|
I will go out on a limb with an assumption of my own. Most groups a least have a short discussion on character choice. If somebody is playing a rogue it would be bad form to take the trait in my opinion. I would like to think most folks would agree. With Paizo adding new classes people want to try new things. If nobody wants to play a rogue they now have an out. I think thats swell.
This is imo what should be done at game tables. Unfortunately that does not happen all the time. Or that a trait should be always restricted because the devs did not add a negative to the trait. I think if the had made the DCs of traps be higher for all non-Rogues I would have been fine with it. I get to play the class I want and disarm all traps like a Rogue with no penalties. It's hardto pass up.
This! I was kind of let down by how many rogue archetypes give away trapfinding.
Or how many Alchemist archtypes give away all the abilites tied with poison.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good point, poison use should now be a trait. ;-)
It really should... It's even weaker than Trapfinding...
I get that some traits are more powerful than others. Yet Trapfinder makes taking a Rogue while not obsolete just not needed in q gaming group anymore. All that is left is sneak attack damage and some Rogue Talents. Not saying rogue Talents are useless. Except some are good, some bad, some too situational. A regular bard with this trait truly becomes the Jack of all trades.The rogue was never needed in a gaming group, casters fill its role easily.
Not in AD&D. And, in a real trap heavy dungeon, casters don't have enough slots to do that, plus other stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chances are the trait is for mummies mask but likely presented as suitable for any similar themed campaign. Its better that the trait exists than someone is forced to play a class they don't want to.
The trait only matters if you eant it to matter.
It does kind of matter when it almost invalidates a core class.
what does a rogue have left. sneak attack and rogue Talents. You make a good point about not wanting to play a unwanted class. I would not mind if the despite the trait the Rogue was still the better class at traps. They are not. Anyone with the with the skill and decent amount of points can do it. So why even have a Rogue.I recommend you look up the Why Rogues aren't Underpowered thread and learn exactly why they are Underpowered. I've already been over this this week and don't feel like doing it again.
But yes. It's well known that Rogues are pretty underpowered.
Having the same people say it over and over doesn't make it "well known".
"Oft repeated", sure.
Try
Scavion's little trick in Tomb Of Horrors. Heh.
I'm confused. Are you saying that eating the damage from the trap and moving on is a poor trick in Tomb of Horrors or that anyone couldn't easily fill the Rogue's place there?
Flipping through it, an Invulnerable Rager can eat all the traps and come out unscathed. DR/7 prevents the Con Damage poison from coming into effect. He's got the saves against all the other traps too.
That trick won't work if the traps auto-kill you, teleport you, or otherwise do more than just hp damage.
Play it sometime. Which version are you looking at?
Good point, poison use should now be a trait. ;-)It really should... It's even weaker than Trapfinding...
Wouldn't it be cool if everyone could disable magical traps with the appropriate skills? Or were competent enough not to poison themselves 1/20 times they apply a poisons? Or if experts on poison didn't apply poison to themselves on a one... man that would make a long list about basic competence.
Try
Scavion's little trick in Tomb Of Horrors. Heh.
I'm confused. Are you saying that eating the damage from the trap and moving on is a poor trick in Tomb of Horrors or that anyone couldn't easily fill the Rogue's place there?
Flipping through it, an Invulnerable Rager can eat all the traps and come out unscathed. DR/7 prevents the Con Damage poison from coming into effect. He's got the saves against all the other traps too.
That trick won't work if the traps auto-kill you, teleport you, or otherwise do more than just hp damage.
Play it sometime. Which version are you looking at?
Link me yours. The one I'm looking at features a lot of con poisons darts that deal 1d4+3 damage so DR7/- cancels it out. The auto killing ones are more hazards than traps, unable to be disarmed so thats kinda a weird point to make. Most are defeated by pretty simple intelligence or an easy perception check like the first one.
DR doesn't help against poison though...
DR doesn't help against poison though...
Depends, I think he was saying that if the attack hit but was negated by DR then the poison would be negated with it.
DR doesn't help against poison though...Depends, I think he was saying that if the attack hit but was negated by DR then the poison would be negated with it.
^ Right. If it fails to deal any damage, the poison has no effect.
I'm always in a bind over that.
Poison doesn't always have to be injected, it can also be ingested, contact poison etc.
If someone delivers a Shocking Grasp via melee weapon hit, and the weapon is stopped by DR, does the shocking grasp go off or does it have no effect? Why would poison be different - especially since there is nothing to indicate it is arbitrarily 'injected only' and could be delivered via a range of vectors.
I always considered that one of the places the rules get a little wonky. which happens from time to time.
Nothing in there states the hit applying the poison needs to cut through DR in order to work, it merely suggests the attack delivers the poison - "This poison is consumed when the weapon strikes a creature or is touched by the wielder" - nothing about DR and the amount of damage required.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yay! Now nobody needs to feel obligated to take a Rogue for any reason any more. 'Tis a good trait.
Now Alchemists, Bards, Rangers, Ninjas, etc. can just be superior in every way to Rogues instead of just superior to Rogues in every way BUT ONE.
No sarcasm. About time we stopped pretending Rogues were needed when we have others to fill every role BUT Trapfinding (and who are we kidding, most of those can GET Trapfinding somehow anyway).
Nothing in there states the hit applying the poison needs to cut through DR in order to work, it merely suggests the attack delivers the poison - "This poison is consumed when the weapon strikes a creature or is touched by the wielder" - nothing about DR and the amount of damage required.
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage Reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
So injury poisons, yes. Contact poisons, no.
Which assumes the trap entry that Scavion is reading specifies the darts are 'injury' based and not 'contact' - in the absence of an indicator there would be a problem :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get that some traits are more powerful than others. Yet Trapfinder makes taking a Rogue while not obsolete just not needed in q gaming group anymore. All that is left is sneak attack damage and some Rogue Talents. Not saying rogue Talents are useless. Except some are good, some bad, some too situational. A regular bard with this trait truly becomes the Jack of all trades.
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but that has been the case for a long, long while.
Traps are rarely more than speedbumps, and when they're actual obstacles you can get around them with magic. Nobody gives two craps about traps, and they don't frequently appear in published material anymore (at least, compared to their frequency in Ye Olde Days).
This whole thread is just flogging a dead rogue.
Which assumes the trap entry that Scavion is reading specifies the darts are 'injury' based and not 'contact' - in the absence of an indicator there would be a problem :)
However, contact poisons delivered via a weapon are considered injury poisons. Or at least that's how I read it.
These poisons are delivered the moment a creature touches the poison with its bare skin. Such poisons can be used as injury poisons. Contact poisons usually have an onset time of 1 minute and a frequency of 1 minute.
That line doesn't make much sense if they're triggered on touch regardless.
I really don't like this trait.
At least until this trait you had to dip or choose a specific archetype or prestige class - an investment you really had to ponder.
A trait with a class feature like this is simply too good. At the very least it should have some bonus to those classes with trapfinding like "if you already have trapfinding you gain a +5 to all perception and disable device checks regarding traps" (not exactly like that, but you get the idea)...
There are many powerful campaign traits, but this one goes too far IMO.
That line doesn't make much sense if they're triggered on touch regardless.
I suspect the suggestion here is that the poison can be actively used on a weapon, as opposed to only being a passive trap that waits for the target/victim to contact it. Its probably a pre-emptive clarification for those that argue 'but I never touched it' or the like - we've all met that guy...!
Anyhow, don't like this trait.
I would like to see the Rogue be thrown a few bones given how much they have stripped away from them over time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least until this trait you had to dip or choose a specific archetype or prestige class - an investment you really had to ponder.
Why should it be an investment you have to ponder?
It helps the game much more than it hurts.
Rather than something like "Somebody HAS to play a Rogue (or Archaeologist Bard, Trapper Ranger, etc.) but nobody wants to" or "I really want to play this but we really need trapfinding so at least somebody needs to sacrifice a level of what they want" it's "Everybody gets to play what they want! We just need somebody to snag this trait!".
Much better.
|
|
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but that has been the case for a long, long while.Traps are rarely more than speedbumps, and when they're actual obstacles you can get around them with magic. Nobody gives two craps about traps, and they don't frequently appear in published material anymore (at least, compared to their frequency in Ye Olde Days).
This whole thread is just flogging a dead rogue.
Sigh.
I know all about how imo the Rogue is underpowered and that traps after a certain point are more of a hinderance than a hazard to pc. Why do people assume I don't know lol. Before writing this thread I was not going "Rogues suck really. Who knew".
Which is why I think the trait is way too good. When it removes the need to take a core class it's not a good thing. Even then a extra sentence added to the trait along the lines of "the DCs of all traps is increased by five or ten except for Rogues who disarm traps with the regular DC" would have helped.
At least until this trait you had to dip or choose a specific archetype or prestige class - an investment you really had to ponder.Why should it be an investment you have to ponder?
It helps the game much more than it hurts.
Rather than something like "Somebody HAS to play a Rogue (or Archaeologist Bard, Trapper Ranger, etc.) but nobody wants to" or "I really want to play this but we really need trapfinding so at least somebody needs to sacrifice a level of what they want" it's "Everybody gets to play what they want! We just need somebody to snag this trait!".
Much better.
I see it differently. Nobody HAS to play the rogue, good perception or another class helps you deal with at least nonmagical ones without problem. However, it takes a class feature away and makes it a trait. You cannot really degrade it much more than that.
Next thing is you get smite evil, favored enemy etc. as a trait - class features that could not be snagged before, but well then nobody has to play a paladin or a ranger etc.
This trait goes against what traits usually do: give you some bonuses, class skills, less costs to spells, a slight boost to saves etc. I think this is a bad design.
And yes, I wouldn't allow this trait in our campaigns, and I am pretty sure I am not the only one of the GMs in my group who think so.
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but that has been the case for a long, long while.Traps are rarely more than speedbumps, and when they're actual obstacles you can get around them with magic. Nobody gives two craps about traps, and they don't frequently appear in published material anymore (at least, compared to their frequency in Ye Olde Days).
This whole thread is just flogging a dead rogue.
Sigh.
I know all about how imo the Rogue is underpowered and that traps after a certain point are more of a hinderance than a hazard to pc. Why do people assume I don't know lol. Before writing this thread I was not going "Rogues suck really. Who knew".
Which is why I think the trait is way too good. When it removes the need to take a core class it's not a good thing. Even then a extra sentence added to the trait along the lines of "the DCs of all traps is increased by five or ten except for Rogues who disarm traps with the regular DC" would have helped.
+1
How, precisely, can a trait meant for use in only one AP have any impact whatsoever outside that AP?
If it is allowed outside this AP then that is no ones fault but the GM for not writing up his own campaign traits and letting the PC's reuse the ones from the AP's.
The impact that this trait has beyond Mummy's Mask is entirely up to the DM running the game. Once again, this is a Campaign trait that you are all talking about.
How, precisely, can a trait meant for use in only one AP have any impact whatsoever outside that AP?
If it is allowed outside this AP then that is no ones fault but the GM for not writing up his own campaign traits and letting the PC's reuse the ones from the AP's.
The impact that this trait has beyond Mummy's Mask is entirely up to the DM running the game. Once again, this is a Campaign trait that you are all talking about.
So just because it is a campaign trait it mustn't be discussed or criticized?
In our groups we only play with hardcover books for this very reason, and only allow campaign splat books when we are playing that campaign. In this specific instance I wouldn't even do that anymore. And that is bad, I would much more prefer the splat books to be in line with the hardcovers and just allow all of them. :-)
Chances are the trait is for mummies mask but likely presented as suitable for any similar themed campaign. Its better that the trait exists than someone is forced to play a class they don't want to.
The trait only matters if you eant it to matter.
It does kind of matter when it almost invalidates a core class.
what does a rogue have left. sneak attack and rogue Talents. You make a good point about not wanting to play a unwanted class. I would not mind if the despite the trait the Rogue was still the better class at traps. They are not. Anyone with the with the skill and decent amount of points can do it. So why even have a Rogue. No to mention AP or not a smart dm always has traps ready to use against the group. keeps them on their toes. So this trait is useful most if not all the time.
A class is only invalidated if you let it be validated. If bob makes a trap finder rogue and sue makes a trap finding ranger then they are in competition. Actually they are only if sue made a trap disarming ranger... but if she did and knew bob was making a rogue then she is a jerk. But the issue here isnt the trait trying to do an identical thing as another player is bad form.
However if bob is the only trap person the traits existance is meaningless. Its existance wouldnt determine if i played a rogue or not.
|
|
So just because it is a campaign trait it mustn't be discussed or criticized?In our groups we only play with hardcover books for this very reason, and only allow campaign splat books when we are playing that campaign. In this specific instance I wouldn't even do that anymore. And that is bad, I would much more prefer the splat books to be in line with the hardcovers and just allow all of them. :-)
Not to mention if I wanted to have my cake and eat it too. I would ask my DM if I could use this trait outside of the AP. Take any other class but Rogue and still be just as good as the Rogue in disarming traps. Sign me up.
Next thing is you get smite evil, favored enemy etc. as a trait - class features that could not be snagged before, but well then nobody has to play a paladin or a ranger etc.
Please don't give the devs even more suggestions. Trapfinder the trait is bad enough.
A class is only invalidated if you let it be validated. If bob makes a trap finder rogue and sue makes a trap finding ranger then they are in competition. Actually they are only if sue made a trap disarming ranger... but if she did and knew bob was making a rogue then she is a jerk. But the issue here isnt the trait trying to do an identical thing as another player is bad form.
It kind of does actually. Since someone playing another class but a Rogue can disarm traps just as good as a Rogue. Say we have Frank the Rogue and Jane the Cleric. For some odd reason Jane wants to spend as many points as Frank into her Disable Device. Now both have a equal chance of disarming the same trap. Suddenly one of the few advantages Frank had as a Rogue is gone. Since anyone can do what a Rogue can do. Now if the trait penalized other classes but the Rogue in disarming traps I would have been fine with it.
Now what was a core feature of the class can be taken by anyone else. What do I have left. the oh so awesome sneak attack that gets my character torn apart if I use it in melee. The Rogue Talents that are a mixed bag of good, bad and situational.
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but that has been the case for a long, long while.Traps are rarely more than speedbumps, and when they're actual obstacles you can get around them with magic. Nobody gives two craps about traps, and they don't frequently appear in published material anymore (at least, compared to their frequency in Ye Olde Days).
This whole thread is just flogging a dead rogue.
Sigh.
I know all about how imo the Rogue is underpowered and that traps after a certain point are more of a hinderance than a hazard to pc. Why do people assume I don't know lol. Before writing this thread I was not going "Rogues suck really. Who knew".
Which is why I think the trait is way too good. When it removes the need to take a core class it's not a good thing. Even then a extra sentence added to the trait along the lines of "the DCs of all traps is increased by five or ten except for Rogues who disarm traps with the regular DC" would have helped.
The wizard is not required. A player can play one of may other arcane casters and still fill the role.
The cleric is not required. A player can play one of many other divine casters and still fill the role.
The fighter is not required. A player can play one of several other martial characters and still fill the role.
Why is the rogue some kind of sacred cow that MUST be protected if no other class in the game is?
It's not about "filling the role". The rogue can fill other classes roles in many cases as well. But it will cost class levels or be not as effective.
To take your examples: Where is the TRAIT that gives channel energy, scribe scroll, familiar, 9th level spell casting, cantrips at will (you know, not 1/day), armor training...?
The issue with this trait for me is not about protecting the rogue. I don't think it is a bad class, and in our games it does have its place and pulls its weight.
The issue I have with this trait is that it is way too powerful for what simple traits - of which you usually get two for free at character creation time, or can pick them up with additional traits feat - should allow you to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before the publication of this trait The Rogues had the class feature of being able ability to disarm magical traps. With this trait you don't even need a Rogue. A bard with this trait is imo better than a Rogue. Sure sneak attack damage is great. Except you have to specialize in ranged version of that. Or get torn apart in melee. The trait: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/mummy-s-mask/trap-finder
At last, just what I have always dreamed of!
Now we can finally get rid of the rogue and that is a got start to fix the rogue.If Trapfindning is what it takes to ‘force’ someone to play the rogue, then the problem isn’t Trapfinding but the rogue. Seriously. the rogue has Always been a problem and I dare to say it is the weakest and most problematic class in the game.
This new trait is a good thing. Now I can play a Core bard that picks this new trait and none of my friends is forced to play the rogue and the GM can still challenge us with traps.
What needs to be done now is fixing the rogue. Here is the fix. Are you ready?
A)Give us pathfinder 1.5: were skills matter past level 8; were rogue are given the possibility to feint as a swift action; were rogues get some good rogue talents; and were they get Shadow Strike for free at third level.
Or
B) Check out the Ninja. Strike out the name Ninja and substitute it with the name Rogue and pick this new trait called Trap Finder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Rogue (or Thief) has always drawn the short straw from day one.
1ed couldn't even have a CG thief (but NG) and I'm pretty sure that they couldn't even use a bow.
Its a gaming tradition that the humble rogue is totally gimped.
EDIT: Our table's house rule is like Zark's. We crossed out ninja and wrote "Rogue" and gave it Trapfinding.
Although I wanted to write "Rouge" in red crayon...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but that has been the case for a long, long while.Traps are rarely more than speedbumps, and when they're actual obstacles you can get around them with magic. Nobody gives two craps about traps, and they don't frequently appear in published material anymore (at least, compared to their frequency in Ye Olde Days).
This whole thread is just flogging a dead rogue.
Sigh.
I know all about how imo the Rogue is underpowered and that traps after a certain point are more of a hinderance than a hazard to pc. Why do people assume I don't know lol. Before writing this thread I was not going "Rogues suck really. Who knew".
Which is why I think the trait is way too good. When it removes the need to take a core class it's not a good thing. Even then a extra sentence added to the trait along the lines of "the DCs of all traps is increased by five or ten except for Rogues who disarm traps with the regular DC" would have helped.
The wizard is not required. A player can play one of may other arcane casters and still fill the role.
The cleric is not required. A player can play one of many other divine casters and still fill the role.
The fighter is not required. A player can play one of several other martial characters and still fill the role.
Why is the rogue some kind of sacred cow that MUST be protected if no other class in the game is?
+ 1000
Before the ACG we had the following roles covered (archetypes not included):
•3 Full arcane casters
•3 Full divine casters
•6 Full BAB classes (4 of them with heavy armor)
•+5 skill monkey classes (At least 6 skills per level: Rogue, Ranger, Ninja, Bard, Inquisitor and we had classes that rely on Int: Alchemist, Magus, Witch, Wizard)
•5 hybrid classes with 6/9 casting (Bard, Magus, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Summoner)
•Only 1 trap expert class (The rogue)
It is time we give players options when it comes to to the trap expert role and don’t force people play rogue or some strange archetype just because the Campaign calls for a trap expert.
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but that has been the case for a long, long while.Traps are rarely more than speedbumps, and when they're actual obstacles you can get around them with magic. Nobody gives two craps about traps, and they don't frequently appear in published material anymore (at least, compared to their frequency in Ye Olde Days).
This whole thread is just flogging a dead rogue.
Sigh.
I know all about how imo the Rogue is underpowered and that traps after a certain point are more of a hinderance than a hazard to pc. Why do people assume I don't know lol. Before writing this thread I was not going "Rogues suck really. Who knew".
Which is why I think the trait is way too good. When it removes the need to take a core class it's not a good thing. Even then a extra sentence added to the trait along the lines of "the DCs of all traps is increased by five or ten except for Rogues who disarm traps with the regular DC" would have helped.
The wizard is not required. A player can play one of may other arcane casters and still fill the role.
The cleric is not required. A player can play one of many other divine casters and still fill the role.
The fighter is not required. A player can play one of several other martial characters and still fill the role.
Why is the rogue some kind of sacred cow that MUST be protected if no other class in the game is?
+ 1000
Before the ACG we had the following roles covered (archetypes not included):
•3 Full arcane casters
•3 Full divine casters
•6 Full BAB classes (4 of them with heavy armor)
•+5 skill monkey classes (At least 6 skills per level: Rogue, Ranger, Ninja, Bard, Inquisitor and we had classes that rely on Int: Alchemist, Magus, Witch, Wizard)
•5 hybrid classes with 6/9 casting (Bard, Magus, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Summoner)
•Only 1 trap expert class (The rogue)It is time we give players options when it comes to to the trap...
By that logic you should add, as an example:
- Only 1 channel energy class (The cleric)
It is time we give players options when it comes to to the channel energy...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic you should add, as an example:
- Only 1 channel energy class (The cleric)
It is time we give players options when it comes to to the channel energy...
While Channel Energy itself is relatively rare, there were many other ways to fulfill its function (Heal HP).
Disarming Magic traps... Not really. Luckily, traps were never much of a problem past 6th level or so. But, having to take a class just so the GM can use traps is... Annoying.
Life Oracles and Paladins?By that logic you should add, as an example:
- Only 1 channel energy class (The cleric)
It is time we give players options when it comes to to the channel energy...
No negative energy channel.
Also, when you are nitpicking this, let's add
- lay on hands
- smite evil
- divine grace
- wildshape
etc.
to that.
I don't mind other classes to get trapfinding. But it should have some measurable cost, like selecting the appropriate archetype or dipping into classes. Not everyone wants to give up ranger spells just to get the trapfinding feature. Not everyone wants to go archaeologist bard to be able to disarm traps, some want to use features from other archetypes or the core bard.
Trapfinding as a trait is just way too cheap.
By that logic you should add, as an example:
- Only 1 channel energy class (The cleric)
It is time we give players options when it comes to to the channel energy...While Channel Energy itself is relatively rare, there were many other ways to fulfill its function (Heal HP).
Disarming Magic traps... Not really. Luckily, traps were never much of a problem past 6th level or so. But, having to take a class just so the GM can use traps is... Annoying.
You cannot have read these forums often. Magical traps are usually declared to be a non-issue because you can either dispel it or overcome it otherwise ;-P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot have read these forums often. Magical traps are usually declared to be a non-issue because you can either dispel it or overcome it otherwise ;-P
Exactly... Casters could do it. Now mundane character can disarm traps too.
Besides, Trap Finding is not exactly worth a feat either.
And honestly, all the Rogue has ever done is drag down other classes, especially mundane classes. So I'm glad he's dead and buried. I'd rather see him buffed, but since that's not going to happen... Dead and buried it is.
You cannot have read these forums often. Magical traps are usually declared to be a non-issue because you can either dispel it or overcome it otherwise ;-PExactly... Casters could do it. Now mundane character can disarm traps too.
Besides, Trap Finding is not exactly worth a feat either.
And honestly, all the Rogue has ever done is drag down other classes, especially mundane classes. So I'm glad he's dead and buried. I'd rather see him buffed, but since that's not going to happen... Dead and buried it is.
I disagree with pretty much all you write.
Every class gets its unique thing(s). Making them traits would do every class dishonor.
snark stuff
If you had taken a deep breath before you posting your stuff you would have noticed I didn’t talk about powers or abilities, but roles. The Trap expert role was just covered by one class.
Also, I don’t care really if negative channel is covered by more than one class or not.The rogue is a problem that needs fixing. Forcing players to play one just because the party needs a trap expert is just as bad as forcing someone to play Cleric because the party needs someone with Channel energy.
|
|
When a option takes away from one of the core classes. It removes what made it unique since the first edition it's not a good thing. Why should I play Rogue. Almost no reason now. It's also not protect the Rogue. It's releasing a trait that gives too much with no penalty. They could have easily penalized non-Rogues with the trait. While still allowing the rogue to remain the best class to remove traps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a option takes away from one of the core classes. It removes what made it unique since the first edition it's not a good thing. Why should I play Rogue. Almost no reason now. It's also not protect the Rogue. It's releasing a trait that gives too much with no penalty. They could have easily penalized non-Rogues with the trait. While still allowing the rogue to remain the best class to remove traps.If another class being able to take trapfinding leads to no one playing the rogue, then I would say the problem isn't trapfinding, but the rogue itself. If the rogue is a worthwhile class then people will still be willing to play it despite other classes having access to trapfinding.
+1
edit:
And we had the same argument in the Beta test of the Core book, when the Devs decided to let all classes deal with mundane traps and spot magical traps.
Forcing someone to play a single class (or taking a dip in that class) just because a particular role isn’t filed is bad.