|
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
So no reason for you to argue anymore imo since we are on the same page. I do hope that Paizo releases a newer and better version of the Rogue. Im at home toda. I read up on the ninja. Its imo so much better than the Rogue it's not funny.
Because alchemist have bad reflex saves and dump dex?(besides, evasion does nothing on a failed save...)
When an alchemist dies due to half damage he is dead even though he saved ;-)
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.
Just so you know, if I wasn't trying to obsolete the Rogue, I would never dip Pathfinder Delver with my Alchemist. He's got an extract for trapfinding. But people seem to get all caught up in resources so I figured a more permanent method would be the way to go. If a DM tells me upfront that there are going to be traps in his game, and I was playing a utility character, I'd grab it through one of those archetypes or prestige classes(Since playing a Rogue is a drag on the rest of the party). However, traps are such a non-threat that I could just play another character, eat the trap, and move on like nothing happened after healing it off.
Favored Enemy isn't situational as Instant Enemy exists. Smite is simply the Paladin's most iconic ability. It's true strength is in it's saves, immunities, and healing.
And you completely missed his point. If losing trapfinding was why people don't play Rogues, that means the Rogue was a pretty awful class to begin with.
@meatrace
Oh sure, re write history the ONE time i'm right! :)
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...)When an alchemist dies due to half damage he is dead even though he saved ;-)
That's not at all what you said, and if you fail a save because you succeeded on a reflex chances are a good chunk of your team is dead and whatever killed you is probably a bit too powerful for your party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trapfinding is not that big of a deal. Its a small loss. That its the only thing the rogue had simply highlights the underlying problems with the rogue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because alchemist have bad reflex saves and dump dex?(besides, evasion does nothing on a failed save...)When an alchemist dies due to half damage he is dead even though he saved ;-)
It's a cool thing I get access to energy resistance and protection then isn't it? Ouch that Con Damage poison is looking pretty rough on your Rogue. Here let me use this Lesser Restoration Extract on you.
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.
However, FE is devastating if you fight your FE. Likewise Smite and evil. Couple that with the fact that you built your Ranger wrong if you never meet your FE, and Evil creatures are likely to be the most common in a given campaign and...well...
Meanwhile, in the other corner, we have Trapfinding. Which is nice to have sometimes, but is never devastatingly useful, nor is it crippling when you don't have it. It's just a tiny bonus. Perfect for a Trait, like +1 to Will saves.
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.
How do the two correlate, exactly? How does how easy it is to get it, or the potential desire for having it, make it more or less useful?
We should talk more about how opinions don't make something, something. I think that'll lead somewhere.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..
That's fine :-)
I consider this to be a bad design, a trait like that is too cheap. Some agree with me, others don't. That's ok, I don't need to convince you - and I guess you feel the same the other way around.
I don't think the rogue is invalidated by this. It?s drifting into a rogue is useless thread again, though, so let's stop it there
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.
Comparing Trap Finding with Smite Evil is ridiculous. One is a game class-defining feature that is useful in lots of combats and can change the tide of battle. The other a situational bonus that can very well never be used.
I'm willing to bet Evil enemies are much more common than magic traps that can't be circumvented, avoided or simply triggered from a safe distance.
Hell, even Detect Evil is much better than Trap Finding! And even though it can be replaced by cheap items and 1st-level spells, I still play Paladins.
FE is a lot more situational... But some creature types are pretty common, and Instant Enemy is a thing.
I'm sorry, but if trap finding is all Rogues have going for them, they were never worth playing.
The fact is that every other class gets one or two things that inspire players to shout "Awesome!", while Rogues only get class features that at best invoke a "That's nice, I guess...".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I consider this to be a bad design, a trait like that is too cheap. Some agree with me, others don't. That's ok, I don't need to convince you - and I guess you feel the same the other way around.
Alternative to the trait being bad design, the rogue and trapfinding are.
I consider this to be a bad design, a trait like that is too cheap. Some agree with me, others don't. That's ok, I don't need to convince you - and I guess you feel the same the other way around.Alternative to the trait being bad design, the rogue and trapfinding are.
That's opinion - can't argue against that ;-)
I don't know if it has been mentioned, but I saw several posts suggesting that traps could operate at +5 or 10 DC for none rogues.
The class ability adds half the rogue's level to perception and disable device vs. Traps, though, so they still have that advantage. And it seems similar to the above suggestion in that they end up with a higher skill modifier to better handle traps.
Oddly enough, this actually HELPS rogues. Most archetypes trade this. Just not as much as it helps anyone else.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if it has been mentioned, but I saw several posts suggesting that traps could operate at +5 or 10 DC for none rogues.
The class ability adds half the rogue's level to perception and disable device vs. Traps, though, so they still have that advantage. And it seems similar to the above suggestion in that they end up with a higher skill modifier to better handle traps.
The Trapfinding bonus is superficial though. Magic traps for instance cap at DC 34 to spot and Disable. A well-built character at 10th level does this automatically.
Also traps being harder doesn't make Trapfinding more desirable. And increasing the DC for others is like breaking everyone's knee caps to make the person in the wheelchair feel better.
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.
Not really. First of all, Jane has only 2SkP per level. thus maxing out DD takes half her SkP where it only takes 1/8th of Franks. Next Frank will likely have a Higher Dex. He also has Trap Spotter and Trap Sense. You also have to find the trap, and now Jane will have to put Max ranks in Perception, too- but even so won't have Trap Spotter, which is critical.
Anyway- Let's take Bob the Wizard. Now his Fireball spell can be duplicated by Sally the Witch*, Dave the Sorc, Carol the Magus, Ted the oracle*, and also Jane the Cleric *. Is Bob suddenly useless?
This is a campaign specific trait, and I can see why it's there. This seems to be one of the few APs which is trap heavy. This would allow Alice the Monk or Roger the Ranger or Britney the Bard to do traps without forcing them into a archetype they may not like. It's a Good Thing. Mind you, without a archetype that allows Rogue talents, they still won't be as good as a Rogue, as they wont have Trap Spotter.
I think that along with other campaign specific traits, feats, spells (Blood Money), options (Orc bloodline) the DM needs to think about it and discuss it with the player.
* depending on options.
Trap Spotter is alright if you have a weird DM who won't let you set up search routines.
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.
And Trap spotting.
And Trap spotting.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.
Which is meaningful if your DM doesn't let you set up search routines.
I don't know if it has been mentioned, but I saw several posts suggesting that traps could operate at +5 or 10 DC for none rogues.
The class ability adds half the rogue's level to perception and disable device vs. Traps, though, so they still have that advantage. And it seems similar to the above suggestion in that they end up with a higher skill modifier to better handle traps.
The Trapfinding bonus is superficial though. Magic traps for instance cap at DC 34 to spot and Disable. A well-built character at 10th level does this automatically.
Also traps being harder doesn't make Trapfinding more desirable. And increasing the DC for others is like breaking everyone's knee caps to make the person in the wheelchair feel better.
Very good points. Sorry, rogue, old friend, I tried! :-P
Which is meaningful if your DM doesn't let you set up search routines.And Trap spotting.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.
My DM will, but then it takes time, and thus minute per level spells wear off. With Trap Spotter you move at full speed. Without it, you move 1 square per round.
So, yes, if your DM is into handwaving (which is OK) then no you don't need it.
Which is meaningful if your DM doesn't let you set up search routines.And Trap spotting.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.
My DM will, but then it takes time, and thus minute per level spells wear off. With Trap Spotter you move at full speed. Without it, you move 1 square per round.
So, yes, if your DM is into handwaving (which is OK) then no you don't need it.
I just take 10s on my perception checks. 20s are a bit much.
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.
Comparing Trap Finding with Smite Evil is ridiculous. One is a game class-defining feature that is useful in lots of combats and can change the tide of battle. The other a situational bonus that can very well never be used.
SE or FE are only "more powerful" when your definition is based on combat. And in most Paizo Adventure Paths combat is pretty much the core, you rarely advance without it.
So based on that definition I would agree with you that SE and FE are a lot more powerful than trapfinding (they really should have renamed "trapfinding" to "trapdisarming" btw, but that is off-topic).When you are in a dungeon with deadly traps who do not just cause HP damage, but
- cause ability damage
- destroy equipment
- trap you forever (i.e. game over)
- alert enemies who then meet you in such force that you cannot handle it
then it is arguably *very* useful, and may well be more useful than SE or FE then.
If a GM decides to homebrew a campaign where most people are TN and it's e.g. a crime/detective oriented game, then SE and FE are rather useless (FE less useless than SE).
There is no "standard game" or "standard setting". Paizo APs are only played by a small part of the PF players, and even fewer attend these boards. There is no right or wrong game design, so it might well be that 80% of the players play campaigns without any combat. Or 90% play campaigns without any traps. Or 60% play only with humans, no elves/dwarves/monsters... We never know.
When I look at a class and its features I try to think of situations where it can be useful without specifically tailoring it to the class or with an unlikely scenario. And for the rogue I find enough situations and possible scenarios where it works.
I'm willing to bet Evil enemies are much more common than magic traps that can't be circumvented, avoided or simply triggered from a safe distance.
When looking at the features I don't try to make that assumption. For Paizo APs you are right, there are mostly evil enemies. But not necessarily for 3rd party or homebrewed games, who are as legitimate as any other scenario to base an assessment on.
Hell, even Detect Evil is much better than Trap Finding! And even though it can be replaced by cheap items and 1st-level spells, I still play Paladins.FE is a lot more situational... But some creature types are pretty common, and Instant Enemy is a thing.
If you have a lot of different humanoid races you will have problems keeping up with those FE selections. And instant enemy costs quite a high level spell for your and requires time to setup. Hardly comparable to an "always on" ability like traüfinding.
I'm sorry, but if trap finding is all Rogues have going for them, they were never worth playing.
If it was that case, you would be right.
If you read my post you have seen that I am none of those who say so :-)
The fact is that every other class gets one or two things that inspire players to shout "Awesome!", while Rogues only get class features that at best invoke a "That's nice, I guess...".
Not sure about that. I know quite a few players who just love evasion or some of the talents or having the many class skills or being able to reliably take 10 on skill checks...
It certainly does not have things that immediately make you scream to want to have them. But then again, that is the case for other classes as well.
I just take 10s on my perception checks. 20s are a bit much.Which is meaningful if your DM doesn't let you set up search routines.And Trap spotting.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.
My DM will, but then it takes time, and thus minute per level spells wear off. With Trap Spotter you move at full speed. Without it, you move 1 square per round.
So, yes, if your DM is into handwaving (which is OK) then no you don't need it.
Sure take ten. But you have to take 10 moving at one square a round, instead of full speed. Thus moving is at 1/6th rate. It's move 5', check, move 5', check,move 5', check, etc.
Sure take ten. But you have to take 10 moving at one square a round, instead of full speed. Thus moving is at 1/6th rate. It's move 5', check, move 5', check,move 5', check, etc.I just take 10s on my perception checks. 20s are a bit much.Which is meaningful if your DM doesn't let you set up search routines.And Trap spotting.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.
My DM will, but then it takes time, and thus minute per level spells wear off. With Trap Spotter you move at full speed. Without it, you move 1 square per round.
So, yes, if your DM is into handwaving (which is OK) then no you don't need it.
Since DCs dont go past 34 in most cases, my Alchemist puts out a Perception of 39 when he takes 10 allowing him to see even the hardest traps from 50 feet away since he takes a -1 per 10 feet.
Mins. per level spells wear off either way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oddly enough, this actually HELPS rogues. Most archetypes trade this. Just not as much as it helps anyone else.
Psh, it has already been remarked upthread, by me among others ;)
And I agree. In a weird way this is a big boon for Rogues who want to take an archetype. I've literally seen no one use a rogue archetype for fear of losing the trapfinding ability.
I think rogues can still work provided your party is fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue and you build your rogue right (as in has range options and doesn't depend on flanking).
The problems come when your party tiers up and starts to grab the diverse classes. Pathfinder is starting to have the tier problem, but it's not that martials shouldn't play with casters tier problem of 3.5. Instead certain martials shouldn't play with other martials, and certain skill monkeys should not play with other skill monkeys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SE or FE are only "more powerful" when your definition is based on combat. And in most Paizo Adventure Paths combat is pretty much the core, you rarely advance without it.
So based on that definition I would agree with you that SE and FE are a lot more powerful than trapfinding (they really should have renamed "trapfinding" to "trapdisarming" btw, but that is off-topic).When you are in a dungeon with deadly traps who do not just cause HP damage, but
- cause ability damage
- destroy equipment
- trap you forever (i.e. game over)
- alert enemies who then meet you in such force that you cannot handle it
then it is arguably *very* useful, and may well be more useful than SE or FE then.
You're absolutely right!
I've only been playing D&D for about 16 years now, and about twice a week playing Pathfinder for the last 5 or so. I'll let you know if this EVER happens.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*stuff*
Spotting the trap is a non-issue, since everyone can do that already and many classes are better than Rogues at it, so when I say Trap Finding, what I mean is "the ability to disarm magical traps".
I don't think I've ever seen a trap, magical or not, whose only way to deal with it was "disarm it". Worst case scenario, they could be deal with Dispel Magic, but even without that there are usually many ways to circumvent them (which is a good thing, IMO).
Smite Evil works on lots of creatures. Evil is almost certainly the most common alignment in the Bestiaries.
Instant Enemy is a swift action spell, it doesn't take time at all. And any would-be Ranger player can always ask the GM if the campaign will have focus on any specific type of enemy, just like a would-be Rogue player can ask if the campaign will feature lots of traps.
If Trap Finding is "always on", then so is Favored Enemy. Both are always active, they just happen to be completely useless when the situation they are meant to be used doesn't arrive. The difference is that the bonus from FE is more likely to be useful and be activated with a swift action after a while.
Trap Finding is more like the Tracking. An "always on" bonus that doesn't matter 90% of the time, and even when it does, it's usually not a big deal. I was glad to see tracking being made an universal ability, and I'm glad to see Trap Finding going the same way.
Trap Finding would be useful in 1st Ed D&D, when a trap could easily wipe out your party. That's usually not the case in PF. Of course, you can make a campaign full of deadly magic traps to justify Trap Finding, but you can do the same with any class feature, no matter how weak. Make a campaign filled to the brim with fear effect and Bravely looks pretty nice, but like the campaign with numerous deadly magical traps with no way to circumvent but disarming, it's not an standard assumption of PF.
Rogues have... Sneak Attack, Trap Finding, skill points and Rogue Talents.
Sneak Attack could be great... If Rogues didn't have the worst accuracy in the game (save for arcane casters) and didn't have HP, AC and saves so bad that staying in melee is almost a death sentence past low levels.
Trap Finding is situational, and as I said before, even when there are traps, there always more than one way to deal with. Making your signature class feature completely irrelevant... Also, being the trap guy is often more of a burden than a bonus. Usually the party will stay at a safe distance and let the Rogue (or replacement) deal with the trap and suffer the consequences alone.
Skill Points are always nice... But despite the numerical advantage being the same, while the difference between having 2 or 4 is huge, the difference between having 8 or 6 skill points is pretty small.
Rogue Talents are mostly a joke. There are a few good one, but none are impressive, just "Nice, I guess...", which seems to be the class' mantra.
I love comparing rogue to a vivisectionist alchemist and an alchemist.
Compared to the first the Rogue has trap-finding, trap-sense, evasion, uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge, and rogue talents compared to mutagens, extracts, and discoveries.
The next one trades bombs for sneak attack, which IMHO bombs are better.
Since DCs dont go past 34 in most cases, my Alchemist puts out a Perception of 39 when he takes 10 allowing him to see even the hardest traps from 50 feet away since he takes a -1 per 10 feet.
If your alchemist can have +29, then traps can have a DC of 40.
And, in your case, perception is a Move action. Many DM's rule that to Perceive a trap you must look at one square.
Not to mention, Search Routines go out the window once Init is rolled. Our Rogue has found quite a few traps right there in the combat zone. Mind you, so has out fighter- the hard way.
Now, yes, the fighter survived the pit trap. But it took him out of the combat for 3 critical rounds.
In your campaign this works. In others it might not.
I love comparing rogue to a vivisectionist alchemist and an alchemist.
Compared to the first the Rogue has trap-finding, trap-sense, evasion, uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge, and rogue talents compared to mutagens, extracts, and discoveries.
The next one trades bombs for sneak attack, which IMHO bombs are better.
Bombs are better in many cases. But they, like spells, are limited.
Bombs are better in many cases. But they, like spells, are limited.
Just so you know, when you compare a class feature to spells, it has the effect of making them look better. If you're trying to argue that Marthkus is overstating the value of bombs, you might want to try a different approach.
Bombs are better in many cases. But they, like spells, are limited.I love comparing rogue to a vivisectionist alchemist and an alchemist.
Compared to the first the Rogue has trap-finding, trap-sense, evasion, uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge, and rogue talents compared to mutagens, extracts, and discoveries.
The next one trades bombs for sneak attack, which IMHO bombs are better.
\
So is trapfinding. It only works until the rogue fails to notice one and dies.Which happens all the more when you artificially jack up the DCs of the traps, by the way.
i know this isn't supposed to turn into a 'rogues are dead' thread, but honestly i'm having trouble seeing any way that a rogue is equal to or better than a ninja... the only thing they had over ninja was trapfinding which a ninja can now take as a trait. i guess, maybe, if you want to dump Cha... but even then all you gain is 1 trait and the trapfinder skill bonuses, probably not at all even just with vanish (even if you have very limited uses per day). i will say, though, that the "ninja trick" rogue talent does make rogues a (little) bit better.
i know this isn't supposed to turn into a 'rogues are dead' thread, but honestly i'm having trouble seeing any way that a rogue is equal to or better than a ninja... the only thing they had over ninja was trapfinding which a ninja can now take as a trait. i guess, maybe, if you want to dump Cha... but even then all you gain is 1 trait and the trapfinder skill bonuses, probably not at all even just with vanish (even if you have very limited uses per day). i will say, though, that the "ninja trick" rogue talent does make rogues a (little) bit better.
Also if you are dumping cha, you should probably just play an alchemist.
|
I'm +1 for this trait being a good thing for the game.
I've GM'd and played plenty of campaigns where nobody wanted to be a pure rogue or take levels in rogue - especially in the campaigns where there are only four characters.
In *every* case, we've employed house rules that whoever was putting ranks in Disable Device, especially a character that took a trait that made it a class skill, also automatically got trap-finding.
In every case, the players had more fun in the campaign because of this - instead of agonizing when someone tripped a disintegrate (or whatever) trap that the player who bore this mantle should've picked up proper trapfinding.
Certainly it's a different ballpark in organized play, where there's issues around class-envy that can cause a lot of emotional protectiveness over the niche, though.
Making the pure rogue class more appealing is certainly something that could help encourage more players who enthuse over the meta-game, and I'd expect to see some advances in that regard by the PDT prior a PF 1.5e or PF 2e, just because it's such a clear direction for them to take in future rules supplements. They should probably just drop that bomb on the community that "rogue changes are coming".
Something very simple in the ACG may alter the universe - a rogue talent that lets a rogue pick a light weapon as a "signature weapon" (like the latest warpriest) and operate with a full BAB on it - might be a simple solution - and could just be around the corner.
Since DCs dont go past 34 in most cases, my Alchemist puts out a Perception of 39 when he takes 10 allowing him to see even the hardest traps from 50 feet away since he takes a -1 per 10 feet.If your alchemist can have +29, then traps can have a DC of 40.
And, in your case, perception is a Move action. Many DM's rule that to Perceive a trap you must look at one square.
Not to mention, Search Routines go out the window once Init is rolled. Our Rogue has found quite a few traps right there in the combat zone. Mind you, so has out fighter- the hard way.
Now, yes, the fighter survived the pit trap. But it took him out of the combat for 3 critical rounds.In your campaign this works. In others it might not.
Uh. All published traps don't have a DC past 34. So I dont...*reads rest of your post* Wow. Houserules as justification huh. Okey dokey then.
Humorously Trap Spotter doesn't actually do anything. You receive a Perception check reactively when there may be a stimulus, I don't see why this wouldn't apply to traps but does to hidden enemies. You don't have to specifically search for traps to find them. You don't even have to check each square.
| 1 person 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.
Good!
Honestly, I still like the rogue. Played one through serpent skull, lots of fun.
However, unlike in 2E when we had 8 person parties... in Pathfinder we have 4. MAYBE 5 if the DM's feeling brave.
Since we have about 20 awesome classes, I am absolutely in favor of not NEEDING one specific one to be there. Variety is a good thing and being able to approach a problem from a couple different directions is always good.
Something very simple in the ACG may alter the universe - a rogue talent that lets a rogue pick a light weapon as a "signature weapon" (like the latest warpriest) and operate with a full BAB on it - might be a simple solution - and could just be around the corner.
i like that as a boost for the rogue, unfortunately it does nothing to address their survivability issues (low AC/hp). i've only been in one campaign where we had a straight rogue in the party who was successful and that was mostly because other people made it possible... the cleric kept shield other on him and channeled often and the other melees/summons were very intentional about trying to setup flanks within a 5' step (so the 2WF rogue could often get full attacks with SA). its a lot of cooperation and just extra effort on the part of the party to make that one character really viable.
Since DCs dont go past 34 in most cases, my Alchemist puts out a Perception of 39 when he takes 10 allowing him to see even the hardest traps from 50 feet away since he takes a -1 per 10 feet.If your alchemist can have +29, then traps can have a DC of 40.
And, in your case, perception is a Move action. Many DM's rule that to Perceive a trap you must look at one square.
Not to mention, Search Routines go out the window once Init is rolled. Our Rogue has found quite a few traps right there in the combat zone. Mind you, so has out fighter- the hard way.
Now, yes, the fighter survived the pit trap. But it took him out of the combat for 3 critical rounds.In your campaign this works. In others it might not.
Uh. All published traps don't have a DC past 34. So I dont...*reads rest of your post* Wow. Houserules as justification huh. Okey dokey then.
This is where you and others are really biased, if not even nearing arrogance. So if it's not written right that way in the rulebook, it's suddenly houserules? Just because the game gives you the tools for it, it's not OK to use them?
Traps in combat are not a legitimate thing? Are all opponents supposed to be too stupid to ambush PCs and use terrain?Tell me, if it's not a Paizo AP, is it then right to ridicule it?
Nowhere in the Paizo Pathfinder Core Rulebook does it say "it is only correct to use this if you are using our Adventure Paths".
SE or FE are only "more powerful" when your definition is based on combat. And in most Paizo Adventure Paths combat is pretty much the core, you rarely advance without it.
So based on that definition I would agree with you that SE and FE are a lot more powerful than trapfinding (they really should have renamed "trapfinding" to "trapdisarming" btw, but that is off-topic).When you are in a dungeon with deadly traps who do not just cause HP damage, but
- cause ability damage
- destroy equipment
- trap you forever (i.e. game over)
- alert enemies who then meet you in such force that you cannot handle it
then it is arguably *very* useful, and may well be more useful than SE or FE then.You're absolutely right!
I've only been playing D&D for about 16 years now, and about twice a week playing Pathfinder for the last 5 or so. I'll let you know if this EVER happens.
Absolutely meaningless. Just because you are playing it that way - and 16 years is not really that long, mind you - it does not mean that your way is typical. It is not "the right way". It is not "wrong" either. Just your way of playing, and that is all right and good for you.
*stuff*Spotting the trap is a non-issue, since everyone can do that already and many classes are better than Rogues at it, so when I say Trap Finding, what I mean is "the ability to disarm magical traps".
Uhm, yes, I understand - what about that? :-)
I don't think I've ever seen a trap, magical or not, whose only way to deal with it was "disarm it". Worst case scenario, they could be deal with Dispel Magic, but even without that there are usually many ways to circumvent them (which is a good thing, IMO).
Players should never be stopped from being creative, that is right :-)
However, sometimes there is not the time for that.
And dispel magic may not be available, your CL may be too low or you just roll bad... I have played 3.5 adventures and some homebrewed stuff where quite a few magical traps were there. Not everywhere, but in spots you don't really expect, like NOT that "big dark door over there with the skulls", but in a quare in a corridor that connected to unimportant rooms but was in the general direction of the enemy...
And at those times, in enemy territory, it is absolutely great not to use ressourcs or risk lives when you have someone with the ability to disable those traps :-)
Smite Evil works on lots of creatures. Evil is almost certainly the most common alignment in the Bestiaries.
Guess what: Heroes are assumed to be good or neutral, enemies bad. So when a publisher prints a book as an additional ressource for players to have challenges, the evil alignment will clearly dominate.
But it's meaningless again - nobody HAS to go through the bestiary and use those monsters. Show me where the so often cited "RAW" claims you have to do that. I am sure you won't find that.Instead it is perfectly legitimate to create your own campaign. It is no less right or wrong than using the bestiary.
Instant Enemy is a swift action spell, it doesn't take time at all. And any would-be Ranger player can always ask the GM if the campaign will have focus on any specific type of enemy, just like a would-be Rogue player can ask if the campaign will feature lots of traps.
That's right. But the ranger does not have that many FEs and spells available as he may encounter in a single day. Particularly with mixed opponent groups, e.g. bandits comprised of humans, half-elves and dwarves.
Traps don't need a special ability for each trap type on the other hand :-)The swift property certainly makes it more useful, thanks for correcting. It's been a while that I've looked at that spell :-)
If Trap Finding is "always on", then so is Favored Enemy. Both are always active, they just happen to be completely useless when the situation they are meant to be used doesn't arrive. The difference is that the bonus from FE is more likely to be useful and be activated with a swift action after a while.
Your games, fine. Ours not.
Trap Finding is more like the Tracking. An "always on" bonus that doesn't matter 90% of the time, and even when it does, it's usually not a big deal. I was glad to see tracking being made an universal ability, and I'm glad to see Trap Finding going the same way.
Disagree the same way as above. Your games, your opinion.
Trap Finding would be useful in 1st Ed D&D, when a trap could easily wipe out your party. That's usually not the case in PF. Of course, you can make a campaign full of deadly magic traps to justify Trap Finding, but you can do the same with any class feature, no matter how weak. Make a campaign filled to the brim with fear effect and Bravely looks pretty nice, but like the campaign with numerous deadly magical traps with no way to circumvent but disarming, it's not an standard assumption of PF.
Here again is the bias so many show here. You don't "make a campaign full of deadly magic traps to *justify* Trap Finding". You make a campaign full of deadly magic traps because it fits your scenario and what you envision. Paizo is *very* easy with their APs when it comes to fighting high level spell casters in their own playground. They do relatively littel to protect themselves, strangely enough.
But that's a property of APs, not of the game what it can or may be in general.
Rogues have... Sneak Attack, Trap Finding, skill points and Rogue Talents.
Sneak Attack could be great... If Rogues didn't have the worst accuracy in the game (save for arcane casters) and didn't have HP, AC and saves so bad that staying in melee is almost a death sentence past low levels.
Hm, I wonder how all those rogues in our parties even in Paizo APs like Rise of the Runelords survived, even though they went into close combat all the time... :-P
Trap Finding is situational, and as I said before, even when there are traps, there always more than one way to deal with. Making your signature class feature completely irrelevant... Also, being the trap guy is often more of a burden than a bonus. Usually the party will stay at a safe distance and let the Rogue (or replacement) deal with the trap and suffer the consequences alone.
Uhm, if that is the responsibility or "job" the rogue *character* accepts, what is the problem there? Should all be there to catch the heat if he/she fails?
Skill Points are always nice... But despite the numerical advantage being the same, while the difference between having 2 or 4 is huge, the difference between having 8 or 6 skill points is pretty small.
I agree here - unless you really need those 2 points :-P
But then again, the class skills are more important IMO, because even minor investments like 1 or 2 points plus trained bonus goes a long way to make a skill useful to you.
Rogue Talents are mostly a joke. There are a few good one, but none are impressive, just "Nice, I guess...", which seems to be the class' mantra.
Hm, it depends on the situation.
For example ledge walker is very useful if you try to get somewhere and you don't want to be flatfooted against, let's say, rogue archers? :-PLet me try to put things differently:
If you use
- the bestiaries
- Paizo's APs
- PFS
- and your own group's games
as the basic reason to say trapfinding is so unimportant it is worth a trait, I cannot and will not argue against that. Part of it is your own playstyle, the rest is just what Paizo puts out.
If you however use
- what can be done by the classes in various situations
- homebrew stuff (without changing rules, mind you)
- people's preference when it comes to magical / nonmagical characters
- personal preferences of abilities that are a few times a day versus always on abilities
then you may come to a different conclusion :-)
People keep comparing giving away trapfinding to giving away smite evil and I'm sitting here laughing.
Smite evil, detect evil, divine grace, divine health, and the fear immunity component of Aura of Courage are available from a spell and since paladins and clerics know their entire lists the opportunity cost is a grand total of zilch.
Druids can also get Smite Evil with a feat.
Oddly enough, paladins are still considered a good class. It's almost as if they have more than one class feature that people care about or something.
While that is a good feat and the celestial smite is nice, note that it *does not* bypass DR as the paladin's smite. So that really isn't comparable.
Paizo really should make sure their language is consistent, they should have called this "lesser smite" or the paladin's smite "supreme smite" or whatever. But this way it is often confusing :-/
I never thought I'd say it, but at this stage playing a Rogue into the Assassin PrC starts to look attractive. Can we have the alignment restriction removed on assassins please? :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is where you and others are really biased, if not even nearing arrogance. So if it's not written right that way in the rulebook, it's suddenly houserules? Just because the game gives you the tools for it, it's not OK to use them?
Traps in combat are not a legitimate thing? Are all opponents supposed to be too stupid to ambush PCs and use terrain?
Tell me, if it's not a Paizo AP, is it then right to ridicule it?Nowhere in the Paizo Pathfinder Core Rulebook does it say "it is only correct to use this if you are using our Adventure Paths".
Hold the phone mate. Theres a difference in having your own home game and having your own homebrew game, the latter involves changing the rules. Traps in combat are just fine to use, but as soon as you enter the room you get a Perception check to notice all available stimuli. That includes the orcs lurking in the shadow to the log trap they've rigged up to slam into you.
I found your statement somewhat arrogant trying to imply something I'm not.
He said "many dms rule..." which is a clear indication of a houserule and not something that is actually part of the rules.
And now I'll get to this part.
Abandoning the guidelines set means the DM can throw a trap at you that simply can't be disabled or spotted. Its +3 CR to put a trap at a DC30 or higher. So a DM can put a DC100 trap and you can't find it period. Doesn't matter if you're a Rogue or not.
@Sangalor
You forgot Paizo modules.