| 1 person 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?
Let's look at what the CRB says. Page 416 is where the rules for traps begin. The Perception DC for a magical trap is 25 + spell level. Hence, max 34. For mechanical traps, the base Perception DC is 20. The book refers to table for raising or lowering that DC. Let's look at that table (Table 13--3 on page 422). The table only goes up to DC "30 or higher". Below that, the CR goes up by 1for every increase of 5 in the Perception DC. Looking at the example traps in the CRB, we see that the highest DC of a mechanical trap is 30.
So yes, traps with Perception DCs >34 do go beyond the rules in the book. You could continue the pattern of the table for Perception DCs by having a DC 35 trap have 1 higher CR than the same trap with DC 30. But that would, strictly speaking, be a house rule. The intent in the rules seems to be that traps have bounded Perception DCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what... I was going to reply, but it's simply not worth the effort.
Rogues were always awful and now anyone can take the awful role of trap finder and make them 100% obsolete, so hopefully Paizo will ignore the Rogue's existence when balancing new classes instead of nerfing everything so the Rogue can feel slightly less worthless.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what... I was going to reply, but it's simply not worth the effort.
Rogues were always awful and now anyone can take the awful role of trap finder and make them 100% obsolete, so hopefully Paizo will ignore the Rogue's existence when balancing new classes instead of nerfing everything so the Rogue can feel slightly less worthless.
*Fingers crossed* if they make finding Magic Traps just a part of Disable Device.
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.
Your post made it sound otherwise.
And "homebrew game" certainly has no fixed and universally standardized meaning to it. To me - and probably others as well - homebrew just means any game where you design parts yourself, i.e. you are not using a published adventure/campaign, be it from Paizo or not.
It does not imply houserules, though that may be included.
So maybe that is simply a misunderstanding :-)
I found your statement somewhat arrogant trying to imply something I'm not.
I am not implying anything. Just looking at your post and stating my impression.
He said "many dms rule..." which is a clear indication of a houserule and not something that is actually part of the rules.
And that is the point. The only thing that he stated that may be construed as houserules is that it you need to look at a square to use perception to spot a trap.
You commented the first part with the "published traps don't go beyond 34" and then the entire rest of the post with "houserules". I read it to extend to the in-combat checks as well.If you intended otherwise, that is a misunderstanding and fine :-)
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.
That's right. Still, this means there are rules to design traps and make them hard without houseruling it. So the bonuses for a rogue to disable/spot them are worthwhile after all, and a dispel magic may fail :-)
Edit: Not move action, but looking at a square was the text.
@Sangalor
You forgot Paizo modules.
What about them?
That's right. Still, this means there are rules to design traps and make them hard without houseruling it. So the bonuses for a rogue to disable/spot them are worthwhile after all, and a dispel magic may fail :-)
That requires arbitrarily setting the DCs to just enough for the Rogue to get them when they could be just as easily DC100 for the same CR. Which means the Rogue's bonus really is superficial. That doesn't make the Rogue's bonuses worthwhile.
@Sangalor
You forgot Paizo modules.What about them?
To put them on the list along with APs, PFS scenarios, bestiaries etc.
To put them on the list along with APs, PFS scenarios, bestiaries etc.@Sangalor
You forgot Paizo modules.What about them?
Ah, ok. That's fine :-)
Does not have any impact on what I - and other posters in this thread - was trying to get across, though :-)
The rogue discussion is leading this thing off-topic...
I do not consider trapfinding the essential part of a rogue, but part of his package.
I do think a class feature with useful scenarios like that is too cheap as a trait. well, we'll see if they ever bring this out in hardcovers... :-P
I do think a class feature with useful scenarios like that is too cheap as a trait.
So what is your ideal trait?
Being useful and attractive sounds ideal to me, personally.
|
The rogue discussion is leading this thing off-topic...
I do not consider trapfinding the essential part of a rogue, but part of his package.
I do think a class feature with useful scenarios like that is too cheap as a trait. well, we'll see if they ever bring this out in hardcovers... :-P
Ok then what should it cost?
Ok then what should it cost?The rogue discussion is leading this thing off-topic...
I do not consider trapfinding the essential part of a rogue, but part of his package.
I do think a class feature with useful scenarios like that is too cheap as a trait. well, we'll see if they ever bring this out in hardcovers... :-P
In the early posts I already stated that it should have a penalty for non-rogues. Then at least all classes could benefit, but the rogue wouldn't be penalized. I would even go so far as saying that when you have a similar ability like the archaelogist that you get treated the same way.
A rogue without trapfinding would be treated the same way as other classes.Alternatively, make it a feat. Then it's more in line with other abilities.
In the early posts I already stated that it should have a penalty for non-rogues. Then at least all classes could benefit, but the rogue wouldn't be penalized.
They're already penalized though...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the early posts I already stated that it should have a penalty for non-rogues. Then at least all classes could benefit, but the rogue wouldn't be penalized. I would even go so far as saying that when you have a similar ability like the archaelogist that you get treated the same way.
Kneecapping everyone so the wheelchair dude feels good. Classy.
Currently it's worth about half a feat.
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?Let's look at what the CRB says. Page 416 is where the rules for traps begin. The Perception DC for a magical trap is 25 + spell level. Hence, max 34. For mechanical traps, the base Perception DC is 20. The book refers to table for raising or lowering that DC. Let's look at that table (Table 13--3 on page 422). The table only goes up to DC "30 or higher". Below that, the CR goes up by 1for every increase of 5 in the Perception DC. Looking at the example traps in the CRB, we see that the highest DC of a mechanical trap is 30.
So yes, traps with Perception DCs >34 do go beyond the rules in the book. You could continue the pattern of the table for Perception DCs by having a DC 35 trap have 1 higher CR than the same trap with DC 30. But that would, strictly speaking, be a house rule. The intent in the rules seems to be that traps have bounded Perception DCs.
I think you missed the point of this thread. It's about the trapfinding ability which allows you *disarm* magical traps.
Not *finding* them what everyone can do; I made a remark about that unfortunate naming in my posts above.Without trapfinding or a similar ability you simply cannot disarm magical traps, barring investment of spells. That can be quite a problem for a band of adventurers.
In the early posts I already stated that it should have a penalty for non-rogues. Then at least all classes could benefit, but the rogue wouldn't be penalized. I would even go so far as saying that when you have a similar ability like the archaelogist that you get treated the same way.
Kneecapping everyone so the wheelchair dude feels good. Classy.
Currently it's worth about half a feat.
Well, we just disagree here :-)
I would consider it equally bad if the celestial template gave you paladin's smite, btw. Luckily it doesn't ;-)
I think you missed the point of this thread. It's about the trapfinding ability which allows you *disarm* magical traps.
Not *finding* them what everyone can do; I made a remark about that unfortunate naming in my posts above.Without trapfinding or a similar ability you simply cannot disarm magical traps, barring investment of spells. That can be quite a problem for a band of adventurers.
Summon monster 1 is pretty plentiful for tripping magic traps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we just disagree here :-)In the early posts I already stated that it should have a penalty for non-rogues. Then at least all classes could benefit, but the rogue wouldn't be penalized. I would even go so far as saying that when you have a similar ability like the archaelogist that you get treated the same way.
Kneecapping everyone so the wheelchair dude feels good. Classy.
Currently it's worth about half a feat.
Disagree about kneecapping everyone so one guy feels good? That sounds like a pretty much universally bad idea to me.
Summon monster 1 is pretty plentiful for tripping magic traps.
I think you missed the point of this thread. It's about the trapfinding ability which allows you *disarm* magical traps.
Not *finding* them what everyone can do; I made a remark about that unfortunate naming in my posts above.Without trapfinding or a similar ability you simply cannot disarm magical traps, barring investment of spells. That can be quite a problem for a band of adventurers.
If you have enough of those and don't worry about setting off alerts, that's viable :-)
I think there was an AP where you could not summon and teleport while you were in a fortress. But maybe I am mixing that up with a 3.5 module...
Disagree about kneecapping everyone so one guy feels good? That sounds like a pretty much universally bad idea to me.Well, we just disagree here :-)In the early posts I already stated that it should have a penalty for non-rogues. Then at least all classes could benefit, but the rogue wouldn't be penalized. I would even go so far as saying that when you have a similar ability like the archaelogist that you get treated the same way.
Kneecapping everyone so the wheelchair dude feels good. Classy.
Currently it's worth about half a feat.
I don't agree that it's kneecapping anyone not to get a new shiny toy cheaply.
I guess it's also kneecapping then if they created a rage giving trait and I said you shouldn't get it so cheaply?And I don't agree that it's a half-feat. Only as a lesser version, e.g. with penalties, as a trait, or as a feat without penalties.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree that it's kneecapping anyone not to get a new shiny toy cheaply.
Trapfinding is kneecapping everyone though. It actually takes away something from everyone else by existing. It takes away competency from everyone else. That's one of the things that urks people about niche protection.
DO not rogue dies because of poisons? I know a couple of classes that are better in taht regard. And against mind affecting too.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 ;-)
Certainly right. But the rogue not having a good fort save does not mean that evasion is bad.
I believe it was
Well, everyone can detect those.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.
Right. But we are talking about overcoming them, disarming in this case :-P
DO not rogue dies because of poisons? I know a couple of classes that are better in taht regard. And against mind affecting too.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 ;-)Certainly right. But the rogue not having a good fort save does not mean that evasion is bad.
I believe it was ** spoiler omitted ** where you are hit with 4 times 20d6 of various breath weapons. The rogue survived. Of those who just took half the damage two died, being weakened from the fight that ended 1d4+1 rounds before ;-)
Sounds like the party was ill prepared, not that evasion is fantastic.
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.
And as has been said her, the rogue doesn;t die. He just shakes it off and is cured. Unless of course the trap doesn;t do just damage.
Nothing artificial about it. Non-magic traps have their DC set by a craft check. Whatever a PC can get as their check, a NPC can get as high or higher. Only magic traps have a set DC based upon spell level. Of course, a well hidden trap could also have circumstance bonuses.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would consider it equally bad if the celestial template gave you paladin's smite, btw. Luckily it doesn't ;-)
Actually, it does.
Special Attacks smite evil 1/day as a swift action (adds Cha bonus to attack rolls and damage bonus equal to HD against evil foes; smite persists until target is dead or the celestial creature rests).
High reflex and evasion are good. But the same can be said about a high fort. And since the alchemist have both good saves I will say they have the clear advantage.DO not rogue dies because of poisons? I know a couple of classes that are better in taht regard. And against mind affecting too.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 ;-)Certainly right. But the rogue not having a good fort save does not mean that evasion is bad.
I believe it was ** spoiler omitted ** where you are hit with 4 times 20d6 of various breath weapons. The rogue survived. Of those who just took half the damage two died, being weakened from the fight that ended 1d4+1 rounds before ;-)
In the fort department, yes. But they clearly suck compared to evasion rogues, cause half damage is still damage that can and will kill you.
If you compared evasion to stalwart, then it would be different. But I guess there is a reason why you don't get it at level 2 ;-)
Summon monster 1 is pretty plentiful for tripping magic traps.
I think you missed the point of this thread. It's about the trapfinding ability which allows you *disarm* magical traps.
Not *finding* them what everyone can do; I made a remark about that unfortunate naming in my posts above.Without trapfinding or a similar ability you simply cannot disarm magical traps, barring investment of spells. That can be quite a problem for a band of adventurers.
How does the rat or whatever pick the lock, which sets off the trap? I mean, it's really easy to set up a trap so that a rat, etc doesn;t set it off.
"Some magic device traps have special proximity triggers that activate only when certain kinds of creatures approach. For example , a detect good spell can serve as a proximity trigger on an evil altar, springing the attached trap only when someone of good alignment gets close enough to it."
or weight, or other things.
Yes, I know you could summon a pony or something instead, but few low level things detect as Good, or can cast spells, or have opposable thumbs, or can pick a lock, or can smash thru a door or open it with a crowbar, etc.
We had a trap with a case full of potions and such, the trap just destroyed the treasure unless you opened the lock the right way.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would consider it equally bad if the celestial template gave you paladin's smite, btw. Luckily it doesn't ;-)Actually, it does.
Wrong. It does not bypass DR.
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?Let's look at what the CRB says. Page 416 is where the rules for traps begin. The Perception DC for a magical trap is 25 + spell level. Hence, max 34. For mechanical traps, the base Perception DC is 20. The book refers to table for raising or lowering that DC. Let's look at that table (Table 13--3 on page 422). The table only goes up to DC "30 or higher". Below that, the CR goes up by 1for every increase of 5 in the Perception DC. Looking at the example traps in the CRB, we see that the highest DC of a mechanical trap is 30.
So yes, traps with Perception DCs >34 do go beyond the rules in the book. You could continue the pattern of the table for Perception DCs by having a DC 35 trap have 1 higher CR than the same trap with DC 30. But that would, strictly speaking, be a house rule. The intent in the rules seems to be that traps have bounded Perception DCs.
I think you missed the point of this thread. It's about the trapfinding ability which allows you *disarm* magical traps.
Not *finding* them what everyone can do; I made a remark about that unfortunate naming in my posts above.Without trapfinding or a similar ability you simply cannot disarm magical traps, barring investment of spells. That can be quite a problem for a band of adventurers.
Sure. But this thread is also about this trait making rogues obsolete. And, the fact remains, non-magic traps need to be considered also.
Nothing artificial about it. Non-magic traps have their DC set by a craft check. Whatever a PC can get as their check, a NPC can get as high or higher. Only magic traps have a set DC based upon spell level. Of course, a well hidden trap could also have circumstance bonuses.
This is incorrect. Trap DC isn't set by craft checks. You make your craft check when you create the trap based off what CR the trap is. A CR 1-5 Trap has a DC20 craft check to create.
Please don't spread misinformation.
Sounds like the party was ill prepared, not that evasion is fantastic.DO not rogue dies because of poisons? I know a couple of classes that are better in taht regard. And against mind affecting too.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 ;-)Certainly right. But the rogue not having a good fort save does not mean that evasion is bad.
I believe it was ** spoiler omitted ** where you are hit with 4 times 20d6 of various breath weapons. The rogue survived. Of those who just took half the damage two died, being weakened from the fight that ended 1d4+1 rounds before ;-)
Oh well...
It was a well prepared party. But that campaign is hard, not like Paizo's APs.
we didn't expect immediate divine retribution without even a real chance to recover and heal the hurt ones, though...
It does not bypass DR.Is that all you meant? You should be more specific.
That's its key strength.
And you just were wrong claiming it is the same.
I think the rogue could use more magical items that synergies with his class features, high dex, and skill points.
Cool magic items seem to be the most we can expect as far as rogue fixes go.
Sure. But this thread is also about this trait making rogues obsolete. And, the fact remains, non-magic traps need to be considered also.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?Let's look at what the CRB says. Page 416 is where the rules for traps begin. The Perception DC for a magical trap is 25 + spell level. Hence, max 34. For mechanical traps, the base Perception DC is 20. The book refers to table for raising or lowering that DC. Let's look at that table (Table 13--3 on page 422). The table only goes up to DC "30 or higher". Below that, the CR goes up by 1for every increase of 5 in the Perception DC. Looking at the example traps in the CRB, we see that the highest DC of a mechanical trap is 30.
So yes, traps with Perception DCs >34 do go beyond the rules in the book. You could continue the pattern of the table for Perception DCs by having a DC 35 trap have 1 higher CR than the same trap with DC 30. But that would, strictly speaking, be a house rule. The intent in the rules seems to be that traps have bounded Perception DCs.
I think you missed the point of this thread. It's about the trapfinding ability which allows you *disarm* magical traps.
Not *finding* them what everyone can do; I made a remark about that unfortunate naming in my posts above.Without trapfinding or a similar ability you simply cannot disarm magical traps, barring investment of spells. That can be quite a problem for a band of adventurers.
The trap only allows you to disarm magic traps. It has no impact on mechanical traps.
I am focusing on the trait here, only. How does it affect rogues for mechanical traps?
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?Let's look at what the CRB says. Page 416 is where the rules for traps begin. The Perception DC for a magical trap is 25 + spell level. Hence, max 34. For mechanical traps, the base Perception DC is 20. The book refers to table for raising or lowering that DC. Let's look at that table (Table 13--3 on page 422). The table only goes up to DC "30 or higher". Below that, the CR goes up by 1for every increase of 5 in the Perception DC. Looking at the example traps in the CRB, we see that the highest DC of a mechanical trap is 30.
So yes, traps with Perception DCs >34 do go beyond the rules in the book. You could continue the pattern of the table for Perception DCs by having a DC 35 trap have 1 higher CR than the same trap with DC 30. But that would, strictly speaking, be a house rule. The intent in the rules seems to be that traps have bounded Perception DCs.
I think you missed the point of this thread. It's about the trapfinding ability which allows you *disarm* magical traps.
Not *finding* them what everyone can do; I made a remark about that unfortunate naming in my posts above.Without trapfinding or a similar ability you simply cannot disarm magical traps, barring investment of spells. That can be quite a problem for a band of adventurers.
I cut down on the pyramids of quote so the context was missed. The conversation I was jumping into was about finding traps.
It doesn't really matter though, because the rules for DCs for Perception and Disable Device work the same. Just replace every instance of "Perception" in my post with "Disable Device".
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.
Do any published PC's have a Perc roll that high? There's no houserules involved in my post.
And you see, that's an interesting argument, what exactly does count as a "observable stimulus"?
To me and both my DM's the Trapspotter Talent makes it clear "Trap Spotter (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should be made in secret by the GM."
Thus, if the talent is supposed to do something- and it's obvious it is, then most traps are not a "observable stimulus" , you need to "Intentionally searching for stimulus ".
I mean, there is a difference in the rules between the stimulus triggering the roll- or you triggering the roll, looking for the stimulus.
If your DM just has you make a perception roll every-time you could see a trap, with no need to ever "Intentionally searching for stimulus " then sure, in your game, there's no need for trap spotter and I can see why you guys don;t need a expert trap-finder. And that's fine.
But it appears to us that traps usually require the PC to "Intentionally search", unless you have trap-spotter.
YMMV, of course. I agree, it's not impossible to read the rule the way you do.
And you just were wrong claiming it is the same.No, I was mistaken about what you meant. I thought you mean it was the 3.5 smite.
Huh? Ok, wherever you got that idea from...
It was not what I meant ;-)| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's one thing I find weird about the rules... Why do character have to be actively looking for traps to notice them when that's not the case for anything else?
Supposedly, if you have a good enough Perception check, you can even detect an invisible creature standing perfectly still (or even an invisible object) in a really dark room without having to announce you're looking for it, so why are traps any different? Why can't I just passively notice them no matter how obvious they are?
I mean... according to RAW, characters wouldn't be able to notice a spiked pit covered with leaves in a corridor inside a tower in the middle of a desert, unless they are actively looking for traps, despite how obvious such a trap would be.
Personally, I give Trap Spotter for free to every Rogue (and I remade a bunch of Rogue Talents to make them actually useful!), but now that I think about it... It'd make more sense to say every character has a chance to spot traps with just their passive Perception check (which I usually consider to be they taking 10 on Perception all the time. Same goes for other day-today activities).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's one thing I find weird about the rules... Why do character have to be actively looking for traps to notice them when that's not the case for anything else?
Two possible reasons spring to mind. 1, an assumption of an adversarial GM--player relationship. Players having to announce their characters are searching for traps increases the chance that a trap will be sprung (because the players didn't announce anything). 2, an attempt to justify the Trap Spotter talent, and by extension, the rogue class. You need a rogue in the party because only a rogue can make a check to notice a trap without having to announce to the GM that they are searching.
Of course, these are both terrible reasons. But I don't make players announce they are actively searching for traps to get a Perception check in my games.
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.
Orcs, yes- traps no.
"Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action."
The Orcs are reactive. The trap is intentional searching.
Note the wording in the spell Find trap "You receive a check to notice traps within 10 feet of you, even if you are not actively searching for them. "
Also take a look at "Heightened Trap Sense: Source Osirion, Land of the Pharaohs pg. 29
"You are acutely attentive to the subtleties of traps and how they are hidden.
Prerequisites: Search 6 ranks, trap sense +1.
Benefit: When you pass within 5 feet of a trap, you are entitled to an automatic Search check to notice the trap. This check is made at a –10 penalty, or –5 if you are moving at half speed and taking no actions other than moving.
Normal: You must take an action to actively search."
So, that's a talent, a feat, and a spell, all of which tell you that in general, searching for traps is intentional searching, not passive reaction.