I notice that a lot of Archetypes & Alternate Class Options for the rogue removes trap finding. Why? This seems like one abilities to any rogue class. Heck, the ninja, who is a complete rogue alternate, seems to hate trap finding too. I mean sure, trap finding isn't as nearly as vital as it was in 3.5, where it was absolutely necessary to have it to find traps, but still. You would think a Ninja could spot a trap with some more relative ease then other high perception class.
Although I do like that A ranger can replace endurance, "a feat that most DMs and campaigns will probably ignore", is pretty nice.
Sneak Attack
Rogue Talents
Uncanny Dodge
Trapfinding
Which do you want to give up? I think it's pretty obvious that Uncanny Dodge & Trapfinding will be the two most likely to go.
Because depending on the DM, it's either vital for survival or completely useless.
This.
Since I've been GMing APs and some delve modules lately, Trapfinding has appreciated in value. Before that, it was the red-headed stepchild of class abilities.
Honestly, I'm okay with Rogue variants that trade this in for other competencies. You're giving up something, and your whole party will viciously mock you if you chose to be the rogue who is useless with traps and the party ends up in a trap maze. Certainly, me barbarian player who gave up trap sense and evasion never realized how dear a price she was actually paying until she felt the consequences . (DR still worth it though).
What TOZ says above is true, but it holds true for almost any specialized class ability. You might say the art of GMing is the art of gratifying and punishing class abilities (or the absence thereof) in exactly the right proportions.
Hunh - and here I'd like to play a trap-finding Rogue with a class ability in place of Sneak Attack. I'd like a class ability that adds to/supports my stealth activities or my skill-uses in place of a combat ability I'd really rather never have to use!
Hunh - and here I'd like to play a trap-finding Rogue with a class ability in place of Sneak Attack. I'd like a class ability that adds to/supports my stealth activities or my skill-uses in place of a combat ability I'd really rather never have to use!
I think that's an awesome idea. Trapspringer. What do you think would be worth it?
1) For their listed CR, traps are rarely a challenge, thus walking into them isn't that big of a deal
2) Many DM's find that having lots of traps slows down play considerably, as players stop, look, and listen and have to re arrange themselves at every cooridoor, intersection, door, and discolored patch on the wall. This leaves insufficient time for more fun parts of the game, like socializing, Role playing, and combat. Even if the rogue can, theoretically, auto search for traps , other players need to figure out where they are when he misses.
3) Trapfinding was downgraded from neccesary to "meh" since now everyone can see traps, max out their perception skill, and even max out their disable device.
It's like BigNorseWolf said -- you don't need trapfinding to find traps. You only need it to use the disable device skill to disable magical traps (you can still disable them with other means).
As such it's a nice perk and bonus -- but hardly needed.
|
It's like BigNorseWolf said -- you don't need trapfinding to find traps. You only need it to use the disable device skill to disable magical traps (you can still disable them with other means).
As such it's a nice perk and bonus -- but hardly needed.
The other obvious explanation which is not listed above is that the ability is easily duplicated by a spell effect. Any third level cleric can do it. You can have this put into one-shot consummable items, or even to a wand.
As long as someone in the party has access to that spell through some method, the ability is better devoted to something else.
Alarms built into a wall might make interesting traps that set off noise and have the bad guys coming after you instead of just damage. A trap that makes a lot of noise would be interesting.
In old school D&D traps were fun because it was all about just asking questions, making observations and trying to problem solve the situation.
With 3.0 and beyond, traps becomes just some rolls. There is not strategy to traps, you simply declare you're looking an then let the system run its course.
I think a natural consequence of it being reduced to rolls is that the lethality of the traps greatly diminished, because it wouldn't be satisfying for regular deaths to occur just on these abstracted rolls. Thus, the entire trap system becomes even less meaningful.
+1.
Everyone should have this (PDF not hard to find). GM and/or comedy gold, YMMV.
Everyone should have this (PDF not hard to find). GM and/or comedy gold, YMMV.
It is true a really great set of trap resources.
Ha! I vaguely remember Grimthooth stuff. Didn't that rate the lethality of traps by the number of skulls or something?+1.
Everyone should have this (PDF not hard to find). GM and/or comedy gold, YMMV.
Yes. The more skulls, the deadlier the trap. But most of them were (hilariously) fatal, and I suspect more than a few were good for a TPK.
Yes. The more skulls, the deadlier the trap. But most of them were (hilariously) fatal, and I suspect more than a few were good for a TPK.Ha! I vaguely remember Grimthooth stuff. Didn't that rate the lethality of traps by the number of skulls or something?+1.
Everyone should have this (PDF not hard to find). GM and/or comedy gold, YMMV.
The couterweighted floor into the cylinder with the glass statues rock tumbler style TPK'ed a party I was in once.
In old school D&D traps were fun because it was all about just asking questions, making observations and trying to problem solve the situation.
With 3.0 and beyond, traps becomes just some rolls. There is not strategy to traps, you simply declare you're looking an then let the system run its course.
I think a natural consequence of it being reduced to rolls is that the lethality of the traps greatly diminished, because it wouldn't be satisfying for regular deaths to occur just on these abstracted rolls. Thus, the entire trap system becomes even less meaningful.
+1
The other obvious explanation which is not listed above is that the ability is easily duplicated by a spell effect. Any third level cleric can do it. You can have this put into one-shot consummable items, or even to a wand.As long as someone in the party has access to that spell through some method, the ability is better devoted to something else.
Sure as long as you want to be burning third level spells every time you think there might be a trap (or as you point out burn through wands like no ones business -- with a smaller bonus to boot than trapfinding).
I generally find having a rogue with the trap spotter rogue talent is a worthwhile thing -- especially since that isn't all a rogue brings with him.
I just do a check for specific doors, one check for the entire floor or ceiling, and treasure chest. The every square thing is too tedious. As far as traps not being worth their CR I generally bump them up in difficulty. If I see a weak trap in an AP I normally modify it. As written many traps are not worth using, is something I can't disagree with.
I think part of the reason trap-finding is so hated is anyone can do it with another check. It makes it less "Exclusive" than it used to be, even if your class is better.
To say nothing of the changes to traps in 3.0/3.5 that made it so traps and finding them was just a die-roll tax (Roll to find it, roll to disable, every trap) It used to be you had to figure out how to circumvent a trap once found. Personally, I like that method, at least in the part, because there are plenty of traps that shouldn't be "Disable device" fodder.
I do think there are things a character will know that the player won't, and it stops a really resource GM from killing the party by putting the trigger for a trap in a huge place. I think any trap should be able to be disabled. Each DM just has to be able to come up with acceptable fluff for it.
Sneak Attack
Rogue Talents
Uncanny Dodge
TrapfindingWhich do you want to give up? I think it's pretty obvious that Uncanny Dodge & Trapfinding will be the two most likely to go.
Trap sense. Couldn't trapfinding exist without trapsense?
I could perfectly see a Stalker rogue archetype who gets rid of trapsense to gain smaller bonuses to stealth and similar skills, and gains HiPS at level X.
I notice that a lot of Archetypes & Alternate Class Options for the rogue removes trap finding. Why? This seems like one abilities to any rogue class. Heck, the ninja, who is a complete rogue alternate, seems to hate trap finding too. I mean sure, trap finding isn't as nearly as vital as it was in 3.5, where it was absolutely necessary to have it to find traps, but still. You would think a Ninja could spot a trap with some more relative ease then other high perception class.
Although I do like that A ranger can replace endurance, "a feat that most DMs and campaigns will probably ignore", is pretty nice.
Trap finding is first on the chopping block for the same reason as endurance. Some DMs just don't use traps.
Trap finding is first on the chopping block for the same reason as endurance. Some DMs just don't use traps.I notice that a lot of Archetypes & Alternate Class Options for the rogue removes trap finding. Why? This seems like one abilities to any rogue class. Heck, the ninja, who is a complete rogue alternate, seems to hate trap finding too. I mean sure, trap finding isn't as nearly as vital as it was in 3.5, where it was absolutely necessary to have it to find traps, but still. You would think a Ninja could spot a trap with some more relative ease then other high perception class.
Although I do like that A ranger can replace endurance, "a feat that most DMs and campaigns will probably ignore", is pretty nice.
I use them quiteexstensively, 'though. The rogue wished totakethe Poisoner archetype but changed idea. Sadface.
Trapfinding is an artefact from the beginning of D&D, where PCs were exploring dungeons, dodging traps and killing monsters to find a treasure in adventures like Tomb of Horrors.
Now, Paizo is getting Pathfinder far away from the Dungeon-crawling experience. Then traps are rare et it seems natural that people find habilities related to them to be easily superfluous.
In old school D&D traps were fun because it was all about just asking questions, making observations and trying to problem solve the situation.
With 3.0 and beyond, traps becomes just some rolls. There is not strategy to traps, you simply declare you're looking an then let the system run its course.
I think a natural consequence of it being reduced to rolls is that the lethality of the traps greatly diminished, because it wouldn't be satisfying for regular deaths to occur just on these abstracted rolls. Thus, the entire trap system becomes even less meaningful.
I think that's a matter of play-style rather than system. After all, AD&D thieves had their percentile chance to find traps (which the GM usually got to roll rather than the party, taking it even more out of the player's hands).
As a GM, I am constantly badgering my rogue player to tell me more than, "I check for traps." I need to know where he is looking (floor? Ceiling? Door? Windows?) If the trigger of the trap is "proximity" he could set it off before he finds it; if the trigger of the trap is in the ceiling and he is checking the door. And I have had other people find trap triggers simply because they described extremely well what they were doing in a given area--whether they were rogues or not.
This isn't to "punish" the player but to do exactly what you say---put the ability in the context of the game's narrative. Traps have specific descriptions and functions, their finding and removal should also be specific, IMO. (Mind, I don't use a ton of traps in my game; I just tend to put them where it would make sense--the king will trap a door to his treasure vault to keep out unwanted thieves; the milkmaid will not trap the barn door.)
The system--be it Pathfinder or D&D 3.0 or AD&D--doesn't encourage or discourage this. It gives you an option to relegate it to a die roll with no description, but nowhere is anyone required nor encouraged to play it that way that I am aware of.
As for the original subject---why take away trapfinding---honestly, having tinkered a little with archetype building at this point, it's just an easy thing to remove without altering the feel of the class very much. I would say it's easier to do than, say, removing features like rogue talents or sneak attack because you get those every other level and the bonuses you get are more than a +1 to something very specific. This isn't to say swapping out other abilities shouldn't be done, it's just more work.
And yes, also because it can be campaign specific. A dungeon crawl may need a trapfinder. A wilderness adventure, depending on the specifics, not so much.
Hunh - and here I'd like to play a trap-finding Rogue with a class ability in place of Sneak Attack. I'd like a class ability that adds to/supports my stealth activities or my skill-uses in place of a combat ability I'd really rather never have to use!
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one with this opinion; given the propensity of parties that rush in and bash with little regard to tactics, relying on sneak attack for a rogue do much in combat drives me nuts. I love the class otherwise, but sneak attack is a major deal breaker for me; it is just too fidgety to consistently work well unless you build the party specifically around the sneak attacking rogue.
On the OP, I think a big problem with traps is the lack of imagination in both setting them up and looking for them. They can very easily become a game of rolling dice, but only if the people playing don't put any effort into them. A good trap can be a lot of fun to play out, but it takes effort to make them interesting. Given that, taking away trapfinding from the rogue and making it less of a feature of a single class can help by making the entire party semi responsible for finding and dealing with them as a group rather than having one person eat up a half hour of game time.
Sneak Attack
Rogue Talents
Uncanny Dodge
TrapfindingWhich do you want to give up? I think it's pretty obvious that Uncanny Dodge & Trapfinding will be the two most likely to go.
It may be obvious to you, but I would personally get rid of sneak attack and make trapfinding a rogue talent. Uncanny dodge is for me one of the main draws of the rogue class.
In old school D&D traps were fun because it was all about just asking questions, making observations and trying to problem solve the situation.
With 3.0 and beyond, traps becomes just some rolls. There is not strategy to traps, you simply declare you're looking an then let the system run its course.
I think a natural consequence of it being reduced to rolls is that the lethality of the traps greatly diminished, because it wouldn't be satisfying for regular deaths to occur just on these abstracted rolls. Thus, the entire trap system becomes even less meaningful.
I think that's a matter of play-style rather than system. After all, AD&D thieves had their percentile chance to find traps (which the GM usually got to roll rather than the party, taking it even more out of the player's hands).
As a GM, I am constantly badgering my rogue player to tell me more than, "I check for traps." I need to know where he is looking (floor? Ceiling? Door? Windows?) If the trigger of the trap is "proximity" he could set it off before he finds it; if the trigger of the trap is in the ceiling and he is checking the door. And I have had other people find trap triggers simply because they described extremely well what they were doing in a given area--whether they were rogues or not.
This isn't to "punish" the player but to do exactly what you say---put the ability in the context of the game's narrative. Traps have specific descriptions and functions, their finding and removal should also be specific, IMO. (Mind, I don't use a ton of traps in my game; I just tend to put them where it would make sense--the king will trap a door to his treasure vault to keep out unwanted thieves; the milkmaid will not trap the barn door.)
The system--be it Pathfinder or D&D 3.0 or AD&D--doesn't encourage or discourage this. It gives you an option to relegate it to a die roll with no description, but nowhere is anyone required nor encouraged to play it that way that I am aware of.
As for the...
+1 on this.
As presented in the core rules, traps have been nerfed hard in 3.X/PF(CRs are too high, consequences are too low), but that doesn't prevent individual DMs from correcting that if they want traps to play a more meaningful role.
I think traps were likely nerfed because a significant number of players didn't like really dangerous traps and whined enough about it that developers listened, much like they listened to the whining and took out things like teleport error, realistic chance to disrupt spells, Save or Die spells, level and or XP point costs for dying, the chance to hit friends when firing into melee, the chance to catch friends in AoE spells, etc, etc. In many ways, the game designers have made the game significantly "easier" than older editions. I don't necessarily disagree with all of the changes, but cumulatively they have had quite an impact on many aspects of the game, and trapfinding and the role of the rogue is one of them. But doesn't mean that a DM who wants traps to be meaningful can't use his infinite power over the game universe to make them so, in a wide variety of ways, like DQ's.
As presented in the core rules, traps have been nerfed hard in 3.X/PF(CRs are too high, consequences are too low), but that doesn't prevent individual DMs from correcting that if they want traps to play a more meaningful role.
Actually even within the PF trap rules you can make meaningful traps that greatly penalize the party for not finding them and bypassing them.
Consider the simple alarm spell or it's like. A simple warning that the PCs are coming. The impact of this can be HUGE. At higher levels the difference between an encounter where the PCs can buff ahead of time and trigger opposed to the opposite where the bad guys can buff and trigger combat is far more than a +2 difference to the CR. This alone makes having a PC that can find such traps without pause or chance of failure a huge asset.
Now consider the spell traps that didn't have their CR altered. That is those that don't deal hp damage. If your party likes to simply trigger traps then might I suggest some simple CR 5 enervation traps for them? Perhaps a few CR 4 dispel magic traps that they will hit multiple times? Some other low level trap that they might have to fight an encounter on top of in addition to a normal EL fight (say by being warned that the party is around when they triggered a prior trap and then setting an ambush for when they run through the next one)? There are plenty of things that you can do with APL-5 traps that are worthless in terms of XP to the party that can really annoy them for not having a trapfinder that can simply bypass all of these.
Add to that the alarm factor of setting off traps and you can start to become a DM that incorporates traps into their game.
-James
I don't disagree, James. My only point is that that requires a GM to put in some investment into making them viable and dangerous, which not every GM does.
I just do a check for specific doors, one check for the entire floor or ceiling, and treasure chest. The every square thing is too tedious. As far as traps not being worth their CR I generally bump them up in difficulty. If I see a weak trap in an AP I normally modify it. As written many traps are not worth using, is something I can't disagree with.
This is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the major pitfalls of trapfinding and use of traps in general - and it's a play style issue. Are the players exceptionally paranoid, checking every square, every surface? That can really drag down a game session.
When running the Shackled City campaign, the scout PC's player came up with a decent compromise. He served as the point man and he said his standard procedure was to check every square, but take 10 while doing so. It sped up the adjudication without sacrificing tons of caution. It worked pretty well in the abandoned gnome town and dwarven fortress early in the campaign.
This is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the major pitfalls of trapfinding and use of traps in general - and it's a play style issue. Are the players exceptionally paranoid, checking every square, every surface? That can really drag down a game session.
This was a bit of an issue sometimes for us as well -- however the trap spotter talent really helps in my opinion.
The flip side of this is the rogue designed to find each and every trap, automatically, at the moment the trap spotter advanced talent is selected.
Telling such a player that his "trap-dar" is pinging at (square x or item y or whatever) is as bad or worse than crummy traps.
This forces one of three situations: (a) GM simply removes most traps from the equation, or (b) the GM has to escalate the DC to find the trap to a level that actually threatens the Uber Trapfinder, or (c) both a and b. (This is my current campaign.)
Now, one use of traps that are not "significant" are the ones that are terrain features as much as a trap - i.e., the classic Ye Olde Yawning Pit. (More often this is a chasm or similar terrain feature.) You can't disable a hole in the ground, whether it is a round sinkhole or a square hole in a stone dungeon. And it can bite both PCs and NPCs alike - after all, Ye Olde Yawning Pit happily swallows all that it can...
The flip side of this is the rogue designed to find each and every trap, automatically, at the moment the trap spotter advanced talent is selected.
Telling such a player that his "trap-dar" is pinging at (square x or item y or whatever) is as bad or worse than crummy traps.
This forces one of three situations: (a) GM simply removes most traps from the equation, or (b) the GM has to escalate the DC to find the trap to a level that actually threatens the Uber Trapfinder, or (c) both a and b. (This is my current campaign.)
Or (c) Assume the Trapfinder can find the trap and just include it in your game notes to alert him to it when they get there, but make the disable DC very difficult, or other ways to make the trap interesting. For example, maybe the trap can't be disabled but has a reset period, so the challenge becomes triggering the trap at the right time--without anyone getting seriously hurt--and then getting everyone safely through before it resets.
|
Re: Grimtooth
Today's trap makers gone soft on the delvers. It truly is a dying art.
They updated him to 3rd Edition, I don't know if you know.
If the rogue autofinds the trap and can autodisable it (and even bypass it) so what? Do you suddenly have antimagic zones over chasms when the party gets a fly item?This sadly is a very bad and perhaps even common mentality.
-James
Exactly, DMing like that probably adds to uselessness of trapfindings.
Had they no decent rogue the DM wouldn't have upped the ante and they would have had weak traps.So I agree it is sad that DMs decide to negate the skill of a player: he should be able to autofind if he built for that (except in extreme situations like enemy has been scrying on party maybe).
The flip side of this is the rogue designed to find each and every trap, automatically, at the moment the trap spotter advanced talent is selected.
Telling such a player that his "trap-dar" is pinging at (square x or item y or whatever) is as bad or worse than crummy traps.
This forces one of three situations: (a) GM simply removes most traps from the equation, or (b) the GM has to escalate the DC to find the trap to a level that actually threatens the Uber Trapfinder, or (c) both a and b. (This is my current campaign.)
D is another option.
Option D: obviously, your player who made the trapspringer is interested in traps, so you can and should use more traps than usual. Sheer numbers will allow that occasionally he'll blow his luck and miss a tough one now and then, but for the most part, letting this player make his rolls and describing in detail the traps he disarms and how he disarms them should be quite satisfying. He did give up other competencies to be Mr. Trapspringer, after all.
Your job as GM is to let him enjoy that role, and by increasing the number of traps you not only accomplish that, but you add to the challenge.
Meanwhile, the rest of the party (if you're doing it right) will be very grateful to Mr. Trapspringer. Of course it gets boring if it slows gameplay to a crawl, but if you use auto perception the presence of Mr. Trapspringer can speed up play! Put the rest of your effort into making the disarming memorable.
Sneak Attack
Rogue Talents
Uncanny Dodge
TrapfindingWhich do you want to give up? I think it's pretty obvious that Uncanny Dodge & Trapfinding will be the two most likely to go.
Trap sense. Couldn't trapfinding exist without trapsense?
I could perfectly see a Stalker rogue archetype who gets rid of trapsense to gain smaller bonuses to stealth and similar skills, and gains HiPS at level X.
That's a possibility. I was thinking of those two abilities (trapsense and trapfinding) as being bundled together into a "works with traps" theme.
D is another option.Option D: obviously, your player who made the trapspringer is interested in traps, so you can and should use more traps than usual. Sheer numbers will allow that occasionally he'll blow his luck and miss a tough one now and then, but for the most part, letting this player make his rolls and describing in detail the traps he disarms and how he disarms them should be quite satisfying. He did give up other competencies to be Mr. Trapspringer, after all.
Your job as GM is to let him enjoy that role, and by increasing the number of traps you not only accomplish that, but you add to the challenge.
Meanwhile, the rest of the party (if you're doing it right) will be very grateful to Mr. Trapspringer. Of course it gets boring if it slows gameplay to a crawl, but if you use auto perception the presence of Mr. Trapspringer can speed up play! Put the rest of your effort into making the disarming memorable.
A class shouldn't be good because the DM caters to them, no other class requires this, even paladins can contribute without meeting evil and demons. Not to mention my PC's already level up too fast because I don't tailor for or against them. Everyone standing around getting more xp because I need to make the rogue feel useful doesn't do anything but cause more downtime
To me, an ability like this is usually an opportunity. It's something more to challenge, so I try to find clever and creative ways to challenge it.
That said, I must admit that players in general seem to ignore it. In the last iteration of our group, the rogue never used it. After awhile, she complained that it seemed they were always walking into traps. I pointed out that she was best equipped to handle that situation. She agreed, then went right back to never checking for them again.
That said, I'm old school, so I present most traps to the party as puzzles or riddles, or what-not. You're likely to find yourself in a situation where avoiding the trap is the least gratifying thing, and defeating it through some means other than a roll is much more satisfying.
So I guess as-is I am not brokenhearted about not always having the ability around, while I do think with some tweaks there's potential there for something more interesting.
Just because a rogue finds a trap does not mean that he found the point where the trap can be disabled.
Sure a simple tripwire style trap can be be disabled on the spot, but a complex crushing room trap might have the disable point hidden around the room in another place. (like on the ceiling).
Think about each trap and who built it..most trapmakers would make traps that they can shut down to safely pass, but they may make it a trick that if you don't know how to get to the disable point safely, then you may set off the trap anyway.
Most trapmakers who make an expensive trap don't build it so any lucky rogue can walk up and take it out with a pair of wire clippers!
If the trap builder can fly or has mage hand, he may put the disable switch on the other side of the trap. In that case, the rogue may need to make a spot check to see it, or find a way safely over the trap to search for the disarm point.
Besides, from a game stand point, just letting the rogue roll dice and say "CLICK! I disarm the trap." is boring and not very good role-playing. Letting the player work for the disable of the trap is much more dramatic and a better chance at role playing than reducing him to a simple 1 to 2 roll game mechanic. It also makes him more valuable to the party and lets the rogue actually shine for once.
If you have watched RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, when Indiana Jones tries to get the golden idol off a trapped pedestal by using a bag of sand to try to fool the weight trigger, it takes long , tense moments to see if he will make it...Thats what rogue skills should role play like!
Reducing it to: "Ok, Indy rolled a 5 and set off the trap" is just sad.
Remember, Role playing , not Roll playing.