|
So I've been pondering about traps in Pathfinder a lot lately, especially with all the talk about rogues being weak and trapfinding being relatively easy to achieve with other classes, so I'd like to get some opinions on how traps are "doing" in Pathfinder. I apologize for the "poll" but it seems to be a relatively decent way to catalog and tabulate answers.
1) What does your Pathfinder experience consist of; mostly free-form home game, pre-printed adventure from Paizo, pre-printed adventure from another Publisher, or Pathfinder Society play?
2) In general, do you think the rules for finding traps in Pathfinder are too easy, too difficult, or just right?
3) In general, do you think traps in Pathfinder are too deadly, not deadly enough, or just right?
4) How, if at all, would you change trap mechanics in Pathfinder?
Feel free to include any other information that you'd like about traps and trapfinding. I'll try and catalog and tabulate the answers when we have more than a few replies.
|
|
1. Combo of house and PFS games.
2. I think they are just right. Published adventures in PFS and APs hardly use them though.
3. Probably not deadly enough. I like a lethal game more than the average gamer me thinks.
4. Not sure havent really thought too much about it. When something doesnt work for me I change it so that it does. (barring PFS of course)
Having trouble remembering last time I made a custom trap or homebrew though.
I give rogues trapfinder for free and dont make them use a talent picking it up. I love traps but I dont want them to be obstacles for parties who dont have a rogue. I am fine removing them or allowing more classes to gain the abilities like Paizo has.
1. I've mostly played custom campaigns. We false-started a few adventure paths; one ended in a TPK three quarters through the first book, and the other two were aborted due to scheduling conflicts and other real-life stuff.
2. Difficulty-wise, just fine.
3. Not deadly enough, usually. More concerning is that most of published traps simply aren't interesting (with a few stellar exceptions). I usually replace published traps with custom jobs.
4. I'd clarify the rules regarding passive Perception checks versus searching for active stimuli. They're playable as-is, but it is very easy for two different GMs to come to different conclusions regarding whether (and how difficult it is for) a character can detect a trap in a given situation.
In addition, it'd be nice if a core line rulebook addressed rules for more complex traps that don't have an easily-accessible, single-point-of-failure mechanism. Trap mechanics are too abstract. Abstraction is supposed to help speed up and gloss over the less interesting parts of the gameplay experience. Traps, though, can be entire encounters. The more interesting ones shouldn't be sped up or glossed over the same way that a simple "oops, I tripped the wire and got hit by a rock" does.
1. Mostly home games up until about 6 months ago, have been doing a lot of PFS though (about 5 games a month), so probably mostly PFS at this point.
2. Too easy, I guess. More specifically, there is a lack of complexity which makes the entire "system" easily bypassed.
3. Again, it's a lack of complexity. Traps are even more binary than most of PF. I would love to see a better (optional) system where degrees of success and failure would change results.
4. Added comlexity, more examples, more "layers" of traps and more examples of how to use traps as only part of a challenge. More traps that change the environment, more traps that can't just be immediately ignored. Fewer options to arbitrarily "disarm" a trap. More reasons that Trapfinding should be useful. More "environmental" traps so that "perception, disable device, done" may be more of a standard rather than an absolute. More traps that result in effects which aren't just removed by the application of charges from Cure Light Wounds wands (or curse / disease / poison removal).
Honestly, traps are one of the areas I could see a 3PP doing very well for PF or maybe a "traps revisited" book with alternate systems from Paizo. I think that they are thematically critical to the type of game PF tries to be, but that it often falls short in the execution and the delivery of that theme.
-TimD
I know certain posters here flip their wig at the idea of a trap that cannot be made to Go Away with a single effortless Disable Device check, but I'm a big fan of hilariously ornate death trapes. They're very cinematic, and the more hideously overkill they are, the more opportunities there are for the characters to do something awesome.
To steal an idea from a different thread, calling them something other than 'traps' (or at least splitting it into "lesser traps" and "greater traps") would separate them from the small-potato stuff.
An ideal deathtrap would have several stages taking multiple rounds, so that each member of the party gets a chance to contribute to party survival - whether that's blocking hails of darts with your trusty shield, using stone shape to jam the advance of the crushing wall, or just trying to clog the water inflow pipes with stuff from your backpack. Treat it more like a puzzle with a deadline of just a few rounds - one with lots of 'right answers', since running out of time will have horrendous if not fatal consequences. Traps, like combats and the better kind of social encounters, will be a lot more enjoyable if everybody gets to contribute toward defeating them.
I don't want to get off topic, but doesn't allowing everyone to use their abilities to counteract a trap really make the guy who has trapfinding as a class feature even less needed? Cause it seems to me like it would. Kind of along the lines of a guy with high diplomacy not being able to persuade a NPC, while a no diplomacy guy can RP to persaude them. Doesn't this approach invalidate player build choices to some extent? And make the "trapfinding classes" even less needed?
Mostly, in my campaigns (homebrew) traps are used from the book are largely annoyances/wastes of CLW wand charges. They can be easily overcome with player ingenuity (stone shape, shatter, etc.) Really though I'm going to echo the binary complaints.
They are not CR appropriate in most cases. The best way to use them is to combine them with monsters, so the players don't even bother making perception checks. Either the monsters can know about the traps or just be immune to them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some DMs seem to love traps.
I have not met too many players that do.
The odd trap here, and there, is thematic, but the "Traps Everywhere!" approach, is usually just going to lead to sulking players, tired of it.
Also, the "players should figure out" approach is often done terribly, with terrible results, and is usually a bad idea all together.
The "Your skill bonuses are meaningless" approach that some DMs try are also grating.
Some DMs seem to love traps.
I have not met too many players that do.
The odd trap here, and there, is thematic, but the "Traps Everywhere!" approach, is usually just going to lead to sulking players, tired of it.
Also, the "players should figure out" approach is often done terribly, with terrible results, and is usually a bad idea all together.
The "Your skill bonuses are meaningless" approach that some DMs try are also grating.
Another problem is that these are not "traps" per the game term, but puzzles or obstacles, and GM's sometimes confuse real life traps with the game term version of traps which can always be taken out by disable device per RAW and RAI.
So I've been pondering about traps in Pathfinder a lot lately, especially with all the talk about rogues being weak and trapfinding being relatively easy to achieve with other classes, so I'd like to get some opinions on how traps are "doing" in Pathfinder. I apologize for the "poll" but it seems to be a relatively decent way to catalog and tabulate answers.
1) What does your Pathfinder experience consist of; mostly free-form home game, pre-printed adventure from Paizo, pre-printed adventure from another Publisher, or Pathfinder Society play?
2) In general, do you think the rules for finding traps in Pathfinder are too easy, too difficult, or just right?
3) In general, do you think traps in Pathfinder are too deadly, not deadly enough, or just right?
4) How, if at all, would you change trap mechanics in Pathfinder?
Feel free to include any other information that you'd like about traps and trapfinding. I'll try and catalog and tabulate the answers when we have more than a few replies.
1) I have always had home games
2) I think they are too easy to spot, since anyone can make the attempt. The DC for disabling them maybe it's low, but you need a rogue.
3) I think that's not the point, the point is that you need one specific class of the game or you can't put too many traps inside your campaign. I know that the rogue is bad and if we remove this sort of "privilege" from it, it would become too bad,
4) I'll remove the concept of HP tax, presenting more alternatives for creative traps.
|
I haven't posted in these forums for a long time. Won't again after this. Just wanted to say something about traps we've discovered.
The best trap mechanic int game is actually haunts. Rework that mechanic to allow disable device checks to "damage" traps and you have a scaling cr trap system that allows for epic scenes.
That's it from me for another year.
Ciao
I play in free form games. Don't have much experience with traps personally because I don't use them often and in games I've played they aren't used much either. The ones I've found are not very strong, which I find weird.
My overall opinion is that they slow the game down in a bad way when you just walk around and spring a trap. You're going down a hallway for example and there's a trap. There's a few things that can happen here. One of the party members could see the trap, saving the party from injury. Or you could not see the trap and take the damage. Overall it's not a very interesting scenario especially when comparing it to an encounter.
Where traps really shine though is during a fight. Having a nice skirmish in enemy territory where enemy traps are going off all over the place would make for a memorable encounter.
1) Mostly home games, some APs, no PFS (I live in the middle of nowhere)
2) I would really like some clarification of how perception works and whether it is active or passive and when if both. I know there is table variation here, I always give passive perception checks, another GM never does without Trap Spotter, I didn't even think it did anything like the Totem Warrior archetype. Disable Device is a skill I find GMs very resistant to letting work RAW.
3) They aren't annoying enough. Getting Blinded, Cursed, Deafened, Diseased, Poisoned or Level Drained are annoying and takes at least a day to deal with unless you knew to prepare for it. HP damage that doesn't kill you is a gold tax after level 2.
4) Make them cheap and quick to make or make them really deadly if they are expensive and time consuming. They had to make a Ranger archetype to fix the problem of PCs ever using traps. The mundane crafting rules are one of the parts of the game that only works in the sweet spot of low level cheap stuff. Anything expensive must be made by someone with Fabricate or it takes years to make. Digging a pit trap is prohibitively expensive.
I don't want to get off topic, but doesn't allowing everyone to use their abilities to counteract a trap really make the guy who has trapfinding as a class feature even less needed? Cause it seems to me like it would. Kind of along the lines of a guy with high diplomacy not being able to persuade a NPC, while a no diplomacy guy can RP to persaude them. Doesn't this approach invalidate player build choices to some extent? And make the "trapfinding classes" even less needed?
No more then allowing everyone to participate in combat makes the guy who can fight well less needed. In the end it means he should be able to do more then just be the trap guy. But if he is the 'best' at dealing with traps, he still has a place if everyone participates. And in addition, it means that traps stop being a disjointed one man show that removes everyone but one person from the action, and makes them an encounter, that involves and engages the entire party.
In Response to the poll
1. A combination of homebrew (but well developed) games, and running of pre-written adventures from one publisher or another. Sometimes its a mix where someone starts with a written adventure and heavily customizes it.
2. I think they are more or less pointless. Ease or difficulty isnt the issue. Its the fact that they either mandate a specific set of skills/class features, or they are a straight drain on party resources. Either way they arent an engaging or interesting part of the game.
3. None of the above? All of the above? Depends on the trap and the circumstances. It also depends on how they are handled (if the party had a reasonable chance of spotting the trap, and a way to bypass it).
4. Make them encounters that involved the entire party instead of a series of one person rolling a couple d20s and either giving the party some xp, or hurting them and giving the party xp.
I dont know if you have ever had to deal with a seriously tap laiding dungeon in a typical game or not, but its friggan boring, even if you are the 'rogue'. Walk 5 ft, perceptio, walk 5 ft perception, decide to walk 10ft, oops you sprung a trap. Its really really dull even if you are succeeding.
2) I would really like some clarification of how perception works and whether it is active or passive and when if both. I know there is table variation here, I always give passive perception checks, another GM never does without Trap SpotterI would like to see clarification as well. For those of us who had never read a non-pathfinder book, it is baffling encountering someone in the 'only active checks and/or must search every square' camp
Its this weird desire by some to have the 'gotcha' moment. Its why traps have lasted as long as they have and are as prevalent as they are. DMs WANT players to get caught in traps. It fills them with a kind of glee. Otherwise they would only appear in like deep dark vaults, and not random heavily traveled hallways of places people actually live.
If perception was passive (as I have always thought the rules imply it is), then its literally a non-issue most of the time. Most 'scouts' have perceptions high enough to trivialize the perception dc of appropriate level traps. So dms demand that they players must be as clever as their characters and think where to look for traps, in order to be able to catch them with a few.
Its this weird desire by some to have the 'gotcha' moment. Its why traps have lasted as long as they have and are as prevalent as they are. DMs WANT players to get caught in traps. It fills them with a kind of glee. Otherwise they would only appear in like deep dark vaults, and not random heavily traveled hallways of places people actually live.
People do this? Ugh. Breaks immersion.
I love players getting caught in traps. I love even more when players figure out the trap before getting caught. I do not love traps where traps don't make sense. You don't put an otyugh in the noble's bedchamber*, and you don't deadfall-trap the common room of a bar.
*Now that I've stated this, all kinds of scenarios are coming to mind. Challenge accepted, self!
Magical traps have very high DCs, but that's offset by the fact that a simple detect magic spell detects it outright. Mechanical traps rarely have such high DCs relative to their CR.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
2) I would really like some clarification of how perception works and whether it is active or passive and when if both. I know there is table variation here, I always give passive perception checks, another GM never does without Trap SpotterI would like to see clarification as well. For those of us who had never read a non-pathfinder book, it is baffling encountering someone in the 'only active checks and/or must search every square' camp
Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
That works as a statement, but it's apparent that it isn't clear enough for a lot of players and GMs, who often have the impression that traps are an exception to the "Most" qualifier. Even JJ subscribes to the belief that traps don't provide passive Perception checks without Trap Spotter, which means that either the rules aren't clear to JJ or they aren't clear to us.
4. Far too many are 'instant onset' traps. Many who disapprove of traps say they're just a "healing tax": you set off the trap, you heal the damage, you continue on. They consider that totally uninteresting... and they're right.Nuisance traps, such as collapsing floors and swinging logs, work great with this system. But I don't really like the fact that big, imposing deathtraps - the sort that would not only take an entire scene in a movie, but be one of the most thrilling and memorable scenes in the movie - use the same mechanic. More drama needed.
Agreed with all of this.
@Jiggy Those would be the two sentences that cause the trouble. There is no game definition of Observable Stimulus. So I am running it with the understanding that if it doesn't involve moving things around it is passive. Another GM runs it much more restrictively, where unless it is plainly visible you must declare what you are looking for. I would rather have a precise definition of exactly what counts as an Observable Stimulus than to continue on in this state of ambiguity and table variation.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That works as a statement, but it's apparent that it isn't clear enough for a lot of players and GMs, who often have the impression that traps are an exception to the "Most" qualifier. Even JJ subscribes to the belief that traps don't provide passive Perception checks without Trap Spotter, which means that either the rules aren't clear to JJ or they aren't clear to us.
I just wanted to wait to have that conversation until after making sure the asker had a chance to absorb the starting point. :)
Anyway, you and Gregory Connolly are correct that it's not spelled out whether traps are in the "reactive, therefore automatic" category or the "spend move actions searching" category.
From there, my next thought is the Take 20 rules, which list "Perception (to search for traps)" as a common use of Take 20. That seems to at least imply that traps are something you would primarily be searching for.
Reducing a challenge from a puzzle to a single die roll doesn't really make a player feel powerful or validated either...
I feel validated when I get to use my class features as intended without additional work.
2) I would really like some clarification of how perception works and whether it is active or passive and when if both. I know there is table variation here, I always give passive perception checks, another GM never does without Trap SpotterI would like to see clarification as well. For those of us who had never read a non-pathfinder book, it is baffling encountering someone in the 'only active checks and/or must search every square' campAction: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
They know about that line. They want it to be explained.
The typical way traps have been done in D&D historically, and PF in general, are pretty dull. You find it (or set it off), then you disable it (or set it off), take some damage, heal it, and move on.
They also tend to be built illogically ... they're just THERE. A trap is like a guardian; you don't put one there unless there's something for it to be guarding, and the person who set it needs some way to bypass or suppress it so they can get past it. D&D/PF traps tend to be 'the door is rigged ... no, there's nothing interesting behind it' sorts of things.
Traps work best when part of a larger encounter, as opposed to just a one-shot way to maybe expend some resources. You *can* choose to ignore the trap, but it will make the other dangers in the room more difficult to deal with. Going after the trap takes time, wherein one party member is unavailable and more or less defenseless, but will make it easier in the long run.
This is the speech I give at the start of most PFS games
I assume that you are fairly competent, semi trained, quasi professional murder hobos. Unless you tell me "we ain't got time for this *bleep*, I assume you are checking for traps and looking for details as you move along, and get yourself into a reasonable fighting formation at every door and corner.
1) What does your Pathfinder experience consist of; mostly free-form home game, pre-printed adventure from Paizo, pre-printed adventure from another Publisher, or Pathfinder Society play?
A good mix of home games and PFS play. In home games we've almost done away with traps because we're short on time. In PFS... well my rogue is a druid.
2) In general, do you think the rules for finding traps in Pathfinder are too easy, too difficult, or just right?
The mechanical aspects of it: roll a percpeption check and look for it, work fine. The annoying/frustrating part of it is "hacking" the dm to allow the check. I said i was looking, You didn't say you were STILL Looking, you didn't say you were checking the ceiling...
3) In general, do you think traps in Pathfinder are too deadly, not deadly enough, or just right?
They should be more inconvenience than deadly. On their own, you don't want to kill a character because they rolled a 1 on a perception check, but you don't want to just support your local wand of clw shop with damage.
A good trap i can think of drops the party into a pit AND alerts the goblins they're there, or does a little ability damage with poison.
4) How, if at all, would you change trap mechanics in Pathfinder?
I would leave the mechanics traps alone, but spell out what you have to do to get a perception check to find them- or just eliminate the need to actively look altogether and give the rogue a higher bonus to find them.
And change the guidelines for how they're used to be something that goes with a fight instead of instead of a fight.
1) What does your Pathfinder experience consist of; mostly free-form home game, pre-printed adventure from Paizo, pre-printed adventure from another Publisher, or Pathfinder Society play?
2) In general, do you think the rules for finding traps in Pathfinder are too easy, too difficult, or just right?
3) In general, do you think traps in Pathfinder are too deadly, not deadly enough, or just right?
4) How, if at all, would you change trap mechanics in Pathfinder?
Feel free to include any other information that you'd like about traps and trapfinding. I'll try and catalog and tabulate the answers when we have more than a few replies.
1: Mostly 3.X modules adapted to Pathfinder
2: Finding them is fine, disabling is too anticlamctic most of the time
3: More an inconvenience than anything
4: Change it to a successful disable rolls tells you how to bypass the trap, but unless you can directly fiddle with it's mechanical parts/spell rune/whatever doesn't just disable it.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think traps work about right. Although many people say you don't need a rogue, by mid levels, rogues have a few advantages. Only classes with trapfinding can disarm magical traps. Further, only rogues (as far as I know) can bypass a trap entirely without disarming it if they beat the DC by 10 or more. There are lots of classes with good enough perception to find traps but disarming is a different thing.
I think traps work about right. Although many people say you don't need a rogue, by mid levels, rogues have a few advantages. Only classes with trapfinding can disarm magical traps. Further, only rogues (as far as I know) can bypass a trap entirely without disarming it if they beat the DC by 10 or more. There are lots of classes with good enough perception to find traps but disarming is a different thing.
RAW you are correct, but at the time only rogues had trapfinding. I doubt it is still RAI, but I do think it deserves as FAQ.
The Disable Device skill actually -does- mention traps that can't be merely disabled. Spike stones, for example.
Yes, but that is a specific rules exception.
So I've been pondering about traps in Pathfinder a lot lately, especially with all the talk about rogues being weak and trapfinding being relatively easy to achieve with other classes, so I'd like to get some opinions on how traps are "doing" in Pathfinder. I apologize for the "poll" but it seems to be a relatively decent way to catalog and tabulate answers.
1) What does your Pathfinder experience consist of; mostly free-form home game, pre-printed adventure from Paizo, pre-printed adventure from another Publisher, or Pathfinder Society play?
2) In general, do you think the rules for finding traps in Pathfinder are too easy, too difficult, or just right?
3) In general, do you think traps in Pathfinder are too deadly, not deadly enough, or just right?
4) How, if at all, would you change trap mechanics in Pathfinder?
Feel free to include any other information that you'd like about traps and trapfinding. I'll try and catalog and tabulate the answers when we have more than a few replies.
1. Preprinted adventure
2. just fine
3. I don't expect them to be deadly, but I do expect them to provide some sort of inconvenience. Generally speaking they need to do more than they do for their CR.
4. I would adjust the CR's and use them in combination with monsters at times.
|
|
One idea I've read about is to make noticing traps even easier, but up the ante on their effects and disabling.
Setting off the trap is really bad; damage that's higher than a CR-equivalent combat is likely to result in for example, or alerting the BBEG so he runs away with the MacGuffin.
However, the trap actually has real Mechanics; it has a Trigger and an Effect, and possibly a Reset mechanism.
If something that meets the trigger conditions hits it then the trap will go off. But you can try to weasel past that; a pressure plate might be tuned to humans, but a Reduce Person'd Halfling might walk across it without triggering it. Also, it's quite possibly to just bypass the trigger, using Climb/Acrobatics. Provided you managed to correctly estimate how the trigger works.
Likewise the Effect; you might be able to understand beforehand what the effect will be, and take precautions. Jump across the pit trap rather than walking. Install some more architecture to block the collapsing ceiling trap.
And you can play around with the Reset mechanism. You could use a summoned monster to set off the trap, then cross after it while the trap hasn't Reset yet. Maybe you can even jam the reset mechanism.
The gist of it is: by basically giving away for free that there's a trap there, you as a GM get some more room to turn the trap into a full-fledged challenge rather than just an entry on the Wandering Damage Table.
So I've been pondering about traps in Pathfinder a lot lately, especially with all the talk about rogues being weak and trapfinding being relatively easy to achieve with other classes, so I'd like to get some opinions on how traps are "doing" in Pathfinder. I apologize for the "poll" but it seems to be a relatively decent way to catalog and tabulate answers.
1) What does your Pathfinder experience consist of; mostly free-form home game, pre-printed adventure from Paizo, pre-printed adventure from another Publisher, or Pathfinder Society play?
2) In general, do you think the rules for finding traps in Pathfinder are too easy, too difficult, or just right?
3) In general, do you think traps in Pathfinder are too deadly, not deadly enough, or just right?
4) How, if at all, would you change trap mechanics in Pathfinder?
Feel free to include any other information that you'd like about traps and trapfinding. I'll try and catalog and tabulate the answers when we have more than a few replies.
1) A mixture of all of them.
2) A little too easy.
3) Combined together, the traps can be just deadly enough. Takes more than one, though.
4) I would make them slightly more difficult to disarm and a lot deadlier.