The Trapfinder Trait and making Rogues even less useful


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 587 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Before the publication of this trait The Rogues had the class feature of being able ability to disarm magical traps. With this trait you don't even need a Rogue. A bard with this trait is imo better than a Rogue. Sure sneak attack damage is great. Except you have to specialize in ranged version of that. Or get torn apart in melee. The trait: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/mummy-s-mask/trap-finder


Wow, that *is* good. Also good if you take a Rogue Archetype that gets rid of disable device. Wish I they had that earlier I would have not taken Seeker Oracle.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Campaign Traits are generally more powerful than other traits, and are intended to only be used in said campaign. So a bard in Mummy Mask might be better than a rogue in Mummy Mask, but otherwise the rogue is still king of finding magical traps.

Now, if you want to argue that bard archetypes with trapfinding are better than rogues, I can see that argument.

Liberty's Edge

I get that some traits are more powerful than others. Yet Trapfinder makes taking a Rogue while not obsolete just not needed in q gaming group anymore. All that is left is sneak attack damage and some Rogue Talents. Not saying rogue Talents are useless. Except some are good, some bad, some too situational. A regular bard with this trait truly becomes the Jack of all trades.


spamhammer wrote:

Campaign Traits are generally more powerful than other traits, and are intended to only be used in said campaign. So a bard in Mummy Mask might be better than a rogue in Mummy Mask, but otherwise the rogue is still king of finding magical traps.

It doesn't come from Mummy's Mask, though. It comes from Player's Companion: People of the Sands.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In memorial to the once-great Rogue class. Let's have a moment of silence, please.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1 level in Pathfinder Delver in any class other than a Rogue makes you a better Rogue than he is.

Liberty's Edge

137ben wrote:


It doesn't come from Mummy's Mask, though. It comes from Player's Companion: People of the Sands.

Either your mistaken or the SRD is.

Liberty's Edge

Scavion wrote:
1 level in Pathfinder Delver in any class other than a Rogue makes you a better Rogue than he is.

Now you know why some of us give the devs such a hard time. Stuff like this makes you wonder sometimes. At the very least I would have written that the DCs for magical traps goes up by five or more. And that Rogues can find magical traps without penalty. Reflecting the Rogue skill and ability with traps.


memorax wrote:
Scavion wrote:
1 level in Pathfinder Delver in any class other than a Rogue makes you a better Rogue than he is.
Now you know why some of us give the devs such a hard time. Stuff like this makes you wonder sometimes. At the very least I would have written that the DCs for magical traps goes up by five or more. And that Rogues can find magical traps without penalty. Reflecting the Rogue skill and ability with traps.

Eh. Traps are boring anyways.

Roll Perception. Fail? Trap goes off, take damage, move on.

Roll Perception. Success! Disable Device. Success! Move on.


Trap DCs are already b+*&%%#% hard.

It'd be better if Search wasn't part of Perception and was with something else (preferably dex-based, maybe combine w/ sleight of hand) instead. You know, perception? The skill that everyone maxes the hell out because...duh. The skill that uses one of the rogue's least important ability mods? Or...it would be one of the least important if Rogue didn't have such godawful horrible base saves...


StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Trap DCs are already b&&+~~!# hard.

It'd be better if Search wasn't part of Perception and was with something else (preferably dex-based, maybe combine w/ sleight of hand) instead. You know, perception? The skill that everyone maxes the hell out because...duh. The skill that uses one of the rogue's least important ability mods? Or...it would be one of the least important if Rogue didn't have such godawful horrible base saves...

By 10th level, if you invest in finding and disabling traps (6,500 gp) its auto find and disable since DCs don't go past 34 generally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rogue was a mistake when Gygax and Arneson introduced it and has never stopped being a mistake. Good riddance.

In OD&D it tied things that had previously been matters of ingenuity to a class, weakening everyone else.

In 1e it forced trap heavy gameplay to justify its inclusion.

By the time 3e rolled around and skill appeared it forced the other traditional classes to have woefully inadequate skill points to distinguish itself.

In Pathfinder it poisoned the well for nonmagical classes. I hope when Paizo replies to DDN the rogue is nowhere to be seen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I guess I should have clarified. Early on, trap DCs are bs hard. Like, pretty much always 20+, which is supposed to be very unlikely to succeed for a low level character.

At high levels, the situation flips and traps are a joke. I don't mind that, though... Skills shouldn't just keep getting harder for the sake of getting harder. If you heavily invest in one, there should come a point where you can feel free to move on to other skills with your points. If you want to make even heavier investment worthwhile, rather than make the skill harder, you can offer options that boost the DC. Most commonly, "perform this skill faster / as a lesser action."


Atarlost wrote:

The rogue was a mistake when Gygax and Arneson introduced it and has never stopped being a mistake. Good riddance.

In OD&D it tied things that had previously been matters of ingenuity to a class, weakening everyone else.

In 1e it forced trap heavy gameplay to justify its inclusion.

By the time 3e rolled around and skill appeared it forced the other traditional classes to have woefully inadequate skill points to distinguish itself.

In Pathfinder it poisoned the well for nonmagical classes. I hope when Paizo replies to DDN the rogue is nowhere to be seen.

No, the rogue has a place. Skill monkey is fine as a role. Other noncasters could and should have less of a gap with them (and in turn, rogue should have other things going for it), but the basic concept of rogue is fine and has a lot of fluff/literary support.

It's the Fighter that's the mistake. A class dedicated to "being the best at fighting" in a game where most of the time is spent in combat is just...so messed up. Nevermind that unlike Rogue, it has *never* lived up to its promises (thankfully).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion Could've Said wrote:

Eh. Traps are boring anyways.

Roll Perception. Fail? Trap goes off, take damage, heal damage like nothing ever happened move on.

Roll Perception. Success! Disable Device. Success! Move on.

Added a step. Felt more appropriate and easier to ignore.


The skill monkey niche is a good niche. The bad thing is that the rogue doe snot particularly excel at skills. They do basically the same as everyone else with them (with a couple of exceptions, but they are minor).

A lot of other classes are basically as good as the rogue with those mundane skill and spells, 3.x decided that spell triumph everything so here we are.

Those extra +2 skill are just an excuse to make the rogue bad. The same reason the extra feats are the excuse to give fighter bad skills and bad saves.


StreamOfTheSky wrote:

No, the rogue has a place. Skill monkey is fine as a role. Other noncasters could and should have less of a gap with them (and in turn, rogue should have other things going for it), but the basic concept of rogue is fine and has a lot of fluff/literary support.

It's the Fighter that's the mistake. A class dedicated to "being the best at fighting" in a game where most of the time is spent in combat is just...so messed up. Nevermind that unlike Rogue, it has *never* lived up to its promises (thankfully).

Skill monkey as a role means that everyone else must be useless for contrast. Spotlight balance is always toxic. If anyone is playing Angry Birds because his player can't contribute to a situation there's a problem whether that situation is fighting, talking, or disabling traps. Skill Monkeys make this even worse by monopolizing all the situations that aren't combat. The game would be better off without them.


Atarlost wrote:


Skill monkey as a role means that everyone else must be useless for contrast. Spotlight balance is always toxic. If anyone is playing Angry Birds because his player can't contribute to a situation there's a problem whether that situation is fighting, talking, or disabling traps. Skill Monkeys make this even worse by monopolizing all the situations that aren't combat. The game would be better off without them.

No. That is not a necessity. They choose that option with fighter-rogue, but it is not the only way.


Nicos wrote:
Atarlost wrote:


Skill monkey as a role means that everyone else must be useless for contrast. Spotlight balance is always toxic. If anyone is playing Angry Birds because his player can't contribute to a situation there's a problem whether that situation is fighting, talking, or disabling traps. Skill Monkeys make this even worse by monopolizing all the situations that aren't combat. The game would be better off without them.

No. That is not a necessity. They choose that option with fighter-rogue, but it is not the only way.

How can skills not be the domain of the skill monkey if skill monkey is a recognized role? If other classes have enough skills to make them unnecessary they have no role, therefore other classes must have inadequate skills for the benefit of the skill monkey.


Rogues don't get nice things. Paizo has decided that crime doesn't pay.

As for the role of skill monkeys, the problem is that rogue skills generally aren't much use in combat, except for the occasional bit of acrobatics, UMD or stealth. Maybe Bluff (to feint) or Escape Artist (if you get grappled) but otherwise not.

What the game has needed for a long time is more uses for skills. I note that Rite has a publication that aims to fix this. I've not bought it get but am giving it serious consideration.

Obviously that doesn't change the fact that an appropriate bard is a better skill monkey than the rogue, but that's a different issue. Rogue should steal himself some decent talents.


If the only thing keeping a rogue relevant is the ability to disarm Magical Traps, then the Rogue was already obsoleted. It's just that they were necessary, as trapfinding was a necessary evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Before the publication of this trait The Rogues had the class feature of being able ability to disarm magical traps. With this trait you don't even need a Rogue. A bard with this trait is imo better than a Rogue. Sure sneak attack damage is great. Except you have to specialize in ranged version of that. Or get torn apart in melee. The trait: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/mummy-s-mask/trap-finder

First of all the ability to disable magical traps hasn't been rogue-only for quite some time in PF, second you don't need a rogue anyway (disabling magical traps with a skill isn't that important), third; no sneak attack damage isn't great and neither is sneak attack in general.

Just to give you something to think about, here are the other ways to get trapfinding:
1) 1st level rogue (a bunch of archetypes give that up)
2) 3rd level urban ranger
3) 1st level trapper ranger
4) 1st level seeker oracle*
5) 1st level seeker sorcerer*
6) 1st level crypt breaker alchemist
7) 2nd level detective bard*
8) The 2nd level bard/alchemist/wizard spell Aram Zey's focus (too bad the duration is only 1 minute per level)
9) 2nd level archevist bard*
10) 6th level archeologist bard*
11) 1st level sandman bard*

*those 6 get trapfinding in everything but the name

So what if now we have 12)the trait trapfinder? it's just one more way.


Atarlost wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Atarlost wrote:


Skill monkey as a role means that everyone else must be useless for contrast. Spotlight balance is always toxic. If anyone is playing Angry Birds because his player can't contribute to a situation there's a problem whether that situation is fighting, talking, or disabling traps. Skill Monkeys make this even worse by monopolizing all the situations that aren't combat. The game would be better off without them.

No. That is not a necessity. They choose that option with fighter-rogue, but it is not the only way.

How can skills not be the domain of the skill monkey if skill monkey is a recognized role? If other classes have enough skills to make them unnecessary they have no role, therefore other classes must have inadequate skills for the benefit of the skill monkey.

Simple. Skill should allow rogues to do thing other class can not.

And I am not talking about making the rogue the only ones able to use stealth so everyone else suck at infiltration. No. It is not about reducing the viability of others. Everyone should be able to do the things that the skills already allows in PF.

Rogues just should have better uses for skills. Like the rogue talent that let rogue use sleight of hand instead of CMB for disarm attempts.

Rogues should have amazing uses for skills, it is just that they have no class features for that. Rogue talent fails miserably in that regard.


Atarlost wrote:

The rogue was a mistake when Gygax and Arneson introduced it and has never stopped being a mistake. Good riddance.

I

In 1e it forced trap heavy gameplay to justify its inclusion.

Hey! I resent that!

Actually the opposite. OD&D started trap & locked door heavy and the Thief class was a reaction to that. Trust me on this.

This new trait is no big deal. What is critical (depending on your campaign) is the Trap Spotter Talent which is not that available.

Ok, so the rogue isn't the only class that can do traps? That's a Good Thing. The Wizard isn't the only class that can cast Fireball. The fighter isn't the only class that can do super DPR on a FA. The Cleric isn't the only class that can heal.

When the Sorcerer can out did everyone say "That's the end of the Wizard"? Or the Life Oracle for healing? And, pretty much the Life Oracle is better than the cleric at healing.

Mind you, yes, the trapfinder niche is not so critical in Paizo AP's. They don;t have the kind of ingenious killer Gygaxian traps that infested some AD&D modules. Try
Scavion's little trick in Tomb Of Horrors. Heh.

Yes, I agree, the rogue is still the best trapfinder and best skill monkey, but other classes can be almost as good and better at a number of things. One of the Ranger archetypes for example is tougher, better in direct combat, etc, and just a tad shy of being as good in traps (8 Skp is still better than 6, no matter what traits you can get- note that the Rogue can take this trait also- and UMD is a great skill, still).

Still, the rogue class remains very popular, is fun to play, and contributes to the group. Sure, a Archeologist Bard might be better- but only if you want to play a Bard.

So, the rogues little niche isn't his & his alone anymore, and by and large Paizo hasn't done anything like ToH. But that doesn't mean there aren't 3pp or DM's who have such campaigns.

Grand Lodge

memorax wrote:
137ben wrote:


It doesn't come from Mummy's Mask, though. It comes from Player's Companion: People of the Sands.
Either your mistaken or the SRD is.

It's definitely in the People of the Sands (page 31)


It's in People of the Sands in the Mummy's Mask Player's Guide section under Campaign Traits. So you're both right. Paizo has been printing the campaign traits in the Player Companion that goes along with the new AP for a few cycles now.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Please tell me why would I take this over Reactionary and Rich Parents?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because MM looks like it'll be extremely trap-heavy, and Rich Parents is a trap that you apparently didn't spot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mudfoot wrote:
Because MM looks like it'll be extremely trap-heavy, and Rich Parents is a trap that you apparently didn't spot.

I've always gotten good usage out of it. I'll just use Rich Parents to buy all the ten foot poles I need and have at it ;)


Odraude wrote:
Please tell me why would I take this over Reactionary and Rich Parents?

Rich parents gets a lot worse, once you get out of the low levels, where 900 gp really is no longer a lot of money. Reactionary is still good, but if the DM (or in this case the AP) makes good use of traps that aren't just HP damage that gets healed with an expenditure of a cure spell, then the ability to disarm them could easily be worth the boost to Initiative if the traps are dangerous and plentiful. Granted, for most cases the initiative is just better, but if the AP is as trap filled as it seems it will, it's potentially better.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tholomyes wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Please tell me why would I take this over Reactionary and Rich Parents?
Rich parents gets a lot worse, once you get out of the low levels, where 900 gp really is no longer a lot of money. Reactionary is still good, but if the DM (or in this case the AP) makes good use of traps that aren't just HP damage that gets healed with an expenditure of a cure spell, then the ability to disarm them could easily be worth the boost to Initiative if the traps are dangerous and plentiful. Granted, for most cases the initiative is just better, but if the AP is as trap filled as it seems it will, it's potentially better.

Clearly I need to use the money on chickens and ten foot poles for traps ;)

But honestly, given how many ways and classes can take down a magic trap, I'd rather just use my trait on something else *shrug*


memorax wrote:
I get that some traits are more powerful than others. Yet Trapfinder makes taking a Rogue while not obsolete just not needed in q gaming group anymore. All that is left is sneak attack damage and some Rogue Talents. Not saying rogue Talents are useless. Except some are good, some bad, some too situational. A regular bard with this trait truly becomes the Jack of all trades.

The rogue was never needed in a gaming group, casters fill its role easily.


DrDeth wrote:

Try

Scavion's little trick in Tomb Of Horrors. Heh.

I'm confused. Are you saying that eating the damage from the trap and moving on is a poor trick in Tomb of Horrors or that anyone couldn't easily fill the Rogue's place there?

Flipping through it, an Invulnerable Rager can eat all the traps and come out unscathed. DR/7 prevents the Con Damage poison from coming into effect. He's got the saves against all the other traps too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chances are the trait is for mummies mask but likely presented as suitable for any similar themed campaign. Its better that the trait exists than someone is forced to play a class they don't want to.

The trait only matters if you eant it to matter.

Liberty's Edge

I thin what is being forgotten is that besides sneak attack damage and Rogue Talents they have nothing else. Sneak attack good luck trying to use than in melee and survive. Rogue Talents are a mixed bag. A cor class since the beginning is imo no longer relavent. When A player who plays a Fighter can take the trait why even lug along the Rogue. A group needs the Cleric as he is the best healer in the game. A wizard for the short and long range artillery. A martial class to defend against tougher opponents. A Bard to buff the party.

At this point must as well either replace the Rogue with the Bard or Ninja. At least both have other betteer abilities to fall on.Sure there are other archtypes that do get a similar type of Trapfinding. Except they have to give something up to get the Rogue equivalent of Trapfinding. I thought paizo hated martials. It's rogues they despise. For some strange reason.

Liberty's Edge

Mojorat wrote:

Chances are the trait is for mummies mask but likely presented as suitable for any similar themed campaign. Its better that the trait exists than someone is forced to play a class they don't want to.

The trait only matters if you eant it to matter.

It does kind of matter when it almost invalidates a core class.

what does a rogue have left. sneak attack and rogue Talents. You make a good point about not wanting to play a unwanted class. I would not mind if the despite the trait the Rogue was still the better class at traps. They are not. Anyone with the with the skill and decent amount of points can do it. So why even have a Rogue. No to mention AP or not a smart dm always has traps ready to use against the group. keeps them on their toes. So this trait is useful most if not all the time.


memorax wrote:
Mojorat wrote:

Chances are the trait is for mummies mask but likely presented as suitable for any similar themed campaign. Its better that the trait exists than someone is forced to play a class they don't want to.

The trait only matters if you eant it to matter.

It does kind of matter when it almost invalidates a core class.

what does a rogue have left. sneak attack and rogue Talents. You make a good point about not wanting to play a unwanted class. I would not mind if the despite the trait the Rogue was still the better class at traps. They are not. Anyone with the with the skill and decent amount of points can do it. So why even have a Rogue.

I recommend you look up the Why Rogues aren't Underpowered thread and learn exactly why they are Underpowered. I've already been over this this week and don't feel like doing it again.

But yes. It's well known that Rogues are pretty underpowered.


The core class is the problem. Not the trait. You do not need a wizard, or a fighter or a cleric in a given group. There are lots of ways to cover their roles or to just patch the party weakness n case nobody cover the role. In the same spirit nobody should be forced to play rogue just because traps.


Nicos wrote:
The core class is the problem. Not the trait. You do not need a wizard, or a fighter or a cleric in a given group. There are lots of ways to cover their roles or to just patch the party weakness in case nobody covers the role. In the same spirit nobody should be forced to play a rogue just because traps.

Pretty much this.

Sovereign Court

I am ok with this. Sounds like traps will be a big feature of the AP and forcing groups to have one is undesirable.

Liberty's Edge

I'm not saying anyone should be forced to play any class they don't want. Yet having a Rogue along did help with the traps. It's also been a signature feature of the class since 1E. Suddenly when say half a gaming table can disarm traps just as good as a Rogue. Or damn close. It would make anyone feel useless at the game table imo. Beyond trap finding the Rgues don't get much else.

Scavion you are preaching to the choir. I also read that thread as well. I'm allowing the trait in my games. I'm also houseruling the DCS of traps increase by five or even ten for everyone but the Rogue.


memorax wrote:
Mojorat wrote:

Chances are the trait is for mummies mask but likely presented as suitable for any similar themed campaign. Its better that the trait exists than someone is forced to play a class they don't want to.

The trait only matters if you eant it to matter.

It does kind of matter when it almost invalidates a core class.

what does a rogue have left. sneak attack and rogue Talents. You make a good point about not wanting to play a unwanted class. I would not mind if the despite the trait the Rogue was still the better class at traps. They are not. Anyone with the with the skill and decent amount of points can do it. So why even have a Rogue. No to mention AP or not a smart dm always has traps ready to use against the group. keeps them on their toes. So this trait is useful most if not all the time.

No. A smart DM will vary their tactics to meet the strengths and weaknesses of their players. And, as I've said, if the thing that's keeping a rogue relevant, is being able to deal with traps, the class is already invalidated.

Sovereign Court

memorax wrote:

I'm not saying anyone should be forced to play any class they don't want. Yet having a Rogue along did help with the traps. It's also been a signature feature of the class since 1E. Suddenly when say half a gaming table can disarm traps just as good as a Rogue. Or damn close. It would make anyone feel useless at the game table imo. Beyond trap finding the Rgues don't get much else.

Scavion you are preaching to the choir. I also read that thread as well. I'm allowing the trait in my games. I'm also houseruling the DCS of traps increase by five or even ten for everyone but the Rogue.

This assumes that the trait is sooo awesome everyone is going to want to take it. I dont see that happening. Most groups will have a "traps guy" and that person will take the trait if they dont want to be a rogue.

Liberty's Edge

Tholomyes wrote:


No. A smart DM will vary their tactics to meet the strengths and weaknesses of their players. And, as I've said, if the thing that's keeping a rogue relevant, is being able to deal with traps, the class is already invalidated.

Here the thing. Besides trapfinding all they have left is sneak attack and rogue talents. The rogue does not have enough AC let alone hp to get into melee range to use sneak attack. Maybe one hit, two then the enemy turns his attention to the Rogue and either knocks out or kills of the Rogue. This can be fixed with either specializing in Ranged sneak attack . Or taking a archtype or prestige class that allows a Rogue to use his sneak attack from a distance. I do vary my tactics. I'm not going to suddenly have the intelligent npc or monster ignore the Rogue sneak attacking because the class is imo poorly designed.

Rogue Talents are a mixed bag. Some good. Some bad. Others too situational. Maybe some of them need to be errata to be better or less situational imo.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The rogues should have better things instead of forcing the trap niche into them.

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:


This assumes that the trait is sooo awesome everyone is going to want to take it. I dont see that happening. Most groups will have a "traps guy" and that person will take the trait if they dont want to be a rogue.

It's not the best trait or even the most awesome I agree. It sure as hell is a good one. I can play a Bard have full access to all my levels and abilites. While also being as good as a Rogue at disarming traps. Sign me up. Compared to some imo it also stands out as well.


memorax wrote:


At this point must as well either replace the Rogue with the Bard or Ninja.

Alchemist too, you can keep your bombs to replicate D&D3.5's flask tossing rogue, or trade out bombs for sneak attack for a stabby rogue with lots of magical utility.

Rogues... I could see a revamp of rogue talents. Some of them are videogamey "Once per day..." abilities, so they should compare to the effects of an Alchemist's "X times per day" abilities too. If I were to give Rogues a niche though... Ability damage. Let rogue sneak attacks do crazy damage to the target's ability scores like noone else can.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Be optimist. The trait also means that you can play a knife master or a thug without loosing trapfinding.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will go out on a limb with an assumption of my own. Most groups a least have a short discussion on character choice. If somebody is playing a rogue it would be bad form to take the trait in my opinion. I would like to think most folks would agree. With Paizo adding new classes people want to try new things. If nobody wants to play a rogue they now have an out. I think thats swell.

nicos wrote:
Be optimist. The trait also means that you can play a knife master or a thug without loosing trapfinding.

This! I was kind of let down by how many rogue archetypes give away trapfinding.

1 to 50 of 587 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Trapfinder Trait and making Rogues even less useful All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.