|
Traps are fun when done right.
Could you elaborate on what "fun" and "done right" mean to you ?
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?
Why the last point ? It looks like there is a "traps means rogue means traps" infinite loop at work here.
For the social, it is easy : circumstance bonuses (or penalties) levied by the GM with a view to reward active and creative players.
Maybe the same for traps : if you have done zero effort to circumvent the trap and just roll the die, then no bonus (and maybe some penalties depending on the situation). If your whole party did its best and utmost, then BIG bonus.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See those are mechanical processes though.
Nobody really likes hearing their great idea is rendered down into a +2 modifier to a die roll.
The trick I think to 'fixing' the trap 'problem' is for us to find a way to make traps engage the heroes, make the rogue and his rolls integral, while also making the others an active contributor.
Like, say the garbage smasher in star wars.
They brace the walls, they try to find other ways out, try to keep friends above water, while others frantically disable the device (R2 in this case).
The trick really is that the traps are less like this and more like 'hey, magical red outlines. Wiggle wiggle wiggle fingers. Its all safe now, lets go!'
|
Traps are fun when done right.Could you elaborate on what "fun" and "done right" mean to you ?
A trap should not be just a stupid die roll, but should have you get out of the LOOT ! KILL ! SEE ! mentality even briefly so you can think and find the solution to the puzzle.
Their placement should never be random or arbitrary.
When I played Neverwinter Nights, as a monk, I had a pretty demoralizing experience as I gained levels. Combat was auto, so I put my character somewhere until the baddies were dead. Traps were weak, so barging into them was no problem.
|
|
See those are mechanical processes though.
Nobody really likes hearing their great idea is rendered down into a +2 modifier to a die roll.
The trick I think to 'fixing' the trap 'problem' is for us to find a way to make traps engage the heroes, make the rogue and his rolls integral, while also making the others an active contributor.
Like, say the garbage smasher in star wars.
They brace the walls, they try to find other ways out, try to keep friends above water, while others frantically disable the device (R2 in this case).
The trick really is that the traps are less like this and more like 'hey, magical red outlines. Wiggle wiggle wiggle fingers. Its all safe now, lets go!'
Exactly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trap CRs are rather massively inflated when compared to what they actually do under the d20 system. Which leads to the (correct) assumption that any trap that's remotely "CR appropriate" can just be blundered through, with a heal-stick passed around to get rid of the insignificant damage it causes; and you can get back to looking for the skull with diamond teeth.
The solution: ignore the g$@$*+n CR, and use traps that are actually dangerous to the PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traps are out of date.
They are draped in paisley wallpaper and smell like old men knitting.
Rogues need to evolve beyond traps or have their class features merged into other classes.
...wait.
See those are mechanical processes though.
Nobody really likes hearing their great idea is rendered down into a +2 modifier to a die roll.
The trick I think to 'fixing' the trap 'problem' is for us to find a way to make traps engage the heroes, make the rogue and his rolls integral, while also making the others an active contributor.
Like, say the garbage smasher in star wars.
They brace the walls, they try to find other ways out, try to keep friends above water, while others frantically disable the device (R2 in this case).
The trick really is that the traps are less like this and more like 'hey, magical red outlines. Wiggle wiggle wiggle fingers. Its all safe now, lets go!'
This hits the nail on the head. When an encounter is reduced to a die roll or two, all the mystery and suspense is taken out of it - and it becomes boring. It's like reducing combat to a "roll to hit" "Roll damage" mentality. Those are boring encounters.
The encounters I always remember in my 35 years experience is the ones where we had to do something unusual to survive, or where something went wrong (like the guy who thought he was using a ring of feather fall to drop down behind the patrol when he actually had a ring of delusion - and he fell right in their midst. He did get surprise, though). Not the ones where everything went smoothly and we killed everything in a few hits. The same should be true of traps. they should not be overcome with a couple of die rolls, they should be role-played through with a very real chance of serious damage and/or death. The slower that impending doom the better since it gives everyone a chance to do something. Put people in a room and say "The doors slam shut and water starts pouring into the room from hidden vents near the ceiling" and I doubt they'll say "We don't have disable device". You'll get some looking at the door to see if it can be forced, some looking at the vents to see if they can be navigated or stopped and some looking for other ways out. They'll get inventive, maybe try some new application of their spells or abilities - and they'll remember the encounter forevermore.
But put them in a room. tell them to roll perception and tell the rogue the room is a giant trap - he'll roll disable device and the encounter will be over. They'll have forgotten it before the end of the session.
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
i know i don't play a standard game
but there should be alternatives for nonstandard groups
kingmaker and skull and shackles would theoretically work wonders for our playstyle
but yeah, indoor combat is kind of difficult with 15 PCs, Possibly 15 cohorts, and up to 10 pets
so we play a lot of custom campaigns tailored to our group size
Military/Pirate Crew/Etc type campaigns.
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
Put all the blame on the customers and none on the product? No thanks.
I'm pretty sure pathfinder doesn't have DMs anyways. This is a GM game.
I'm about to play a rogue in my next campaign. I don't feel that the GM obligated to include traps just to make me feel special. But honestly, having a nice perception and disable device never hurts.
Elf rogue FTW!
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 doingPut all the blame on the customers and none on the product? No thanks.
i as a DM am weak at running games for Rangers i use a lot of permade NPC namely from NPC codex, so Rangers' favored (any thing) will ether be OP or UP because of this my players and i know this and have changed the game to account for the weakness. however i know this to be my problem not that of the game so you will not see me say that the ranger is unbalanced nor would i say that a change to every ones game must be made to accommodate my play stile.
so yes take accountability for your weakness stop blaming the game you owe that to your players to work together and have a fun game
I'm pretty sure pathfinder doesn't have DMs anyways. This is a GM game.
I'm about to play a rogue in my next campaign. I don't feel that the GM obligated to include traps just to make me feel special. But honestly, having a nice perception and disable device never hurts.
Elf rogue FTW!
but you know that and will have fun(i hope) anyway and nothing is wrong with that
so yes take accountability for your weakness stop blaming the game you owe that to your players to work together and have a fun game
Oh I'm okay with accountability, but I don't like the idea that the game can't be at fault.
Personally I'd just change the race of a few npcs in the npc codex without changing stats if I felt like I needed a few orcs and was using premade characters. The barmaid being a half-orc lass won't kill the game.(I'd hope not anyway!)
so yes take accountability for your weakness stop blaming the game you owe that to your players to work together and have a fun gameOh I'm okay with accountability, but I don't like the idea that the game can't be at fault.
Personally I'd just change the race of a few npcs in the npc codex without changing stats if I felt like I needed a few orcs and was using premade characters. The barmaid being a half-orc lass won't kill the game.(I'd hope not anyway!)
the game can be flawed and is in a lot of ways but at the end of the day who is running the game?... but with something like traps and more so rouges the flaw i see a lot of people crying about is not the games flaw
The game can be accountable for flaws. That does not mean that every flaw encountered using the game is the game's fault. Most of the time, it isn't the game's fault, but someone not wanting to admit their own flaws.
Mechanical balance I can safely assume is inherent with the game.
If there is such balance problems, then yes.
What is mechanically imbalanced?
Fighter compared to Warrior.
Same class except one gets more stuff.
What is mechanically imbalanced?
Rogues in melee, and in the skill department they fall behind. You comparing HD and AC, but AC tends to fall behind at later levels(which hurts everyone) and fighters actually have the highest AC in game with armor training(there's a hidden cap on Max Dex+Armor, its 8/9/10 for light/medium/heavy, but there are things that change this like armor training, celestial armor/plate, and mithral.) Their number of skills isn't that amazing(Seriously, put the guy next to a ranger in skill totals, then measure the class features!), and their combat ability is lacking(DPR wise, their sneak attack is situational, and to hit isn't really good. Even if it wasn't situational they can fall behind because of their to hit!)
Sorry about all the parenthesis, just trying to add details. Bit obstructive in retrospect.
|
My biggest problem as a GM with traps is this:
Rarely, other than the failure to discern and then disable the trap, do they pose a serious threat to the party.
Oh geez, a spear hit him for 1d8+ 10, and there is a contact poison on it that does d3 con for 3 rounds unless he saves a (gasp) dc 19 fort save! O NOES!!
In a party with a rogue, thats not going to really do anything other than inconvenience someone, and in a party without a rogue the Barb or Fighter is usually out front and his Fort save is stupid good and the damage done by the spear is negligible.
Even a pit...o noes! Is the fighter 30 feet deep, did he take 3d6 falling damage and 6d6 spike damage? Still not going to really do much other than make someone wand of CLW him 9 times. O NOES!!!
Put in the falling boulder trap, save or die....yeah...nobody likes that, its not fun, and basing your characters whole life on rolling 1d20 1 time....might as well go to the casino and play craps or roulette.
So its either just stupid annoying little annoyances, or its Save or Die bullcrap, and nary seems fun or exciting or neat or any other adjective. Its just stupid...
Which is why most of the BBEG and minions in my games don't use traps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like folks have mentioned before, the fact that with enough time and effort one can come up with a ton of homebrew content to fix the problems with traps does not change the fact that in the game as-written traps have issues.
Now that I have time to read (and address) this thread properly...
All in all, I absolutely LOVE traps. I'm a trap-whore, I'm not ashamed to say it. However, I like to build my own traps, in addition to what's in the book.
One of my favorites I have to admit wasn't one I came up with, but I'm so stealing it for my campaigns. In an underground campaign vs drow (back in 3.5), our party wound up at a dead end. The only thing in this last room was a statue, holding two swords. It contained a riddle 'right or left?', simple enough.
Playing the impatient, heavily armored and very spikey battle rager dwarf (who had had a bit too much dwarven fire ale that morning), I chose right! Right hand & sword get turned. Giant stone door falls behind the entrance, and seals us in. Right, no problem!... Wait a moment, it's too big and thick to completely break through (the entire ceiling of the cavern dropped down).
As my dwarf is lamenting not bringing his pickaxe, the gnome bard runs over and... Turns the left hand. Very loud click, a wooshing of air fills the chamber, and then! It starts to flood!
Obviously, Flint Firebeard is very angry with said gnome, because this dwarf, like most, can't swim... And he's in spiked full plate, with very heavy equipment. Anyways, some ten or fifteen rounds later, our ranger solves the riddle.... The statue itself (and it's base) gets turned. Water, characters, and etc get washed down the drain into the necropolis.
I like traps like that. I also like traps that increase the challenge, and make players have to think. Even my kobold warren's pit-ridden room (with hidden ceiling catwalks) had a puzzle to it. Namely, every character received a chess piece before entering, and if they moved according to said pieces' movement types, and kept moving, the pits wouldn't activate. If they stayed in one place for too long, the floor would shatter, and they'd plummet.
So, yeah. Maybe I'm not always using simple traps, but using them in creative ways is a favorite pastime of mine.
In any case... As for the topic on one or two characters dominating certain aspects of a game while others just sit out, my opinion lies in that it's mostly the other players fault for not participating themselves. That said, when I DM I tend to try and work different traps into the crawl that are affected differently by different classes. Is it more work? You betcha, but it lets everyone feel engaged in a trap-gauntlet.
Well from what i can see most players view traps as little more than an annoyance that can be set of by the macho fighter who takes the hit then waits for the cleric to wave his clw wands and all is ok.
So its a lack of fear as to what the trap can do has made players complacent about traps
Which means that the odd fatal trap could be what's needed something to make players want to disarm or bypass traps as they no longer become a minor problem
Or maybe traps that cost the party more than a few clw's.
One of my favs was a simple pit trap that dropped the party's plate clad fighter in to a simple pit except that also in the pit was a couple of rust monsters they both got Aoo as he stood up and promptly turned his great axe and armour to junk i laughed my socks of as he was always saying how rogues where worthless
Which means that the odd fatal trap could be what's needed something to make players want to disarm or bypass traps as they no longer become a minor problem
Some players don't like save or dies though. That isn't very exciting either. It steals the fun when you do you know... die from a failed save. Making traps an encounter like is suggested above is a viable way to make them much more entertaining. Turn an easy encounter with kobolds into a challenge by putting something in the way people have to overcome, rather than something they walk through or... don't walk through.
I should probably add I've seen both the boring trap where you fall into a pit and walk out and the kind mixed with encounters and the kind that start with a trap setting off the encounter, and lastly the kind where you walk into it and die in published modules. The first and last ones on the list bore me to death as a player, the second and third ones add hype and a feeling of adventure to whatever is going on.
I agree no one likes a save or die type trap but a trap that will kill them in a few rounds unless they can figure a way round it can add a great sense of tension.
And make the players a bit more cautious about what else could be awaiting them .
This gives players a reason to be afraid of traps without resorting to the old D&D save vs poison or die
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another way to use traps without rewriting rules is to have enemies chasing the party, where the rest of the party has to hold off the enemies while the trap=monkey disables the trap.
Traps also work better in low magic campaigns where players don't have access to lots of extra healing
Another way to use traps without rewriting rules is to have enemies chasing the party, where the rest of the party has to hold off the enemies while the trap=monkey disables the trap.
Barbarian: I continue raging and charge the enemy wizard, pouncing for massive damage!
Oracle: I cast Greater Forbid Action on the group of mooks, commanding them to not fight!
Witch: As a swift action I cast a quickened Ill Omen on the war troll, followed by the slumber hex!
Rogue: I spend yet another full-round action disabling the trap while everyone else has fun...
Another way to use traps without rewriting rules is to have enemies chasing the party, where the rest of the party has to hold off the enemies while the trap=monkey disables the trap.Barbarian: I continue raging and charge the enemy wizard, pouncing for massive damage!
Oracle: I cast Greater Forbid Action on the group of mooks, commanding them to not fight!
Witch: As a swift action I cast a quickened Ill Omen on the war troll, followed by the slumber hex!
Rogue: I spend yet another full-round action disabling the trap while everyone else has fun...
It sounds like the trap isn't threatening if the rogue is bored. If the trap is a turret trap, actively attacking the PCs, then disabling the trap is much like killing a monster. Only the rogue doesn't need to flank it.
In fact, a better trap would have multiple ways to disarm it, so the rogue doesn't have to be the only one dealing with it. A necrotic energy channeling trap is the kind of thing a cleric can also deal with. A swinging scythe trap could be shattered by an angry fighter. The wizard could gum up the works of a trap that summons a fire elemental every turn. Etc.
So what I'm getting here is "Traps should have multiple ways of being dealt with so there is even less of an reason to bring a Rogue..."
It sounds like the trap isn't threatening if the rogue is bored. If the trap is a turret trap, actively attacking the PCs, then disabling the trap is much like killing a monster. Only the rogue doesn't need to flank it.
In fact, a better trap would have multiple ways to disarm it, so the rogue doesn't have to be the only one dealing with it. A necrotic energy channeling trap is the kind of thing a cleric can also deal with. A swinging scythe trap could be shattered by an angry fighter. The wizard could gum up the works of a trap that summons a fire elemental every turn. Etc.
If every round, the person playing a rogue just says they continue to take full-round actions to continue to disarm the trap, then it's going to be boring for the player, even if the trap is an active threat. It's not the lack of a threat that makes it boring, it's having to spend multiple full rounds in combat doing essestially nothing. That's boring if you're a bard diplomacizing, a sorcerer performing a magical ritual, or a rogue disarming a trap. Having to protect someone while they perform some task can make for a fun encounter, but it's not fun if you're the one left out. That sort of thing is better done by an NPC.
Now you can have "traps" that involve the whole party, but they aren't traps in the same sense as the traps in chapter 13 of the Core Rulebook and it removes the rogue's niche protection (what little there is). I think this is a good thing; parties shouldn't have to include include someone with one particular crass feature to be viable. It does have the effect though, as rogues are one of the weaker classes, that people are less likely to play a rogue. It's generally not fun to play a character that has trouble meaningfully contributing.
|
|
So explain how the fighter is climbing out of that pit without the monsters AoOing him. Or, for that matter, how your cleric is stopping for nine rounds in the middle of combat to use a wand of CLW nine times. If your encounters are boring, that is YOUR fault for designing the encounter poorly.
Well, to be clear I wasn't suggesting that the fighter didn't take AoO, nor did I suggest the cleric use the CLW wand 9x in a row in the middle of combat, but since it fit your argument to assume thats what I meant so you could appear smarmy and superior in your encounter design, let me say that was nice supposition.
Now, as for your staircase trap, the net result will be maybe a max of 10d6 damage. Average 35 hit points damage. DC 15+ reflex save...
Wow.
Thrilling.
Life-altering damage and in every way would challenge players to the point of almost killing them, only you know, not.
1 Channel from the 10th lvl Cleric fixes it pretty much. Maybe 2 if you roll poorly.
Pardon me for not fainting from being awestruck.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Traps also work better in low magic campaigns where players don't have access to lots of extra healing
Or they can actually do things other than simple straight damage. It's really no wonder to me that some of you find traps boring, because so many of you seem incapable of looking beyond simple and boring traps.
Traps can teleport a character to one of several (randomly chosen) locations. Traps can activate the release of some type of gas. Traps can cause exits to slam shut and be unable to be used again. Traps can basically do any damn thing you can imagine.
Traps aren't boring. Your lack of imaginative things to do with them is boring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, I spend another turn disabling the trap isn't much different from I spend another round swinging my sword at the monster. And Save or suck spells function on the same principle someone makes one roll to determine the outcome. I agree traps are weak for their CR rating but as far as being boring goes it's not like it's a problem unique to traps.
If rogues are only there to disable traps, I would agree with you. But they're not.
Traps in Pathfinder simply do not work in anyway that requires a party slot dedicated them. Traps are binary, you find them and avoid damage/effect or you don't find them take some minor damage/livable status condition, cure it off and go on your merry way.
And if the Rogue isn't there do disable traps what exactly do you have him there for? I'd rather have a Bard/Wizard/Witch for skills and damage. If you Rogue isn't there to disable traps... what was the reason to have one that one of those 3 classes can't overshadow the Rogue at?
I don't know, I spend another turn disabling the trap isn't much different from I spend another round swinging my sword at the monster. And Save or suck spells function on the same principle someone makes one roll to determine the outcome. I agree traps are weak for their CR rating but as far as being boring goes it's not like it's a problem unique to traps.
It's like our individual actions as PCs are not important, but what those actions culminate into.
Trap CRs are rather massively inflated when compared to what they actually do under the d20 system. Which leads to the (correct) assumption that any trap that's remotely "CR appropriate" can just be blundered through, with a heal-stick passed around to get rid of the insignificant damage it causes; and you can get back to looking for the skull with diamond teeth.
The solution: ignore the g%++!#n CR, and use traps that are actually dangerous to the PCs.
This has already be covered.
The problem is: no matter how dangerous you make the traps, they still fall in two camps:
a) it does too little damage to endanger the character life, and thus is solved with a happy stick
b) it does enough damage to endanger the character life, and thus is a coin toss "you save or you die".
A trap, to be truly dangerous AND engaging, has to be able to kill the players *through the course of several rounds*. For example: the already mentioned Star Wars garbage smasher. The PC are put in a danger that will kill them, but give them enough time to react. Another example would be a room that starts to fill with water, an arrow trap that shoots arrows per turn until disabled, or a gas filled chamber that slowly damage the PC until they find a solution.
Simply ramping the CR and damage of an average "standard" trap won't cut it. A 1d6+6 javelin trap won't worry a character with 40h, but a 2d6+12 javelin trap won't worry him either. A 4d6+42 might worry him, but then you are back to Gygaxian style traps of "if you fail the check to find the trap, you die".
|
|
Trap CRs are rather massively inflated when compared to what they actually do under the d20 system. Which leads to the (correct) assumption that any trap that's remotely "CR appropriate" can just be blundered through, with a heal-stick passed around to get rid of the insignificant damage it causes; and you can get back to looking for the skull with diamond teeth.
The solution: ignore the g%++!#n CR, and use traps that are actually dangerous to the PCs.
This has already be covered.
The problem is: no matter how dangerous you make the traps, they still fall in two camps:
a) it does too little damage to endanger the character life, and thus is solved with a happy stick
b) it does enough damage to endanger the character life, and thus is a coin toss "you save or you die".A trap, to be truly dangerous AND engaging, has to be able to kill the players *through the course of several rounds*. For example: the already mentioned Star Wars garbage smasher. The PC are put in a danger that will kill them, but give them enough time to react. Another example would be a room that starts to fill with water, an arrow trap that shoots arrows per turn until disabled, or a gas filled chamber that slowly damage the PC until they find a solution.
Simply ramping the CR and damage of an average "standard" trap won't cut it. A 1d6+6 javelin trap won't worry a character with 40h, but a 2d6+12 javelin trap won't worry him either. A 4d6+42 might worry him, but then you are back to Gygaxian style traps of "if you fail the check to find the trap, you die".
I think you underestimate how dangerous a trap that simply reported different characters to several random locations would be. Rule #1 - Don't split the party. The teleport trap does just that.
I don't know, I spend another turn disabling the trap isn't much different from I spend another round swinging my sword at the monster. And Save or suck spells function on the same principle someone makes one roll to determine the outcome. I agree traps are weak for their CR rating but as far as being boring goes it's not like it's a problem unique to traps.
It's very much different. With disabling the trap, you do nothing on your turn except continue to disarm the trap. You don't even roll dice for each round; you only make one disable device check even though it takes 2d4 rounds or whatever. The problem with disarming traps in the middle of an encounter is that it forces a player to sit out the game for a while, not that results are being decided by a single roll. The player whose character swings their sword or casts the save-or-die still gets to play the game.
If you honestly don't see the difference, next game you play in, sit out every encounter and make a single skill check at the end while everyone else participates. Let me know how fun that is for you.
Huh, I've never heard that, I and everyone I've met have always played that "continuing to disable the trap" requires another roll each round.
It does not.