| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah but Perception, the skill that governs said searching says I get to roll in reaction to an observable stimulus. If a Trap isn't an observable Stimulus, then I can't see it no matter what right?
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?Looking for traps should be an exercise in players ingenuity. It is just that they decided this was not the case in 3.X
Solving traps should be ingenuity, imo. The best traps sometimes are the ones that make you think and act! Not the ones determined by a dice roll. That's not really ingenuity...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if a trap is not a visual stimulus, then neither is a wall. Or any other object. Are characters meant to bounce on all physical obstacles and trip on everything all the time?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if a trap is not a visual stimulus, then neither is a wall. Or any other object. Are characters meant to bounce on all physical obstacles and trip on everything all the time?
The wall does not exist until you seek the wall. It is when you seek the wall, you may find it.
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.
My bold.
It is a 2nd level spell? What is the name of the spell?
It is a 2nd level spell? What is the name of the spell?
ITT: Goalpost Atheists.
It is a 2nd level spell? What is the name of the spell?Aram Zey's Focus.
Thanks.
You know, I wish the Design team sat down and had a talk and decided that this trait (and Aram Zey's Focus) was made part of the PDR so it becomes open to anyone. This would also make it PFS legal.
I hope that in PF 1.5 Disabling magical traps is part of the Disable Devise skill, just as being able to track is part of survival skill.
@ Sangalor: I think what you are missing is that the problem with Trapfindning is that it is tied into the trap expert role. When you are focusing on comparing Trapfindning vs Smite Evil you are missing some very important things:
1) You don’t need Smite evil to take on the role of being the party tank/melee expert (or whatever you want to call it). There are many classes that can take on the role of the Dude/gal that kills stuff with her/his big fat melee weapon.
2) You can’t be a trap expert without Trapfindning. Sure you don’t need a class with Trapfindning to deal with traps. As pointed out bu Leo, MrSin and others there is the Aram Zey's Focus spell that grants anyone the ability to get trapfindning. Also, there are other ways to deal with magic traps without then disabling them. But if you want the trap expert role filled by one class you are forced to 1) Play a rogue, 2) Play some archetype that get trapfindning. An archetype that might not be what you want it to be. 3) Dip into a class that grants you trapfindning.
2a) The Trap expert role is the only role that forces a player to do this.
You know, I wish the Design team sat down and had a talk and decided that this trait (and Aram Zey's Focus) was made part of the PDR so it becomes open to anyone. This would also make it PFS legal.
Actually, if you'll notice, the spell was published in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and thus is included in the core assumptions of PFS.
Moreover, I believe the spell was designed exclusively FOR PFS, knowing how table dynamics work at cons ("no healer? no problem, we all have wands!") and allowing a different way of accessing that type of expertise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah but Perception, the skill that governs said searching says I get to roll in reaction to an observable stimulus. If a Trap isn't an observable Stimulus, then I can't see it no matter what right?
Only after it goes off.
Look, you guys can houserule it all you like (and those aren't bad HR, by the way), and I admit the RAW could be clearer, but traps are found by a Intentional search by RAW and RAI.
If you guys play that way, and you don;t have Gygaxian traps, well then the trapfinder niche isn't really critical anyway.
Locked doors which were very hard to open in OD&D and one of the main reasons why we designed the Thief class, are also no longer such a big deal. No adamantium axes to just chop thru them. Sure the Magic user could cast Knock- maybe once a day.
So no, in most PF AP's you don't need a rogue and another class can take over. But that's not a Bad Thing. It's fine to me that a Sorc can fill in those pointed-toed shoes of a Wizard.... most of the time. Options are a Good Thing.
Remember, there were only THREE classes when the Thief came in- Magic User, Fighting Man and Cleric. Those three could not then fill the shoes of the Thief- it was necessary then. It's Good that other classes can now fill in for the Thief/Rogue - but so can other classes fill in for the Magic User/Wizard, the Fighting Man/Fighter and the Cleric.
But I do miss the old Gygaxian traps- those that not only required a Master Thief but also Player ingenuity. Those that you couldn't just blow by with the loss of a few HP. Real encounters, not just distractions. Getting rid of those is what's killing the Thief/Rogue, not allowing another class to fill in. This trait is no big deal.
Gygaxian traps weren't really traps so much as DM fiat. Those were mostly for tournament modules anyway and aren't what should be considered good game-design due to their binary nature.
Only after it goes off.Look, you guys can houserule it all you like (and those aren't bad HR, by the way), and I admit the RAW could be clearer, but traps are found by a Intentional search by RAW and RAI.
From what I can tell, it never says that explicitly anywhere in the CRB or the PRD, you are merely inferring it from the specific language in other sources.
Remember that your other sources, spells or talents or what have you, may still have 3.5 copypasta in which "search" was its own skill.
Is this trait PFS legal?
I can't find it mentioned either way on the additional resources page.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this trait PFS legal?
I can't find it mentioned either way on the additional resources page.
That's probably bacuase this trait is in the player companion people of the Sands, which hasn't yet been included in the additional resources, i am not sure for the reason (of not including it) since i don't play PFS but my guess is that it's because the book isn't available yet to non-subscribers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was under the impression that Campaign Traits were only intended for characters participating in particular adventure paths. If this interpretation is correct, players are only able to select the "Trap Finder" if they're playing in a Mummy's Mask game. My suspicion is that traps will be more common in said adventure, and that the party needs at least one person that can deal with 'em. With that in mind, it doesn't seem to be a death sentence for the rogue; the trait just facilitates gameplay in the event that no one wants to play a rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was under the impression that Campaign Traits were only intended for characters participating in particular adventure paths. If this interpretation is correct, players are only able to select the "Trap Finder" if they're playing in a Mummy's Mask game. My suspicion is that traps will be more common in said adventure, and that the party needs at least one person that can deal with 'em. With that in mind, it doesn't seem to be a death sentence for the rogue; the trait just facilitates gameplay in the event that no one wants to play a rogue.
repost
Different thread / same discussion.
He wasn't the only one.
Most of the people I played with back then were fascinated (or obsessed) with traps and puzzles.
Situational abilities are impossible to balance universally. And all abilities are situational.
If magical traps are frequent and deadly, then the ability to disarm them is incredibly valuable (except when the Rogue's Disable Device skill is too low, or the casters have an appropriate spell for this kind of trap). In this case it is a very valuable trait.
If there are no magical traps, then it is worthless, a waste of a trait.
The cost of the ability can't be absolutely balanced for all possible adventures. It can only be ever balanced for a 'typical' adventure, which means a Paizo AP.
In the last AP I ran, I can only remember three magical traps (there may have been others), and the group didn't spot any of them, so that trait would have been useless to them. (And I'm happy with the way that worked out. Triggered traps are the most interesting traps. Disarming a trap is like killing a monster in its sleep; it can be fun once in a while but it's not what the game is all about.)
So saying that this trait is too powerful in your home games is like if I complain that my barbarian is underpowered in a homebrew campaign with no combat. It's not possible for Paizo to anticipate your particular needs. If you don't like the trait, house-rule it and move on.
You know, I wish the Design team sat down and had a talk and decided that this trait (and Aram Zey's Focus) was made part of the PDR so it becomes open to anyone. This would also make it PFS legal.
Actually, if you'll notice, the spell was published in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide, and thus is included in the core assumptions of PFS.
Moreover, I believe the spell was designed exclusively FOR PFS, knowing how table dynamics work at cons ("no healer? no problem, we all have wands!") and allowing a different way of accessing that type of expertise.
Sloppy writing on my behalf.
I meant if the spell and trait were published on the PRD it would help all those that don’t use Pathfinder Society stuff and campaign specific stuff. It would also make the trait PFS legal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trait might be PFS legal, it's not in the mummy's mask player's guide but in the player companion people of the sands.
I can't find "People of the Sands" on the additional resources page. So I don't think it is one I would take the chance of basing a build around and hoping it is not made illegal.
I can't find "People of the Sands" on the additional resources page. So I don't think it is one I would take the chance of basing a build around and hoping it is not made illegal.
when it does we can start the "Please unban trapfinder" thread. Which will undoubtedly be well received by the PFS community![/sarcasm] Its a whole nother' world.
I can't find "People of the Sands" on the additional resources page. So I don't think it is one I would take the chance of basing a build around and hoping it is not made illegal.
That's because the book isn't released yet, iirc the street release date is 27/1 for Paizo store.
the street release date is 27/1 for Paizo store.
The First of the 27th month?
the street release date is 27/1 for Paizo store.The First of the 27th month?
Yeah sorry, sometimes i forget that the majority of the people on this forum are USA citizens. Release date for Paizo store is 1/27 iirc.
|
The rogues should have better things instead of forcing the trap niche into them.
This.
I for one am glad that someone else can now look for magical traps. What was the logic behind a non spellcasting rogue being the king of magical traps anyways???
And for those who are waxing poetic about the rogues being total nultards right now: trapspotter rogue talent
It's actually releasing on the 29th I thought.
You are correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gygaxian traps weren't really traps so much as DM fiat. Those were mostly for tournament modules anyway and aren't what should be considered good game-design due to their binary nature.
Well, yes and no. ToH was indeed designed to show that PC hubris was a bad idea. It really wasn't designed as part of a campaign.
But real campaign dungeons had plenty of diabolical traps back then.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one am glad that someone else can now look for magical traps.
Yes, as DrDeth says, it is a Good Thing for almost any tabletop gaming group to have More Options to cover their bases. The more PCs that can heal, the better too.
The Rogue (Thief) is undoubtedly awaiting on an iteration from the Paizo Team - we've seen Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. There's certainly another Ultimate XYZ coming.
I predict we see the rogue doing what it's best at - stealing stuff - and by stuff, I mean goodies from all the other classes.
I'd predict rogue talents that let them act as full BAB with any light weapon (like the new Warpriest), talents that let them grab a mutagen, an inquisition, maybe even a bardic performance.
It doesn't take many pages for the PDT to give the rogue class a lot of legs, and it doesn't require a massive revision to its core printing.
|
|
It doesn't take many pages for the PDT to give the rogue class a lot of legs, and it doesn't require a massive revision to its core printing.
Agreed. One has to think of the ninja talent "Forgotten Trick" or something like that. A catch 22 ability that lets you do whatever you want when you need it. The only downfall: must know the rules inside out (so as to know all the rogue talents and ninja tricks), and not got for beginners. I'll take this downfall anytime, as it is fixable with a cheat sheet.
Ah but Perception, the skill that governs said searching says I get to roll in reaction to an observable stimulus. If a Trap isn't an observable Stimulus, then I can't see it no matter what right?Only after it goes off.There is always some observable trigger in a mechanical trap. If it weren't observable the rogue talent wouldn't help because it does not give you the ability to see things that are unobservable.
Locked doors which were very hard to open in OD&D and one of the main reasons why we designed the Thief class, are also no longer such a big deal. No adamantium axes to just chop thru them. Sure the Magic user could cast Knock- maybe once a day.
...
Remember, there were only THREE classes when the Thief came in- Magic User, Fighting Man and Cleric. Those three could not then fill the shoes of the Thief- it was necessary then. It's Good that other classes can now fill in for the Thief/Rogue - but so can other classes fill in for the Magic User/Wizard, the Fighting Man/Fighter and the Cleric.
There was a game mechanic that didn't work and their response was to make the game unplayable for people with only three friends available on a night, force one to be inept in the situations that comprise the majority of play, and create a skill system that locked off common adventuring tasks like climbing walls from 3/4 of the party.
Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson obviously knew bupkis about game design. T
Sure, it's observable, but it has to be actively searched for.
The Thief was by no means "inept" in combat, etc. He also had non-combat skills, and around 1/4 the encounters were traps, and many rooms had locked doors. In fact the complain back then was that the Thief got a LOT more to do than any other member of the party, just the opposite of what you're saying.
Dude, I played back then. I designed the original Thief class. I was a dev back on OD&D days. You clearly have no experience with that play system.
And Arneson had a fantastic imagination, and Gygax was a game design genius. Everyone else in RP has done nothing but stand on their shoulders.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, I played back then. I designed the original Thief class. I was a dev back on OD&D days. You clearly have...
and 2nd edition came, and completely sold me on the Thief (I mean, who can say no to TWO XP FOR EVERY GOLD PIECE COLLECTED!! let me just say that we NEVER had problems such as people going Lawful Good with their thief back then! LOL)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, I played back then. I designed the original Thief class.
Thief was the BEST class. Hands down.
It could basically do everything, and fairly well. Now that there's so many fiddly mechanical bits, the modern era Thief needs to be able to get its grubby little hands on all those like it did back in the ol' days.
One has to think of the ninja talent "Forgotten Trick" or something like that.
+1 for this - it would be a great rogue talent.
With more powerful talents, we could see archetypes that do stuff like "replace the talent gained at X and Y level" with very special ones (to prevent rogues from having all of the tastiest ones at once). These archetypes wouldn't fuss with trapfinding, evasion or sneak at all - they'd simply set very specific talents on that archetype to let that particular rogue "steal" powers from other classes. -- Like certain oracle archetypes that set the mystery gained.
You know, we may even see some of this in ACG. Those designers just might be waiting a few more months to do trickle-marketing before dropping these bombs on the community. Those evil bastards.
Ah yes, those were the days!
Not only that, but the class had the fastest advancement track. You could easily be two levels higher than the Wizard.
Truly awesome class. Sure "Backstab" was hard to get, but you were quite good with weapons.
Sure, it's observable, but it has to be actively searched for.
Perception and Search are two very different skills especially in the rules that regard them.
Before you had to declare "I search for traps."
Now you can just say "I look around."
Before you had to search each 5 foot square for traps.
Now you can spot as far as you're willingly to take penalties for.
Ah yes, those were the days!
And you knew who you were then...
Girls were elves and dwarves were menWe could use some traps like Gary Gygax again....
No one I know does it that way. :(Perception and Search are two very different skills especially in the rules that regard them.
Before you had to declare "I search for traps."
Now you can just say "I look around."
That sucks. Wanna play in one of my games?
Sure, it's observable, but it has to be actively searched for.
Perception and Search are two very different skills especially in the rules that regard them.
Before you had to declare "I search for traps."
Now you can just say "I look around."
Before you had to search each 5 foot square for traps.
Now you can spot as far as you're willingly to take penalties for.
Mostly true, but with traps in PF you still have to burn a Move action and "Intentionally search" .
By using the word "search" I am not referring to the 3.5 Search skill, but the line under Perception where it says "Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action."
|
|
I'm looking forward to folks adding "You know, back in my day..." posts now...
You know, back in my day, I had to walk to school, ten miles, through the snow and we didn't have fancy iPads, we had a forty-pound backpack full of text books... and we liked it!
So...
You know, back in my day, when a cleric cast Hold Person on you, you were held - for minutes at a time, and had to watch all your fellow adventurers get axed to death by real orcs with no class levels and with no fancy-schmancy saving throw each round to try to break it off...
Yep.
But you forget- it was uphill...both ways....
Books? We would have loved to have books! We had clay tablets....
Sure, it's observable, but it has to be actively searched for.
Perception and Search are two very different skills especially in the rules that regard them.
Before you had to declare "I search for traps."
Now you can just say "I look around."
Before you had to search each 5 foot square for traps.
Now you can spot as far as you're willingly to take penalties for.
Mostly true, but with traps in PF you still have to burn a Move action and "Intentionally search" .
By using the word "search" I am not referring to the 3.5 Search skill, but the line under Perception where it says "Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action."
You keep saying this, but you have yet to show in any fashion why you need to intentionally search for traps. It does not, in any way, say this explicitly.
We had clay tablets....
Pfft, back in my day we used stone tablets! and moved our vehicles with our feet. And our appliances talked and were dinosaurs!
Wait no... That's not my life.