(BTW, how much does the assumption of things like CLW wands being buyable, easily available change the game? In older editions magic items were pretty much find-them-only, and I think it was actual advice in the 2nd edition DMG NOT to have magic item shops and such...)
Since 3e, which is the edition that gave prices to magic items. In 2e, I couldn't even say how much a Wand of Cure Light Wounds is worth.
In pathfinder, I know it is worth 750gp (because of a formula based on spell level, not because suply and demand), and I know I can find it 75% of the time I try in any settlement with at least 201 people living there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traps are fine as is. Players need to change their thinking. Example:
My players come to a goblin lair. The party is all level 5, consisting of a Cleric (Erastil)4/Ranger 1, Wizard 5, Fighter 5. The Cleric/Ranger has a Tiger animal companion. As they approach the entry, here's the conversation which follows:
Wizard: shoot; we left the Monk/Bard NPC back in town. She's our usual trap finder. How are we going to search for traps now?
Cleric/Ranger: I have a decent Perception. I'll move up 30' and inspect the cave entrance, searching for traps.
Now, here's the thing: the Cleric/Ranger's Perception is moderately better than the Wizard's, on par w/his familiar and her own Tiger, and she is advancing alone. She moves up, fails a Perception, and gets tangled in a Strangling Snare trap I made up. Hidden inside the entryway is a Small sized fey who proceeds to start wailing on her while she's grappled. The rest of the party then has to move up and attack the creature through concealment.
Once past this bottleneck they fall into the same pattern, getting the Cleric/Ranger to then trigger a random encounter with giant centipedes, followed by the same character tripping a pit trap. Seeing a pattern?
There's this old grognard mentality that ONE character move up, check for traps, and then keep going. In the past when they used the above-mentioned Monk/Bard NPC to be the Trapspotter, they balked at her when she asked for help disarming a particular trap.
She found a door trap but before I rolled her disarm check I had her ask in character if someone would come help her. "But, none of US have Disable Device??!!" the party responded incredulously. I reminded them that there's more to disarming a trap than flicking a wire. Perhaps the Wizard knew something about the builder's habits (Knowledge: History, Nature); the Fighter might understand how it was engineered (Knowledge: Engineering) or perhaps hunters like the Cleric might have encountered traps like this (Knowledge: Nature). I then mentioned that any of these might grant an Aid Another bonus to the NPC's roll.
My players just simply DON'T know how to play against traps. In point of fact, few do. Just because RAW says that you CAN roll 2 skill checks, succeed at both, and ignore a trap, that doesn't mean it's the ONLY way to pull it off.
I keep trying to make traps more dynamic. I've added them as part of larger combats, I've used riddle/complex puzzle types, and I've even tried to make them obvious so the whole party can deal w/them. My players just want their "thief" type to move up 30', spot & disarm, then move on.
Who said anything about cross-skill aid another?My players just simply DON'T know how to play against traps. In point of fact, few do. Just because RAW says that you CAN roll 2 skill checks, succeed at both, and ignore a trap, that doesn't mean it's the ONLY way to pull it off.While as a non-PFS GM you can tell your players to roll any skill checks you want it's not Pathfinder as written. There is no more provision for cross-skill aid another on disable device than for dead characters taking actions.
Mark Hoover, a few post above this
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's natural selection at work. Disable Device won't help somebody who's that naive.We once had a player who couldn't simply not to touch everything. Once we found, in AD&D, an altar with two books. One of the books was titled "Life", while the other was titled "death". The character went, and touched the "death". He died instantly, no save.
Did the rest of you touch his corpse to the "Life" book?
Did the rest of you touch his corpse to the "Life" book?That's natural selection at work. Disable Device won't help somebody who's that naive.We once had a player who couldn't simply not to touch everything. Once we found, in AD&D, an altar with two books. One of the books was titled "Life", while the other was titled "death". The character went, and touched the "death". He died instantly, no save.
No, we used an Identify spell, I think I recall. The Life book could Heal or Resurrect, so we used it to raise the dead guy.
That guy was a lost cause. In a different campaign, we were trapped in some kind of magic elevator, which had a lot of levers and buttons. We were trying to guess which ones were the ones we needed to progress. He went and said to the GM "I touch all of them". That included some AD&D styled trap, which was one of the lever making the elevator to crash.
I'm pretty sure if you build a trap with a giant Neon signal saying "do not touch this, it's a trap", he would go and touch it, just to be sure.
To call those books a "trap" seems to only solidify how useless a dedicated trapfinding position in a party is...
Traps are quite Irksome. they are a boring gold tax at best.
OMG that barbarian took 10 damage. time to break out the wand of infernal healing.
a trap like those books, only shows how useless a dedicated trapfinder is.
in fact, if i had a choice between being taxed another trapfinder, or free to add a switch hitter ranger, i'd choose the ranger any day.
a trap like those books, only shows how useless a dedicated trapfinder is.
It does seem like one of the more consistent comments on traps is that they become much more fun when the Trapfinding and disabling mechanics aren't being used at all.
a trap like those books, only shows how useless a dedicated trapfinder is.It does seem like one of the more consistent comments on traps is that they become much more fun when the Trapfinding and disabling mechanics aren't being used at all.
true.
but it kind of proves ow worthless the rogue's role when you could have a better combatant who contributes similar skills, or a better support caster with similar skills, who does only slightly less damage.
Generally, I don't use traps. Most of the parties that are made up do not include a rogue or other trapfinding archetype simply because traps are an encounter only they can deal with effectively making them the sole justification for using traps; if you don't have trapfinders then traps are overpowered and will kill the party in no time flat, if you do have them traps are usually quite easy encounters that only the trapfinders can deal with.
Coupled with the fact that in many cases traps are illogical. For example, a dart trap: why wasn't it set off by the last person to wander down the corridor? does that mean its self-resetting or does someone come along to reset it? If they reset it why aren't they lurking nearby to take advantage of the now poisoned victims?
Obviously in places where the whole point is not to have anybody walking down corridors, it makes sense to have traps and they will be nasty ones (e.g. Tombs), but this cause a dilemma for a GM: What do the rest of the party do while the Trapfinder is dealing with trap after trap after trap. It does not make for good games to have 3/4 of the group sitting around twiddling their thumbs while the trapfinder does all the work.
Now this thread has inspired me: why not give the rest of the group something to do while the traps are being disarmed? include a creature as part of the encounter and suddenly the trap is transformed from a simple speedbump to an integral part of the encounter. Disabling a trap takes time, and the amount of time in a creature encounter can be crucial; suddenly the trapfinder has to not just disarm the trap, he has to do it quickly so the rest of the party can deal effectively with the encounter.
For example a simple pit trap is boring. Even non-trapfinders can rig up a rope system to get themselves across safely.
But add in a bunch of mooks armed with bows and suddenly you have a different encounter: Do the melees switch to missile weapons to try to outshoot the mooks or should they try to jump the pit (in Plate Mail!!??) and try to scramble up to fight them. Can the trapfinder figure out a way across quickly so that they can all cross easily and how long would it take?
I am also reminded of the traps used in DDO: In many scenarios, these are obvious but unavoidable. For example you might have Fire elemental furnaces that need to be relit, meanwhile the flames for those furnaces are being redirected across the catwalks that you use to get to the disabling mechanism. You can rely on Evasion or Fire protection spells, but anyone can disable the flames if they get past the flames. Meanwhile, random mooks are attacking you.
Again, the Mooks: Either they use ranged attacks to keep themselves out of the traps or they are immune to the traps (e.g. they are incorporeal, they are immune to fire, etc.)
As mentioned above, I disagree that traps are obsolete, I just think GMs need to to think about them instead of running on auto-pilot.
But I also emphatically disagree with the notion that rogues are somehow "about" traps. As though that's the only possible role of a skill-driven character in the game. Yes, there are some balance issues with other classes and skill coverage, but it lacks nuance to simply chuck an entire class out of the game on that basis. (That is an appeal to Rule 0. Deal with it.)
Traps imply dungeon play, but a game that makes heavy use of Bluff, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Disable Device (to open locks and safes), and other skills is a healthy urban game filled with intrigue. YES, a bard may overshadow a rogue at these things, but no that does not mean the rogue has no value.
Traps are generally misunderstood. The best you really can do with them is slow someone down to buy time for a response. Thus, you WANT the first one to be obvious. The invaders waste time, ..., profit. If you then remove the response, you lose every shred of point there was to the trap.
Now that Mythic's out, nothing less will do. That's power creep for ya!
I like traps because they are free XP that doesn't take much time to resolve. They also use up resources quite often (healing or spells to bypass) which means they are a legitimate challenge.
I don't like haunts though, they are crappy traps that were poorly thought out.
A lot of this seems to assume the ready availability of people with PC classes. I was under the impression that nearly all NPCs used NPC classes and that the PCs are special because they use PC classes.
Adepts never get fireball. Though they can get Lightning Bolt at 8th level.
I suppose this issue is highly dependent on the campaign world.
|
I admit I've always been a fan of the Stimpy Trap.
That it so say, the trap maker leaves something so bright and enticing the heroes just have to interact with it.
One NPC Trapmaker in my world makes extensive horrible use of these, to the point of almost rubbing the trap in the poor sap's face.
As an example, his 'Bravery is Rewarded' trap:
A giant lever sits in the middle of the room. The level is not near any doors, its made of what appears to be gold. Its surrounded by an obvious red circle immediately surrounding it, with vents pointing up towards the center that are designed to release 'something thats probably harmless from the smell,' when the level is pulled. Again, it serves no purpose.
Now PCs seeing this check it for traps (its trapped, but they knew that, and with a high enough roll the observer can determine it 'moves the floor, and releases thats probably safe something from the vents.').
So the bravest says he'll pull the lever. Afterall, there has to be a reason for a lever in the middle of a room for no reason right? And a trapped one at that!
Brave fellow pulls the lever, the vents spray him with high pressure air encouraging him to not move, meanwhile the floor surrounding the obvious red circle drops out to a spiked pit trap.
Adventurers grumble, feeling humbled and perforated. The kobold trapsmith sits in his hovel at home, well paid for his sadistic creavitiy.
The guy who commissioned him gets to leave his door levers unhidden as long as he buys red throw rugs.
Traps afterall are psychological. Its not about the damage, its about the trapmaker trying to adjust behavior. Even if its just 'don't go in here,' or slowing the attackers down by making them check doors.
I see traps as the penalty for the 5 minute work day.
If my players step into the dungeon, do two encounters, and then head back to town that's fine. It's low risk, they fight every encounter at full strength, and if they don't have some kind of deadline there's really no penalty for that.
But if there's ANY kind of intelligent boss or dude who runs the dungeon every time the party leaves the dungeon they'll find CR worth of traps equal to the monsters that they cleared out the day before when they come back.
Traps are a good way to run three CR 10 encounters in five minutes, ding the party a little, use up some of their resources, and then throw them back into the action against the REAL monsters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And to think that if traps had ever been "phased out", you'd never have entertained us all with that story. ;)
Those examples of traps are cool. They are what several of us have defended here: puzzle-solved traps, where the whole group can play. It's an encounter, like every other.
The boring traps and the one that should phase out, are the "roll perception DC X, roll Disable device DC Y, if you fail any of those, you take Z damage and burn W charges of the wand".
|
|
And to think that if traps had ever been "phased out", you'd never have entertained us all with that story. ;)Those examples of traps are cool. They are what several of us have defended here: puzzle-solved traps, where the whole group can play. It's an encounter, like every other.
The boring traps and the one that should phase out, are the "roll perception DC X, roll Disable device DC Y, if you fail any of those, you take Z damage and burn W charges of the wand".
I agree, the trick though is that its sort of a 'keep DM honest' roll.
2e had fun traps, for the DM, but there were quite a lot of stupid 'well you didn't say you were...' moments, built into traps. Like 'I check the hallway, but didn't say I was going to meticulously check every torch brazier' in said hallway and getting hit by a bouncing lightning bolt trap.
Traps, like social encounters, are boring
you usually have only a PC or few who can deal with traps
and only a PC or few who can really play face
Traps, like social encounters, are boring
you usually have only a PC or few who can deal with traps
and only a PC or few who can really play face
... in that party, only one guy can really fight. Therefore, combat is boring for the other two.
Traps, like social encounters, are boring
you usually have only a PC or few who can deal with traps
and only a PC or few who can really play face
Maybe if you had read through the thread you would have seen traps that involve the whole party.
Also, "social encounters are boring" probably deserves its own thread, but...wha?!? What kind of social encounters only involve one person with the highest diplomacy modifier? That's a really bad social encounter.
Edit for clarity: Yes, I know it is possible to do a bad job designing a trap to construct it so that it only involves one person, just like it is possible to design a monster or encounter (or anything else) badly. And it is possible to use a poorly-built trap in an uncreative way (i.e. placing it in the middle of a dungeon with no monsters so it doesn't present an encounter obstacle). And I know some people are biased against traps due to never having had creative DMs and only ever seeing boring traps. And so some people who haven't read this thread or seen interesting traps in play might assume all traps are like the ones they have seen...
but I honestly cannot imagine how you could do all your social encounters by having one person rolling diplomacy checks (without doing anything else) and everyone else just standing there. Surely the NPCs would notice the other party members and address questions to them, right? *confused*.
So I guess my question is: what are social encounters in your game like that makes them only involve one PC?
to explain it
the same player plays the "Face" in every campaign, he always maximizes diplomacy to some degree, and tends to do all the talking, the rest of the 15 player group gets ignored as the one geek who did toastmasters, and drama club does all the talking
it's not that we don't want to contribute to social encounters, it's that we can't due to the fact we have one guy who makes long inspiring speeches that completely hog the social spotlight.
we are cursed, with a player that attended the drama club in high school. we also have a lot of shy players.
it doesn't matter what he plays, there is no beating his massive diplomacy unless you play a clone of his build, which will come barely equal.
it doesn't matter what he plays, he uses all sorts of 3,5 and third party material to minmax his diplomacy (options the rest of the group has the permissions, but not the funds to use.) and none of us wish to depend upon his resources, because we would owe him a favor elsewhere.
... in that party, only one guy can really fight. Therefore, combat is boring for the other two.Traps, like social encounters, are boring
you usually have only a PC or few who can deal with traps
and only a PC or few who can really play face
even if you have only a few dedicated weapon users
everybody can contribute to a fight
you don't have to deal with one guy who hogs the trap encounters and a second who hogs the social encounters.
thing is, we have 15 PCs, and around 10 of them tend to be weapon users, this usually doubles around 7th level and doesn't account for pets.
It's shameful, but... My players hate when I home-design dungeons....
To put it mildly as to how much I enjoy using traps... They still have nightmares about my home-designed kobold warren, and it's adjoining overrun castle.
On the other hand, I offer the disclaimer that PC death is a very high possibility in my game... Even against 1HD critters... Who like to make excessive use of pit traps, tangle foot bags, and alchemical weaponry from hidden catwalks in the ceiling.
I'm fine with traps when it makes sense to have traps. Just because I play a rogue doesn't mean every door has to have a trap or I feel cheated...
we play with a lot of 5CHA PCs because there is no point in hogging the limelight when we have Actor and Military Expert, Actor plays face, Military Expert knows his way about formations and traps, and both of them, come up with all the solutions.
we used to have a Mcguyver guy, but he isn't around.
The problem with that is you are deliberately excluding yourselves from parts of the experience, I am personally a terrible actor (I cannot do any accents or anything), but I will always get involved in every facet of the game if its the planning our attacks on a fortress, being a party member at a social event (even if my PC is untrained at social skills I will still participate sure I might make it worse but I built the PC with those flaws so they should come up occasionally).
That you let people run these parts of the game for you kind of weakens you as roleplayers it makes you less versatile and gives you a rather skewed view of the game as apparently to you guys its all about having maximum diplomacy if you want to be the face (which is easy to do I guess but kind of irrelevant as most diplomacy DCs are between 15 and 30 so having a +72 does not make a difference).
there is no point when every time we try to find a way to include ourselves, the actor player interjects, ignores us, and leaves to kill stuff for him
so 85% of the game tends to be combat
Yeah...you're venturing back into creepy territory.
if i hadn't posted them, somebody else would have.
it happens every trap thread.
thing is, we have 15 PCs, and around 10 of them tend to be weapon users, this usually doubles around 7th level and doesn't account for pets.
no one going to hit up that 15 players thing... OK, i will, ya i bet anything other then open field combat would be lame in that group. you have a small country worth of heroes with in 30feet of each other.
using something like that to defend your point is a lot like saying "any thing other then ramps suck be and there should not be any stairs. oh, why?, because i have a wheel chair." you can't make that kinda assumption for every ones group, hell the only reasonable assumption is the iconic party made in PFS because its the only stander every one can see.it dose not matter how lame a class(with in limits) can be the DM should be able to make it fun if not the DM should at every lest admit it as a flaw. it part of being a DM. i see a lot of blame on "weak" classes that should go to weak DM or GM whom need to take a second to see what they are doing
In my formative 3.0 years, I played with an "old-school" DM who loved traps. We were soon taking 20 on Spot checks on everything.
The last time I used a trap, there a was a lot of build up to it. The door to the high priest's chamber, at the top of a Mayan style pyramid was said to punish trespassers. All doors in that place operated by pressure plate (pretty much buttons) next to the door and this one was no different. However, the standard pressure plate in this case activated the trap, a jet of water that blasted people off the pyramid. A secret pressure plate would open the door.
The party found a different way inside however.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking back on the thread, the general consensus on traps (and social encounters), seems to be..
We want everyone engaged, and we don't want to just roll a die for it.
Now here's a question, without going all Kirthfinder and trying to invent new fancy rules and mechanics.
How does everyone think we should engage everyone in the trapfinding process, or the social process, without taking away the rogue's trap-finding thunder?
Yeah...you're venturing back into creepy territory.if i hadn't posted them, somebody else would have.
it happens every trap thread.
Nope. I don't think anyone would have.
You might want to acknowledge Kthulu's friendly warning.