome like any other -- skill checks, attacking it until it doesn't move anymore, or reasonably clever thinking.
If disabling a trap can be role-played out, I'd define it as a puzzle. If the players can figure it out and it's justified that their characters would be able to trace the same reasoning -- no metagaming -- then they've beaten the challenge the trap was supposed to pose. I wouldn't call for an all-or-nothing Disable Device roll at the end because I never intended to. I might call for rolls while they were handling the trap, or for a roll to actually perform the disarming procedure (raw Dex or Disable Device if they have it).
Now, not every trap should be like this unless the group really digs that kind of play. Using Disable Device can be a shorthand for dealing with these obstacles as traps and not as puzzles.
It's possible the Fighter can describe exactly how they disarm the trap without bypassing rolls -- just not using Disable Device. Perception can notice something awry, and Knowledge Dungeoneering or Engineering can give valuable clues as to the trap's construction and purpose. From there, it's up to the players as to how they handle it. Remotely detonate, try to disarm it with brute force? Up to them. Hopefully they didn't fail any rolls and accidentally try the wrong...
Thank you.
I was a part of a group that made it maybe halfway through the Tomb of Horrors...and I was the one the group depended on to figure it out more than anyone else. Everybody did definitely contribute. We eventually got separated...some teleport trap, IIRC...but trust me, I give credit to anybody who made it alive to the end of the first hall of that monster.
Of course, that was a Gary Gygax design, so it must be the wrong way to play. [/sarcasm]
|
Things that the GM says require a check require a check. There are way too many actions that could conceivably be resolved by ability or skill checks to explicitly list all of them. The rulebooks give some pretty good guidelines for common skill and ability checks, and gives a few examples of things that you can do without a check (walk over a wide, flat, unslippery surface) but if something isn't explicitly covered by those rules you don't assume there's no check, you assume it's a GM call.
I've never seen a specific DC for swinging on a rope across a pit, but that doesn't mean it doesn't take a check - or that it's impossible to attempt.
I don't mind treating traps like puzzle, but if a GM is inclined to do that I'd appreciate finding out ahead of time. Before I put a bunch of ranks in Disable Device in the hopes that my +30 modifier will prevent me from getting a tub of acid dropped on my head.
I was standing there and placing it. Str? To drag a key? Ooookay...I already pointed out who was claiming that to you Nicos.
Taking a different action to avoid things is fine, to an extent. But not describing some complex action. If any of the actions are ones that would trigger a skill roll, you're making that skill roll.
In the case of Eldon's scenario I'd have him at the very least make an attack roll against a decently high AC (allowing retries, however) to hit a target like that with his grapple hook, and then a Strength check to pull it loose. He'd still have to roll something instead of saying he succeeded, and if his attempts failing triggers the trap, then oh well.
Dex check then, to extract it without touching it or the statue or putting too much pressure on the wrong thing (or Sleight of Hand if you're trained).
|
|
Things that the GM says require a check require a check. There are way too many actions that could conceivably be resolved by ability or skill checks to explicitly list all of them. The rulebooks give some pretty good guidelines for common skill and ability checks, and gives a few examples of things that you can do without a check (walk over a wide, flat, unslippery surface) but if something isn't explicitly covered by those rules you don't assume there's no check, you assume it's a GM call.
I've never seen a specific DC for swinging on a rope across a pit, but that doesn't mean it doesn't take a check - or that it's impossible to attempt.
I don't mind treating traps like puzzle, but if a GM is inclined to do that I'd appreciate finding out ahead of time. Before I put a bunch of ranks in Disable Device in the hopes that my +30 modifier will prevent me from getting a tub of acid dropped on my head.
Dex check then, to extract it without touching it or the statue or putting too much pressure on the wrong thing (or Sleight of Hand if you're trained).I was standing there and placing it. Str? To drag a key? Ooookay...I already pointed out who was claiming that to you Nicos.
Taking a different action to avoid things is fine, to an extent. But not describing some complex action. If any of the actions are ones that would trigger a skill roll, you're making that skill roll.
In the case of Eldon's scenario I'd have him at the very least make an attack roll against a decently high AC (allowing retries, however) to hit a target like that with his grapple hook, and then a Strength check to pull it loose. He'd still have to roll something instead of saying he succeeded, and if his attempts failing triggers the trap, then oh well.
I really don't mind things like calling for a Dex check in the case of placing the grapnel. What I can't stand is 'you can't perform that action because it's a part of disable device, and you don't have that skill'. In fact, if you tell me that the cord is too tough to cut easily, I'll likely ask you what it's made of that resists my flaming longsword so easily, but that's fine, too. I don't even expect a chance to figure out everything...but if you tell me that...as I walk along carefully after stating that I'm watching for things out of the ordinary, especially near the floor...that I see a tripwire...and I can't do anything about it but blunder into it, I call BS.
Lemmy, the DC is 0, as is spelled out in my post and in the Acrobatics rules. Clem can't readily pass that DC 0 check, but fortunately it doesn't matter because, as is also spelled out in the Acrobatics rules, no check is needed.
That's a good point. But it also reminds me that this particular case is an exception to the rules, which is why it's spelled out. Note that the Perception check DC to notice a visible creature is 0. The Diplomacy check DC to make a simple request (Can you tell me what time is it?) is also 0. Just like the DC to climb "A slope too steep to walk up, or a knotted rope with a wall to brace against.". So yeah, I'd say most of the time, the skill checks are simply avoided because they're too low to interfere. Acrobatics, however, has particular case where the skill check is not needed.
I also mentioned the sunder attempt before. You auto-succeed at it because attack rolls are not necessary to attack stationary objects, so you simply roll damage. Since the wire probably has hardness 0 and a single hit point, he "auto-succeeds". I'd not even botter making the player roll for damage. But the character must still be capable of dealing damage to the wire! e.g.: If the wire was magically enhanced to have harness 100, the character'd not be able to cut the wire. If the character is paralyzed/petrified she'd not be able to cut the wire.
The player doesn't succeed because he described me how he does an action (cuts the wire). He succeeds because his character is capable of doing it (deal damage to the wire). Which is my whole point!
* Incidentally: in your quote, SKR seems to be saying that the average fighter cannot tie his own shoes and the average thief can't pet a cat. I'd buy that!
He was pointing out the bizarre consequences of ruling the natural 1s are auto-failures in skill-checks. As that would mean that you would fail 5% in even the easiest of tasks (which he treats as skill checks).
That said, I agree with your commentary about Fighters and shoelaces... Heh.
|
|
Lemmy, the DC is 0, as is spelled out in my post and in the Acrobatics rules. Clem can't readily pass that DC 0 check, but fortunately it doesn't matter because, as is also spelled out in the Acrobatics rules, no check is needed.That's a good point. But it also reminds me that this particular case is an exception to the rules, which is why it's spelled out. Note that the Perception check DC to notice a visible creature is 0. The Diplomacy check DC to make a simple request (Can you tell me what time is it?) is also 0. Just like the DC to climb "A slope too steep to walk up, or a knotted rope with a wall to brace against.". So yeah, I'd say most of the time, the skill checks are simply avoided because they're too low to interfere. Acrobatics, however, has particular case where the skill check is not needed.
I also mentioned the sunder attempt before. You auto-succeed at it because attack rolls are not necessary to attack stationary objects, so you simply roll damage. Since the wire probably has hardness 0 and a single hit point, he "auto-succeeds". I'd not even botter making the player roll for damage. But the character must still be capable of dealing damage to the wire! e.g.: If the wire was magically enhanced to have harness 100, the character'd not be able to cut the wire. If the character is paralyzed/petrified she'd not be able to cut the wire.
The player doesn't succeed because he described me how he does an action (cuts the wire). He succeeds because his character is capable of doing it (deal damage to the wire). Which is my whole point!
* Incidentally: in your quote, SKR seems to be saying that the average fighter cannot tie his own shoes and the average thief can't pet a cat. I'd buy that!He was pointing out the bizarre consequences of ruling the natural 1s are auto-failures in skill-checks. As that would mean that you would fail 5% in even the easiest of tasks (which he treats as skill checks).
That said, I agree with your...
I tend to prefer smart fighters. :p
"I fish the key out of the bowl of acid using a coat hanger"
This is actually one of the options to get the key to a locked box in Carrion Crown, funnily enough.
He was pointing out the bizarre consequences of ruling the natural 1s are auto-failures in skill-checks. As that would mean that you would fail 5% in even the easiest of tasks (which he treats as skill checks).Oh, I get that. But per his example, no ranks in Disable Device means you literally cannot even attempt to tie your own shoes, so there's obviously something a little wonky with his example. =)
Oh, I see what you mean, because DD and handle Animals are "trained only" skills...
Wasn't there a rule that you don't need ranks in "trained only" skills if the DC was 10 or lower? Was it just for Knowledge checks? Does that rule even exist at all?
|
|
I've been told that I can't, because that might disable a trap, and I can't do that sort of thing. Feel free to apologize any time you like.Yeah in our games you can't. Go play your own game then.
Still waiting on that apology.
He can't pull a rope, because he didn't put points into disable device?
|
|
Feel free to wait. :)Flagged and moving on. Have a wonderful night.Thank you, and to you, also. If you can't ever cut a tripwire in a scenario you run, best to make it invisible, or somebody might have the wrong idea.
Seriously though...have a good night.
Naw but seriously though, you make it sound easier than it is.
Depending on what the tripwire is made of (could be anything from twine to razor wire) and what tools you have on you (if you don't have a pair of really good scissors/wire cutters on you...you're gonna have a bad time) it could be a lot harder than you make it out to be.
You try to smash the wire with your longsword and you're guaranteed to set it off, the pressure of such a large object smashing into it is sure to pull on it before it breaks.
If that's what it is, that's what it is. I never had a problem with the tripwire being too tough to cut easily. The excuse I was given, OTOH, was nonsense. "You can't bypass the disable roll!" Ummm...right. Whatever. Still...if that sword goes through plate easily...and swords cut, not bash...that's one amazing tripwire.
If that's what it is, that's what it is. I never had a problem with the tripwire being too tough to cut easily. The excuse I was given, OTOH, was nonsense. "You can't bypass the disable roll!" Ummm...right. Whatever. Still...if that sword goes through plate easily...and swords cut, not bash...that's one amazing tripwire.
Swords bash more than you think they do.
Here's a simple test for you: Take a piece of twine or thick-ish thread and tie it between two objects so it's pulled taut between them.
Now take a heavy knife, like a Chef's knife and swing it at the string.
You're notice that the string pulls down a good ways before it finally snaps.
Now a sword, by nature, is going to be heavier and more blunt than that knife, pulling it even more before it snaps. Guaranteed to trigger the trap.
|
|
If that's what it is, that's what it is. I never had a problem with the tripwire being too tough to cut easily. The excuse I was given, OTOH, was nonsense. "You can't bypass the disable roll!" Ummm...right. Whatever. Still...if that sword goes through plate easily...and swords cut, not bash...that's one amazing tripwire.
Swords bash more than you think they do.
Here's a simple test for you: Take a piece of twine or thick-ish thread and tie it between two objects so it's pulled taut between them.
Now take a heavy knife, like a Chef's knife and swing it at the string.
You're notice that the string pulls down a good ways before it finally snaps.
Now a sword, by nature, is going to be heavier and more blunt than that knife, pulling it even more before it snaps. Guaranteed to trigger the trap.
I've seen non-magically sharp swords cut through the spine of a pig that was just dangling, and make a smooth cut. Through the bone. The significant part of the pig didn't even move that much. Now...I wonder what a magically sharp sword will do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikVMXhcjbYc
The first cut, the pig is secured. Look at the second.
If that's what it is, that's what it is. I never had a problem with the tripwire being too tough to cut easily. The excuse I was given, OTOH, was nonsense. "You can't bypass the disable roll!" Ummm...right. Whatever.
Actually, the "excuse" as you call it was much closer to "you can't bypass your character's limitations just because you can describe your character as being successful"
I even said you can cut the wire, you can disarm the trap, you can do whatever you want as long as your character is capable of doing so.
If you're petrified, you fail to cut the wire, no matter how well you describe your attempt to do so.
If you have no ranks in Disable Device, you fail to disarm the trap, no matter how well you describe your attempt to do so. (note that "cutting the wire" and "disarming the trap" are different action, which may or may not have the same consequences.)
If you're blind, you fail to see the wire, no matter how well you describe your attempt to do so. (although you might be able to detect it through other means)
Do what every good fighter does: Multiclass.
2 levels of monk with the master of many styles and monk of the sacred mountain archetypes gets your no end of goodies. Not only do you get the monk's class skills, you also get a tremendous boost to your saves, 5 bonus feats, two of which can be style feats for which you do not need to have the prerequisites and one of which you probably wanted anyway (toughness).
Alternatively a level of rogue gives a little bonus incentive to flank and all the class skills you could ever want. Some of the archetypes are also really interesting. One level of thug is a great addition to any intimidating build, three give you the ability to make people sickened when you sneak them. A level of bard bumps your will in addition to giving you all the class skills. Take the dawnflower dervish archetype to get a battle dance for +2 to hit and damage, though you won't have many rounds. Or go archaeologist to get +1 to almost everything as a swift action. With even one level of bard, you can also use bard spells from wands without fear of failure.
Also consider finding some god or philosophy. Both cleric and oracle can provide you with useful class skills, get you access to clerical wands and a slew of first level spells and cantrips, that you can cast in armor. Cleric gives you two domains which can do some wonderful things for you, chief of which is the glorious gift of the travel domain, but there are many other useful abilities to be gained. Or pick just one domain and be a crusader cleric with a bonus feat from a small but not bad list. Oracles can customize their class skills to a degree and choose from among mysteries, some of which can be quite nice, depending on what you want for you character.
Now, all these options cost you a point of BAB. In my humble opinion a fair price to pay. But the full-BAB classes can also offer some rewarding multiclassing. The ranger gives extra skill points and a good selection of class skills, a favored enemy (non-racists need not apply, it seems) and, if you take the trapper archetype, which cost you nothing, you get trapfinding and disable device as a class skill. Two levels get you a bonus combat style feat (which you cannot use in heavy armor, though).
Barbarian gives you rage (and the option of taking extra rage as some of your copious feats), which is great by itself as well as fast movement and again more class skills and skill points than you've had, though less than many of the other options discussed.
Finally, the cavalier, in particular the gendarme archetype can give you bonus feats, class skills and a few minor or not so minor abilities. Two levels and the order of the cockatrice get you not only dazzling display as a bonus feat, but also the ability to use it as a standard action and get a +2 to hit bonus vs. demoralized opponents.
Multiclassing, it's classy.
If that's what it is, that's what it is. I never had a problem with the tripwire being too tough to cut easily. The excuse I was given, OTOH, was nonsense. "You can't bypass the disable roll!" Ummm...right. Whatever. Still...if that sword goes through plate easily...and swords cut, not bash...that's one amazing tripwire.
Swords bash more than you think they do.
Here's a simple test for you: Take a piece of twine or thick-ish thread and tie it between two objects so it's pulled taut between them.
Now take a heavy knife, like a Chef's knife and swing it at the string.
You're notice that the string pulls down a good ways before it finally snaps.
Now a sword, by nature, is going to be heavier and more blunt than that knife, pulling it even more before it snaps. Guaranteed to trigger the trap.
I've seen non-magically sharp swords cut through the spine of a pig that was just dangling, and make a smooth cut. Through the bone. The significant part of the pig didn't even move that much. Now...I wonder what a magically sharp sword will do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikVMXhcjbYc
The first cut, the pig is secured. Look at the second.
Notice that the pig starts swinging back and forth at the first cut. And the pig is a LOT heavier than a piece of string. This proves MY point more than anything.
Regardless of how sharp your sword is, it's going to apply force to more than just the point of contact. That's just simple physics.
This is actually one of the options to get the key to a locked box in Carrion Crown, funnily enough.Ironically, I'm DMing Carrion Crown now - apparently I just haven't gotten this far yet!
|
|
If that's what it is, that's what it is. I never had a problem with the tripwire being too tough to cut easily. The excuse I was given, OTOH, was nonsense. "You can't bypass the disable roll!" Ummm...right. Whatever.Actually, the "excuse" as you call it was much closer to "you can't bypass your character's limitations just because you can describe your character as being successful"
I even said you can cut the wire, you can disarm the trap, you can do whatever you want as long as your character is capable of doing so.
If you're petrified, you fail to cut the wire, no matter how well you describe your attempt to do so.
If you have no ranks in Disable Device, you fail to disarm the trap, no matter how well you describe your attempt to do so. (note that "cutting the wire" and "disarming the trap" are different action, which may or may not have the same consequences.)
If you're blind, you fail to see the wire, no matter how well you describe your attempt to do so. (although you might be able to detect it through other means)
I've had less of a quarrel with you, because of that...but others stated time and again that 'you can't just say you disarm the trap', as if that was what I was saying, twisting my words. That is one reason I have no reason to apologize...if you don't play fairly, sarcasm is the least you should expect as a response.
I appreciate what you said...we just had a disagreement on what was an automatic success.
|
|
If that's what it is, that's what it is. I never had a problem with the tripwire being too tough to cut easily. The excuse I was given, OTOH, was nonsense. "You can't bypass the disable roll!" Ummm...right. Whatever. Still...if that sword goes through plate easily...and swords cut, not bash...that's one amazing tripwire.
Swords bash more than you think they do.
Here's a simple test for you: Take a piece of twine or thick-ish thread and tie it between two objects so it's pulled taut between them.
Now take a heavy knife, like a Chef's knife and swing it at the string.
You're notice that the string pulls down a good ways before it finally snaps.
Now a sword, by nature, is going to be heavier and more blunt than that knife, pulling it even more before it snaps. Guaranteed to trigger the trap.
I've seen non-magically sharp swords cut through the spine of a pig that was just dangling, and make a smooth cut. Through the bone. The significant part of the pig didn't even move that much. Now...I wonder what a magically sharp sword will do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikVMXhcjbYc
The first cut, the pig is secured. Look at the second.
Notice that the pig starts swinging back and forth at the first cut. And the pig is a LOT heavier than a piece of string. This proves MY point more than anything.
Regardless of how sharp your sword is, it's going to apply force to more than just the point of contact. That's just simple physics.
** spoiler omitted **This is actually one of the options to get the key to a locked box in Carrion Crown, funnily enough.Ironically, I'm DMing Carrion Crown now - apparently I just haven't gotten this far yet!
Again, it's a matter of how tough that tripwire actually is...and that's very, very tough. Make note, I'm not saying you *can't* have a tripwire that tough...that's definitely not the one that's 0/1.
So...we're agreed? My fighter has his chance to fish out the key, even with no ranks in disable device?
If so...that's all good.
No, it's not a matter of how tough the tripwire is. The tripwire could be made of anything tougher than rice paper and it would be tugged on by your sword. Seriously, try what I was telling you. You've got about an equal chance of cutting it (and parting it down the middle while pulling on either end) or just pulling one end off whatever you tied it to without breaking it.
And why would you need Disable Device to hook an item? You're not disabling a device.
Though I think it actually calls for a Dex check to avoid taking like 1d2 damage from the tips of your knuckles dipping into the acid or something. I don't have my PDFs open ATM.
My players just took the jar and poured the acid out on the floor and bypassed the whole mess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If said fighter doesn't get a hefty situational bonus to intimidate (if not an outright success, whether the character wanted to or not) from the GM, then that's the GM's fault, not the game's lack of anything.
(Although you're not wrong. The game can't cover everything, and doesn't really try to - As you point out, there is no "reputation" value either.)
"Before you force me to kill you, I'd like to show you something." *whips sword out, neatly cleaving the signpost almost outside of his peripheral vision in two* "Take a look...that's neck level."
"You sure about this, now?"
If that isn't worth +10, what is?
Good lines, one I've seen in samurai comics was putting a grain of rice between two knuckles, and cutting the rice in two without harming the holder. Maybe need an attack of 20, but could be a very cool demonstration.
"Before you force me to kill you..." ha ha ha, using that in game.
Our group had one, as the foes charge and shoot, raise shield and say "We do take prisoners." The delivery must be reasonable and happy.
It depends on the skill. If the skill entry says the skill is "trained only," you can't even try unless it has a line for "untrained," which spells out what you can try to do without training. See here:
Untrained: This entry indicates what a character without at least 1 rank in the skill can do with it. If this entry doesn't appear, it means that the skill functions normally for untrained characters (if it can be used untrained) or that an untrained character can't attempt checks with this skill (for skills that are designated “Trained Only”).So, for example, with Knowledge or Sleight of Hand, you can try DC 10 checks, even untrained. Handle Animal lets you try to command a domestic animal with a Cha check, and you can attempt to make it try a trick it doesn't know (even though the DC is 25), but you can't train animals. Disable Device or Spellcraft, on the other hand, you can't even try without training.
Ah, I see... Well... Doesn't matter... I allow players to make those DC 10 or lower checks anyway, even for Spellcraft (it's not like magic is rare in this game...) and I also assume some pieces of knowledge are well known because they're so obvious/famous that it's hard for players to avoid metagaming (basically, every PC knows things like "Vampires are vulnerable to day light" and "Trolls don't regenerate fire damage")
I've had less of a quarrel with you, because of that...but others stated time and again that 'you can't just say you disarm the trap', as if that was what I was saying, twisting my words. That is one reason I have no reason to apologize...if you don't play fairly, sarcasm is the least you should expect as a response.
I appreciate what you said...we just had a disagreement on what was an automatic success.
Fair enough.
|
|
No, it's not a matter of how tough the tripwire is. The tripwire could be made of anything tougher than rice paper and it would be tugged on by your sword. Seriously, try what I was telling you. You've got about an equal chance of cutting it (and parting it down the middle while pulling on either end) or just pulling one end off whatever you tied it to without breaking it.
And why would you need Disable Device to hook an item? You're not disabling a device.
Though I think it actually calls for a Dex check to avoid taking like 1d2 damage from the tips of your knuckles dipping into the acid or something. I don't have my PDFs open ATM.
My players just took the jar and poured the acid out on the floor and bypassed the whole mess.
I can show you a lot more extremes on swords than that, actually...how about cutting bamboo that's supported by tissue paper without splitting the tissue paper? Those are real swords, again, with no magic.
Again, I'm not going to sweat it if I'm told the tripwire is too tough...but you really do magic swords a disservice here.
Oh...and thank you. I agree. There is a trap, but it's not a matter of a disable device roll at all.
|
|
If said fighter doesn't get a hefty situational bonus to intimidate (if not an outright success, whether the character wanted to or not) from the GM, then that's the GM's fault, not the game's lack of anything.
(Although you're not wrong. The game can't cover everything, and doesn't really try to - As you point out, there is no "reputation" value either.)
"Before you force me to kill you, I'd like to show you something." *whips sword out, neatly cleaving the signpost almost outside of his peripheral vision in two* "Take a look...that's neck level."
"You sure about this, now?"
If that isn't worth +10, what is?
Good lines, one I've seen in samurai comics was putting a grain of rice between two knuckles, and cutting the rice in two without harming the holder. Maybe need an attack of 20, but could be a very cool demonstration.
"Before you force me to kill you..." ha ha ha, using that in game.
Our group had one, as the foes charge and shoot, raise shield and say "We do take prisoners." The delivery must be reasonable and happy.
Nice.
One my namesake (Eldon Guyre) actually did was similar to the one I described...he ran across a large group of heavily armed bandits...he stared at them for a moment, drew his greatsword, and with one swing, cut down a friggin' tree. He wasn't a D&D character, though...it was using the RQ rules, in Greyhawk. He had a killer matrix on that sword...and had long term sharpen cast on it. In D&D terms, it was like a temporary +15 or so...that lasted for *days*...his strength was just stoopid (magically enhanced again) and the sword was pretty crazy without the enchantment.
The bandits retreated.
That rice thing is just crazy. Love it.
There's an "out of combat"?
I can show you a lot more extremes on swords than that, actually...how about cutting bamboo that's supported by tissue paper without splitting the tissue paper? Those are real swords, again, with no magic.
Again, I'm not going to sweat it if I'm told the tripwire is too tough...but you really do magic swords a disservice here.
I don't, really.
I don't care how sharp your sword is you're not cutting through a wire like that without putting any pressure on it. Especially if said wire has any give in it whatsoever.
And I've never been a proponent of "+1 swords are super sharp" logic. It doesn't really hold up with the rest of the game mechanics to me. You can't, say, slice through a stone wall with your magic sword, no matter how high the enhancement bonus goes.
|
|
I can show you a lot more extremes on swords than that, actually...how about cutting bamboo that's supported by tissue paper without splitting the tissue paper? Those are real swords, again, with no magic.
Again, I'm not going to sweat it if I'm told the tripwire is too tough...but you really do magic swords a disservice here.
I don't, really.
I don't care how sharp your sword is you're not cutting through a wire like that without putting any pressure on it.
And I've never been a proponent of "+1 swords are super sharp" logic. It doesn't really hold up with the rest of the game mechanics to me. You can't, say, slice through a stone wall with your magic sword, no matter how high the enhancement bonus goes.
No, you can't...but you can cut a cord with very little pressure.
Actually...an adamant sword will cut through a stone wall. *shrug*