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.
Cleric is still a worthwhile class even though at least 3 other classes get access to domains and at least 2 other classes get access to channeling. They even have to share their spell list with another class!
With the Slayer and Investigator both getting trapfinding I think lot of people will drift away from the Rogue. Again, that is not a Bad thing.
Also, this trait is a sold fix or at least a band aid for the monk, dex fighter and swashbuckler. All three are sort of the odd man out or at least the fifth wheel. Even the Core bard suffers from similar problems, lot of skills that don’t really matter at higher levels and problem dealing enough damage.
With this trait all sort of cool class concepts open up. I like it.
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.Cleric is still a worthwhile class even though at least 3 other classes get access to domains and at least 2 other classes get access to channeling. They even have to share their spell list with another class!
Clerics are boring and generic, but they are rock solid and one of the most powerful classes in the game. They can be pretty much anything.
Yes, I agree, the rogue is still the best trapfinder and best skill monkey, but other classes can be almost as good and better at a number of things. One of the Ranger archetypes for example is tougher, better in direct combat, etc, and just a tad shy of being as good in traps (8 Skp is still better than 6, no matter what traits you can get- note that the Rogue can take this trait also- and UMD is a great skill, still).
Hahaha no. Alchemist are Int focus and completely crush the rogue in skill monkeying. Rogue 1/Wizard 19 is also one of the better rogue builds.
Trapspringer Gloves make the extra bonus Rogues get all but worthless. Rogues can wear this item too, but they were already auto-disabling traps near their CR anyways.
Guys disarming magical traps is already a 2nd level spell, and the spell gives you more things than that, the ability to disable magical traps isn't even worth a feat so it's a good thing it's now a trait.
And no there is no reason to play a rogue, but the thing is for quite some time there is no reason to play a rogue, rogue class is dead for quite some time now and i think that it's time we bury it.
Now the most important thing i have seen the rogue class do is gimp other class because of it's existance, and that is a bad thing but still it's an achievment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm perplexed by the people who are saying that this trait kills rogues when in reality its as much a buff to them as anyone else.
For example: Now you take take the Swashbuckler archetype (or any archetype that trades trapfinding, which is most of them) without much penalty. You lose the skill bonus, but you keep what is arguably the most important part; the ability to disarm magical traps.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trapfinding is actually weaker than a trait. Its in that special place for abilities that take abilities away from everyone else. Sort of like equipment trick or rumormonger, only worse.
Trapfinding is considerably weaker than those. Trapfinder is at the power level of a trait, those other are stronger that a feat. Lets not make hyperboles.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.
Depends on the situation. A dungeon with many deadly traps may well make it a lot more worthwhile to the group than a few channel energy per day.
But that is not my point: for a trait this is simply too strong.
I'm perplexed by the people who are saying that this trait kills rogues when in reality its as much a buff to them as anyone else.
For example: Now you take take the Swashbuckler archetype (or any archetype that trades trapfinding, which is most of them) without much penalty. You lose the skill bonus, but you keep what is arguably the most important part; the ability to disarm magical traps.
It does not kill the rogue. It's just too good for a trait with no strings attached.
I'm perplexed by the people who are saying that this trait kills rogues when in reality its as much a buff to them as anyone else.
For example: Now you take take the Swashbuckler archetype (or any archetype that trades trapfinding, which is most of them) without much penalty. You lose the skill bonus, but you keep what is arguably the most important part; the ability to disarm magical traps.
It does not kill the rogue. It's just too good for a trait with no strings attached.
Thats not what the Devs who made it think. They've finally come out and said, "Yeah, trapfinding is worth about a trait."
|
I'm perplexed by the people who are saying that this trait kills rogues when in reality its as much a buff to them as anyone else.
Not very perplexing. Besides trapfinding what else does a Rogue get. Sneak attack which the class is too weak to use effectively in melee. Or Rogue talents that are a mixed bag. With the trait I might as well play a Bard or Alchemist. While still getting better class abilites.
Thats not what the Devs who made it think. They've finally come out and said, "Yeah, trapfinding is worth about a trait."
Not official but yeah pretty much.
Thats not what the Devs who made it think. They've finally come out and said, "Yeah, trapfinding is worth about a trait."I'm perplexed by the people who are saying that this trait kills rogues when in reality its as much a buff to them as anyone else.
For example: Now you take take the Swashbuckler archetype (or any archetype that trades trapfinding, which is most of them) without much penalty. You lose the skill bonus, but you keep what is arguably the most important part; the ability to disarm magical traps.
It does not kill the rogue. It's just too good for a trait with no strings attached.
So what about them?
I disagree, as do others.
I'm perplexed by the people who are saying that this trait kills rogues when in reality its as much a buff to them as anyone else.
Not very perplexing. Besides trapfinding what else does a Rogue get. Sneak attack which the class is too weak to use effectively in melee. Or Rogue talents that are a mixed bag. With the trait I might as well play a Bard or Alchemist. While still getting better class abilites.
Now you understand. You see that the rogue class is very gimped without the existance of this trait and that there is no reason to play this class?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just too good for a trait with no strings attached.
So what makes it overpowered? Its actually a lot weaker than trapfinding because it doesn't give any bonuses to skills, and it doesn't give trapspotter. It also devours your trait slot to let you do something that took competence, rather than a unique supernatural ability.
A big thing is asking yourself what the consequences of the trait are. The biggest one being that you don't have to play a rogue or dip to get trapfinding(someone already said that...), and that's not really a bad thing.
It's just too good for a trait with no strings attached.So what makes it overpowered? Its actually a lot weaker than trapfinding because it doesn't give any bonuses to skills, and it doesn't give trapspotter. It also devours your trait slot to let you do something that took competence, rather than a unique supernatural ability.
A big thing is asking yourself what the consequences of the trait are. The biggest one being that you don't have to play a rogue or dip to get trapfinding(someone already said that...), and that's not really a bad thing.
I've already explained in my previous posts why I think it's too good for a trait.
And it's not supernatural.
Not that any would every openly admit that. Oh Rogue class we hardly knew thee. Oh well hello Ninja or Bard with the trait.
Exactly. That should tell the DEvs that trapfinding is not, and never was, a balancing factor between classes.
I don't think it's that bad. The rogue still has its place :-)
But yes, it lost one of its specialties again. I wish they'd do that with bane or familiar or unlimited cantrips etc. as well... Then at least it would be the same for all, not only the rogue would suffer again and again... ;-)
It's just too good for a trait with no strings attached.So what makes it overpowered? Its actually a lot weaker than trapfinding because it doesn't give any bonuses to skills, and it doesn't give trapspotter. It also devours your trait slot to let you do something that took competence, rather than a unique supernatural ability.
A big thing is asking yourself what the consequences of the trait are. The biggest one being that you don't have to play a rogue or dip to get trapfinding(someone already said that...), and that's not really a bad thing.
I've already explained in my previous posts why I think it's too good for a trait.
And it's not supernatural.
He means getting some cool other trait instead, like getting a +2 Vs Mind Affecting effects.
So whats the big deal? Already people were picking those archetypes to fill the trapfinding "niche". Now we don't have to pick those archetypes either and can play whatever we want. How is that a bad thing?
Your argument appears to be, "People were already not picking the Rogue in favor of those archetypes with trapfinding, people are going to not pick the Rogue even more now that this trait exists!"
| 3 people 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.
OK, I've talked about this before, but this is the weird circular logic involving rogues. To wit:
1) There is no reason to play a rogue other than its unique ability to disarm magical traps.
2) If a campaign isn't laden with magical traps, the guy who played the rogue is going to feel like he's not contributing.
Rogues and magical traps end up being the reason for one another's existence.
When an option takes away from one of the core classes something it only retained due to legacy it improves the game by giving all players additional choices and flexibility. Your case here reminds me of grognards whining about how all races could dual-class like humans when the game switched from 2E to 3E, or the removal of race-based class level caps (which like 99.8% of DMs ignored anyway).
Personally, I think the better solution would have been to allow any player with Disable Device to disarm magical traps anyway. The rogue maintains its position of being the best at doing things that don't really need to be done through the benefit of many of his talents and half his class level on such checks.
I mean, they took away the Ranger's "unique" ability to track, another thing seldom required for an adventure and easily bypassed by magic, but Track was already a feat in 3.5. Would you complain that the Ranger's unique role was obviated by changes made in Pathfinder?
I don't think it's that bad. The rogue still has its place :-)But yes, it lost one of its specialties again. I wish they'd do that with bane or familiar or unlimited cantrips etc. as well... Then at least it would be the same for all, not only the rogue would suffer again and again... ;-)
The only thing the Rogue gets over a Vivisectionist Mindchemist is a couple of extra feats. The Alchemist gets 6th level extracts which I would consider are a lot better than 3 feats.
It's just too good for a trait with no strings attached.So what makes it overpowered? Its actually a lot weaker than trapfinding because it doesn't give any bonuses to skills, and it doesn't give trapspotter. It also devours your trait slot to let you do something that took competence, rather than a unique supernatural ability.
A big thing is asking yourself what the consequences of the trait are. The biggest one being that you don't have to play a rogue or dip to get trapfinding(someone already said that...), and that's not really a bad thing.
I've already explained in my previous posts why I think it's too good for a trait.
And it's not supernatural.
He means getting some cool other trait instead, like getting a +2 Vs Mind Affecting effects.
So whats the big deal? Already people were picking those archetypes to fill the trapfinding "niche". Now we don't have to pick those archetypes either and can play whatever we want. How is that a bad thing?
Your argument appears to be, "People were already not picking the Rogue in favor of those archetypes with trapfinding, people are going to not pick the Rogue even more now that this trait exists!"
No, you are mixing up posts. I emphasized that I do not think that way.
To me handing out a valuable ability like that is too good for a trait.
I was kind of hoping that this trait would be PFS legal so my Knife Master could take it and get back the ability to disarm magical traps. But it seems campaign traits aren't legal in PFS. :(
You know, I honestly didn't consider this prospect (and what Alexander says below you here) until just now.
That, to me, is one of the few true design travesties of PF so far: the decision to take away Trapfinding from anyone taking a Rogue archetype that would make them more effective in other areas.
But, for your knife master, hopefully one day TOZ...one day...
1) There is no reason to play a rogue other than its unique ability to find magical traps.
2) If a campaign isn't laden with magical traps, the guy who played the rogue is going to feel like he's not contributing.
Anyone can find magical traps with a perception check. Trapfinding just lets you disarm them without summon monster I or box o' rocks IV.
With at will detect magic, magical traps effectively have a big glowy sign on them.
|
|
OK, I've talked about this before, but this is the weird circular logic involving rogues. To wit:1) There is no reason to play a rogue other than its unique ability to find magical traps.
2) If a campaign isn't laden with magical traps, the guy who played the rogue is going to feel like he's not contributing.Rogues and magical traps end up being the reason for one another's existence.
When an option takes away from one of the core classes something it only retained due to legacy it improves the game by giving all players additional choices and flexibility. Your case here reminds me of grognards whining about how all races could dual-class like humans when the game switched from 2E to 3E, or the removal of race-based class level caps (which like 99.8% of DMs ignored anyway).
Personally, I think the better solution would have been to allow any player with Disable Device to disarm magical traps anyway. The rogue maintains its position of being the best at doing things that don't really need to be done through the benefit of many of his talents and half his class level on such checks.
I mean, they took away the Ranger's "unique" ability to track, another thing seldom required for an adventure and easily bypassed by magic, but Track was already a feat in 3.5. Would you complain that the Ranger's unique role was obviated by changes made in Pathfinder?
I would not be comparing what a Ranger could do in 3.5 and in Pathfinder vs the PF rogue. Let see spells, Animal Companion or Bond with the group. Favored Enemies, Combat style feats. Are you seriously going to try and compare the loss of tracking to a Ranger as being in the same as what was done with the Rogue and the Trapfinder trait. If you had brought up how lacking Fighters are then you may have had a better argument imo. Without Trapfinding the Rogue is left with almost nothing. Sneak attack that has to be done with a ranged weapon. Or get torn apart in melee. Rogue talents that are a mixed bag and evasion and improved evasion. Wait the Ranger gets evasion and improved evasion as well.
My response to someone complaining that others can track is "yeah you got it tough kid" as opposed to the Rogue where I would be offering them to play a reskinned ninja.
The only thing the Rogue gets over a Vivisectionist Mindchemist is a couple of extra feats. The Alchemist gets 6th level extracts which I would consider are a lot better than 3 feats.
I don't think it's that bad. The rogue still has its place :-)But yes, it lost one of its specialties again. I wish they'd do that with bane or familiar or unlimited cantrips etc. as well... Then at least it would be the same for all, not only the rogue would suffer again and again... ;-)
Talents, scaling skill bonuses, skill points and evasion are quite useful. And not everyone wants magic or transformation.
No, you are mixing up posts. I emphasized that I do not think that way.To me handing out a valuable ability like that is too good for a trait.
It was hyperbole. You said it's okay for folks to pick an archetype or dip a prestige class like Pathfinder Delver to invalidate the Rogue. So the Rogue has already been invalidated.
So who cares if the trait does it more?
At least until this trait you had to dip or choose a specific archetype or prestige class - an investment you really had to ponder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I compared the two because they did the same thing to change those classes.
In 3.5: Only rogues can find a trap with a DC higher than 10.
In PF: Anyone can find any traps, only rogues can disarm magical traps, and get half their level as a skill bonus to do so.
In 3.5: Only players with Track can follow tracks with a DC higher than 10. (I know no one who took Track that didn't get it for free as a ranger)
In PF: Anyone can follow any tracks, and Rangers get half their level as a skill bonus to do so.
Do you see the parallel?
1) There is no reason to play a rogue other than its unique ability to find magical traps.
2) If a campaign isn't laden with magical traps, the guy who played the rogue is going to feel like he's not contributing.Anyone can find magical traps with a perception check. Trapfinding just lets you disarm them without summon monster I or box o' rocks IV.
With at will detect magic, magical traps effectively have a big glowy sign on them.
I misspoke, I meant DISARM magical traps.
See edit above.
No, you are mixing up posts. I emphasized that I do not think that way.To me handing out a valuable ability like that is too good for a trait.
It was hyperbole. You said it's okay for folks to pick an archetype or dip a prestige class like Pathfinder Delver to invalidate the Rogue. So the Rogue has already been invalidated.
So who cares if the trait does it more?
At least until this trait you had to dip or choose a specific archetype or prestige class - an investment you really had to ponder.
The cost is different. And I EXPLICITELY said that this does not invalidate the rogue. For this ability a trait is too cheap.
I hope that is clear now :-)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Disagree. For the ability the trait is TOO EXPENSIVE. It's a trait tax. They should simply allow anyone to disarm magical traps with Disable Device.
Talents, scaling skill bonuses, skill points and evasion are quite useful. And not everyone wants magic or transformation.The only thing the Rogue gets over a Vivisectionist Mindchemist is a couple of extra feats. The Alchemist gets 6th level extracts which I would consider are a lot better than 3 feats.
I don't think it's that bad. The rogue still has its place :-)But yes, it lost one of its specialties again. I wish they'd do that with bane or familiar or unlimited cantrips etc. as well... Then at least it would be the same for all, not only the rogue would suffer again and again... ;-)
Oh yeah. Talents like Rumormonger? No. The best talents are the ones that give you feats and you can only get about 3 of them before level 10.
The bonuses that trapfinding gets you are worthless since trap DCs don't go past 34 usually. The Alchemist gets more skill points since he's actually Int based. Evasion is actually one of the more useless abilities on the Rogue since he already has a good Reflex save. And then you remember that Reflex saves are usually the least harmful to characters, dealing just hit point damage, instead of disintegrating you or teleporting you into the sun.
As for the not everyone wants magic, that is a deliberate decision to make a less powerful character. The Alchemist is just a flat out clearly better class than the Rogue.
|
|
I compared the two because they did the same thing to change those classes.In 3.5: Only rogues can find a trap with a DC higher than 10.
In PF: Anyone can find any traps, only rogues can disarm magical traps, and get half their level as a skill bonus to do so.
With the trait anyone can now disable all kinds of traps. Including magical traps. So what if the Rogue gets a slightly better bonus. It's no longer unique when everyone else can do it.
In 3.5: Only players with Track can follow tracks with a DC higher than 10. (I know no one who took Track that didn't get it for free as a ranger)
In PF: Anyone can follow any tracks, and Rangers get half their level as a skill bonus to do so.Do you see the parallel?
I don't see the parallel because even with the lose pf Tacking the Ranger as a class still has a lot more goign for it than the Rogue. Again even with a slightly better bonus to track it's no longer unique if everyone at the table can do it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Here's the thing though...Trapfinding's bonus is already so small that it IS on par with some of the weaker Traits. It's just that the benefit was necessary if you wanted to disarm magical traps instead of disabling them in one of the 1000 other ways.
Smite, FE, and so on are bad examples, and you knew that when you wrote this post. They are defining class features for a class. If Trapfinding is supposed to be the Rogue's iconic, powerful class feature...that really tells you something about the Rogue class.
I don't see the parallel because even with the lose pf Tacking the Ranger as a class still has a lot more goign for it than the Rogue. Again even with a slightly better bonus to track it's no longer unique if everyone at the table can do it.
If your problem is the Rogue is an insanely weak class that no one but rubes would be convinced to play, I hear you! But that's a problem with the class or overall game design, not one little trait.
If taking away one little ability from the rogue makes the class fall apart utterly in your eyes, you should ask yourself why the class is so weak.
If a trait let people channel energy, or smite, or gave them animal companions, I can tell you I'd still play clerics, and paladins, and druids and rangers because they have TONS more to offer than even their most iconic abilities.
The rogues don't.
R.I.P. Rogues
I compared the two because they did the same thing to change those classes.
In 3.5: Only rogues can find a trap with a DC higher than 10.
In PF: Anyone can find any traps, only rogues can disarm magical traps, and get half their level as a skill bonus to do so.In 3.5: Only players with Track can follow tracks with a DC higher than 10. (I know no one who took Track that didn't get it for free as a ranger)
In PF: Anyone can follow any tracks, and Rangers get half their level as a skill bonus to do so.Do you see the parallel?
Indeed!
Even though Ranger has always been one of my favorite classes, I was glad to see everyone being able to track. And Ranger is still a solid class.
If everyone having access to Trap Finding makes the Rogue obsolete, then it's the class' fault, not the trait.
If there was a trait that gave Detect Evil to everyone, I'd still play Paladins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there was a trait that gave Detect Evil to everyone, I'd still play Paladins.
Better still, there's a magic item and a CHEAP one. Shining Wayfinder. You can Detect Evil at will and 1/day cast Protection from Evil. 2k
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.
Here's the thing though...Trapfinding's bonus is already so small that it IS on par with some of the weaker Traits. It's just that the benefit was necessary if you wanted to disarm magical traps instead of disabling them in one of the 1000 other ways.
Smite, FE, and so on are bad examples, and you knew that when you wrote this post. They are defining class features for a class. If Trapfinding is supposed to be the Rogue's iconic, powerful class feature...that really tells you something about the Rogue class.
They are situational abilities, quite valuable when you need them.
So just because it isn't valuable in your opinion, does not mean it actually is.FE is useless if you never meet your FE. Smite evil is useless when you have no evil opponents. Trapfinding is useless when you have no dangerous magic traps.
Others here have stated that they had to dip or choose archetypes to get it. So it wasn't so useless as you make it out to be.
They are situational abilities, quite valuable when you need them.
So just because it isn't valuable in your opinion, does not mean it actually is..
We should talk more about how opinions don't make something, something. I think that'll lead somewhere.
Talents, scaling skill bonuses, skill points and evasion are quite useful. And not everyone wants magic or transformation.The only thing the Rogue gets over a Vivisectionist Mindchemist is a couple of extra feats. The Alchemist gets 6th level extracts which I would consider are a lot better than 3 feats.
I don't think it's that bad. The rogue still has its place :-)But yes, it lost one of its specialties again. I wish they'd do that with bane or familiar or unlimited cantrips etc. as well... Then at least it would be the same for all, not only the rogue would suffer again and again... ;-)
Oh yeah. Talents like Rumormonger? No. The best talents are the ones that give you feats and you can only get about 3 of them before level 10.
The bonuses that trapfinding gets you are worthless since trap DCs don't go past 34 usually. The Alchemist gets more skill points since he's actually Int based. Evasion is actually one of the more useless abilities on the Rogue since he already has a good Reflex save. And then you remember that Reflex saves are usually the least harmful to characters, dealing just hit point damage, instead of disintegrating you or teleporting you into the sun.
As for the not everyone wants magic, that is a deliberate decision to make a less powerful character. The Alchemist is just a flat out clearly better class than the Rogue.
You state opinions, not facts.
Just because there are bad feats does not mean that feats are bad. Same applies for talents.
And your dead alchemist who failed his reflex to a burning hands or a fireball probably could have used evasion ;-)
Because alchemist have bad reflex saves and dump dex?(besides, evasion does nothing on a failed save...)