I have a PC trapfinder in our game who is an "Uber-Trapfinder", as in his base modifiers are above +30 for both Perception and Disable Device, he has the Trap Spotter rogue talent(so can auto search for traps within 10 feet), and he has the Master Explorer ability (from the Pathfinder Delver prestige class) that allows him to take 10 on Disable Device checks (so he's effectively +40 right off the bat).
Granted, we're in a high level campaign but traps have become a complete waste of time and I don't bother designing or wasting any time on them at all anymore since the Uber-Trapfinder can pretty much auto detect and auto disable them as a matter of course.
I'm not looking for ways to nerf his abilities (since he did pay for them) but rather ways to make traps useful and/or a threat at least some of the time (even if I need to use alternative trap rules or Rule Zero to make them a factor).
Again, I can live with a lot of traps being found and disabled automatically but every once in a while it would be nice to have a trap that could actually have an impact in the game.
Any suggestions?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Use haunts. They fit the same general role.
Or, use environmental effects, like water filled rooms, poisoned air filled rooms. Areas with weather effects or weird magic traits.
Or use traps that are manually activated. A couple of archetypes have trap class features or special abilities to trigger traps.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What the Uber-Trapfinder needs is the Moriarity of trap making - some bygone inventor/genius who left clues among his inventions that lead to the location of his ultimate Rube Goldberg style trap. Only by successfully disarming an invention does it reveal its clue, otherwise it's destroyed in the triggering. His master trap is so large, and so complicated, that some parts of it must be triggered, and other parts disarmed, for the trapfinder to progress through it.
This idea might entirely sidetrack your campaign. So I suggest devising a trap that, by disarming it, it triggers the real trap further in the dungeon. The trapfinder successfully pulls out the right gear and bends back the needles of, say, a door trap, just to hear a heavy thud and an ominous scraping further down the tunnels. In short, don't let him see the entire device, just a piece of it, so he's unsure as to its true purpose and doesn't know if disarming it is actually the best option.
Monsters in a room with traps, monsters know where the traps are and avoid them while trying to herd the PCs into setting them off. And throw some glyphs of warding on the ceiling behind illusions just to screw with flying PCs.
Also, put an Explosive Runes trap on the underside of the lid of a treasure chest, goes off auto: "Today I memorized Exploding Runes." Or it could be something hard to not read: "It."
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Riffing on the manually activated traps idea, what about traps that need to be set off in order to proceed? (Kind of like the Goonies)
In a game I played, there was a lever we had to pull to open a passage to the next area, but the lever was in such a position that whoever pulled it risked getting crushed by the block that moved out of the way, which meant my rogue had to make some checks to pull the lever and get out unscathed.
So your guy realizes that the way forward is trapped with his Perception, and has some sense of what's going to happen. He can't outright disable it (because that just blocks the path) but he can make a Disable Device check to give a bonus in dealing with the trap (maybe the block falls slower, giving him more time to get out of the way.)
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a PC trapfinder in our game who is an "Uber-Trapfinder", as in his base modifiers are above +30 for both Perception and Disable Device, he has the Trap Spotter rogue talent(so can auto search for traps within 10 feet), and he has the Master Explorer ability (from the Pathfinder Delver prestige class) that allows him to take 10 on Disable Device checks (so he's effectively +40 right off the bat).
Granted, we're in a high level campaign but traps have become a complete waste of time and I don't bother designing or wasting any time on them at all anymore since the Uber-Trapfinder can pretty much auto detect and auto disable them as a matter of course.
I'm not looking for ways to nerf his abilities (since he did pay for them) but rather ways to make traps useful and/or a threat at least some of the time (even if I need to use alternative trap rules or Rule Zero to make them a factor).
Again, I can live with a lot of traps being found and disabled automatically but every once in a while it would be nice to have a trap that could actually have an impact in the game.
Any suggestions?
This is simple.
Don't.
The character is built be a good trapfinder. So guess what? They should be good at disabling traps.
So what if that makes traps not useful. They make the trapfinder feel useful, that's useful enough.
This is insane, I actually agree with Anzyr about something!
Don't.
That was my first idea, but it seemed a bit obvious, and the OP did ask how to make traps relevant. I am agreeing with you, a character who has built himself to be awesome in a field should feel awesome in that field, but devising ways to challenge said character in their special field of expertise can be a way to add some excitement to the game. In this case, uber-traps should be the exception rather than the rule. Uber-McTrapmeister not only gets to feel useful by disarming common traps in his sleep, but then occasionally they get to feel legendary by overcoming a challenge that would thwart a lesser mortal.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Get creative with it. You know he is going to disable them, so use them for something other than an obstacle or threat.
Put rare poisons/items/components for the party to recover once he has disarmed it. Things that might come in handy in the encounters to come.
Use traps in combat, things that will make the fight that much more difficult for everyone if he doesn't take the time to stop the horrible dream cloud from sucking their standard actions away.
He wants to be a great trap smith. He has told you how you can engage him in the campaign and give him his spotlight time. USE THAT.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, except it doesn't give him a spotlight. Everyone at the table is like, "Ho hum, another trap he automatically finds and disables." And as a result, we don't even bother with traps because there's no sense of danger anymore.
Thanks for those who are trying to say there isn't a problem (feel free to move on to another thread) but there is and that's what I'm seeking advice on.
This isn't about the Uber-Trapfinder feeling awesome in his field. It's about making traps relevant to the game again.
Best idea so far is the one about traps triggering something that opens up the path and being exposed to the danger is what's required to proceed. I like that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't about the Uber-Trapfinder feeling awesome in his field. It's about making traps relevant to the game again.
This is a problem everyone faces, regardless of whether the trap finder has Disable Device twinked out to +30 or is just a paladin or barbarian with the HP to eat the trap and keep going.
Remember traps take time to disable - let him have a few independent traps to use his huge plusses one, but make some that are set by bad guys who will use the time it takes you to detect and remove traps to blast you repatedly (arrows, spells, etc.).
The idea behind his build is to make traps not relevant In a way you are trying to nerf him. I would talk to the player about it because many in his position would not be happen.
|
I came to the conclusion that traps are effectively "eventually beatable." Anyone who spends the appropriate skill checks in the two areas becomes a master disabler. And, well, if they begin a life of thievery, can even become a Thief of Legend, disabling traps as they go off! As it should be. The ToL means that even if the take 10 means failure, they can still stop the trap. So even if you make a trap 30 points above their skill level, eventually they will still be able to beat it.
Game is designed that way. Game is designed with very few traps above DC37 (some 43s I've seen in a module). 27 with take 10 is pretty easy in a high level campaign where you start with CL Ranks, +3, + any feat, racial ability, magic item, etc... that gives a bonus. Now you are at 30 easily, like you said.
Why would you want to punish someone who on a normal day can spot and do the impossible (40 is near impossible, 50 is basically supposed to be impossible)? (ps. 40 perception is seeing right where an invisible person who is not moving is (as long as they aren't using stealth))
As far as "time to disable" - there are many abilities that drop the time down and down and down... until it becomes a move or swift action (with a thrown weapon, so it can be done at range even).
(ps. the three rogues in my high level campaign just stole every mage's spell books in Egorian - from every mage under level 15... without getting caught or setting off a trap... because, well, they are just that good at gather information, stealth (with greater invisibility), perception, and disable device) - pps. they made Mantles of Mind Blank prior to the endeavor.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM's wanting to make traps "interesting" by not letting the uber-trapfinder disable traps is just another reason you should not play Rogue. Should have just played a better class and so when the "interesting" traps come you are no worse off and better off in every other aspect.
Yay... that sounds fun.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Echoing GreyWolfLord, to my surprise I find myself agreeing with Anzyr. If his character has focused on being an "Uber-Trapfinder", he has as a consequence of the way the game is designed, weakened himself in other arenas to do so. He has spent skill points, feats, and class features on this one thing.
Additionally, you have stated this is a high level game. I'm sorry to tell you this now rather than before your game got to this level, but the game just doesn't operate in the same way in the different level "tiers" of play. Poison arrow traps, pit traps, and even mighty spell traps are not a challenge by themselves. If the encounter is "there's a wail of the banshee trap in this hallway", it's a bad encounter.
If you still want to use traditional-looking traps in your game separate from encounters with enemies, take a look at Selk's suggestion:
What the Uber-Trapfinder needs is the Moriarity of trap making - some bygone inventor/genius who left clues among his inventions that lead to the location of his ultimate Rube Goldberg style trap. Only by successfully disarming an invention does it reveal its clue, otherwise it's destroyed in the triggering. His master trap is so large, and so complicated, that some parts of it must be triggered, and other parts disarmed, for the trapfinder to progress through it.
This method makes the trap not just "two skill checks and done". There is a larger puzzle at hand, and during the solving of it the Uber-Trapfinder's skills will be nearly required to progress. I would suggest an entire dungeon that IS a trap. And not just a trap, a multi-sectional symphony of traps with redundancies and manual overrides, as well as several constructs/undead/whatever there to supplement it. You can put whatever reward or McGuffin you want inside, so long as you tie the mastermind trapmaker into it's placement in his masterpiece.
With my other post aside if you want the affects of traps, then use some sort of obstacle or hazard instead.
However once it has a perception and disable DC it is mechanically a trap. If you make it impossible to disable because he cant get to the deactivation area, then technically it is a trap but in reality it is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, except it doesn't give him a spotlight. Everyone at the table is like, "Ho hum, another trap he automatically finds and disables." And as a result, we don't even bother with traps because there's no sense of danger anymore.
Thanks for those who are trying to say there isn't a problem (feel free to move on to another thread) but there is and that's what I'm seeking advice on.
This isn't about the Uber-Trapfinder feeling awesome in his field. It's about making traps relevant to the game again.
Best idea so far is the one about traps triggering something that opens up the path and being exposed to the danger is what's required to proceed. I like that.
This really more like a puzzle, not a trap. You are just using the trap rules. If the player can't really bypass the danger with his skills it is not a trap. It is an obstacle.
I have used a variation of Nakteo's suggestion - make the whole room a trap, and not just a single one but several crammed together. Then use the Game Mastery Guide's chase rules as a basis for how to resolve this.
The idea behind this is to a) make traps less of a binary Yes/No obstacle, and b) give the whole party a chance to participate (without stealing the rogue's spotlight). Obviously, this works best if the trapped room is something like the training chamber from Kung Fu Panda - lots of moving parts, each a different kind of challenge.
Since there is no way to disable the whole trap from the initial spot, a successful Trapfinding roll would give the rogue a bonus on maneuvering through it instead (like a +8 or something, it really should be a substantial bonus). Divide the trapped room into zones that can be disabled individually, so that the rogue can create safe spots to retreat to, or for the others to follow up.
I haven't used this setup very often, but with great success. My old group is still talking about that one room where the barbarian followed the rogue prematurely, got stuck between moving beams, went into a rage, and exchanged blows with the trap while the rogue was trying to disassemble the damn thing (and failed for several rounds).
I have used a variation of Nakteo's suggestion - make the whole room a trap, and not just a single one but several crammed together. Then use the Game Mastery Guide's chase rules as a basis for how to resolve this.
The idea behind this is to a) make traps less of a binary Yes/No obstacle, and b) give the whole party a chance to participate (without stealing the rogue's spotlight). Obviously, this works best if the trapped room is something like the training chamber from Kung Fu Panda - lots of moving parts, each a different kind of challenge.
Since there is no way to disable the whole trap from the initial spot, a successful Trapfinding roll would give the rogue a bonus on maneuvering through it instead (like a +8 or something, it really should be a substantial bonus). Divide the trapped room into zones that can be disabled individually, so that the rogue can create safe spots to retreat to, or for the others to follow up.
I haven't used this setup very often, but with great success. My old group is still talking about that one room where the barbarian followed the rogue prematurely, got stuck between moving beams, went into a rage, and exchanged blows with the trap while the rogue was trying to disassemble the damn thing (and failed for several rounds).
This is not a "trap" per the game definition however. It is an obstacle, made of several traps, but it does seem interesting, and it does keep the trap guy involved.
However unless someone sets the room in motion the rogue can still make sure it never gets started. To make it be less contrived I would have someone be able to throw a lever or switch.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another option could be to make traps less a threat and more an opportunity. Perhaps the party are being chased or followed through a dungeon. All of a sudden every trap becomes something that you could bypass then set up to cause maximum harm to those following you. This way you reward both investment in Disable Device & Perception and encourage player tactical thinking and creativity.
Even in a standard dungeon it's possible to have a trap set in a corridor next to a room full of enemies. Sure, your players could disable the trap, or they could bypass it and lure enemies into it during combat.
If your Trapfinder is good at traps then you don't want to just leave traps out entirely. That is more or less the same as only throwing fire immune monsters at the party because the fire-mage is too powerful.
Try to come up with a ratio of traps to encounter to quests.
Perhaps per module you have the XP divided 1/5 (traps) 4/5 other stuff.
You don't want to completely eliminate traps, but instead make their activation inevitable with multiple disable device checks required to actually turn it off.
I quite like the idea of making a mini-scenario based on traps that both makes use of the skill and showcases it. For example:
"You're in combat with a group of mooks in a room, at the far end is a lever. As soon as the mooks rush in, their commander throws the lever and dodges out the back door, just as the doors slam shut and the ceiling starts to descend!
Your trapfinder notices four concealed cogs controlling the descent scattered around the room. If he can get to each one in turn and jam it then the ceiling will stop - all it needs is a simple disable device check and a standard action to stick a rock/iron piton/whatever in the mechanism. The rest of the party need to keep the enemies occupied while your trapper dashes around. Each cog jammed slows the ceiling down and buys time, and jamming all four stops it and unlocks the doors."
This way the trap DCs aren't really the issue - your player is meant to be able to beat them. The tricky part is getting from one to the other in the midst of combat.
|
Make the skill usefull for other aspects of the adventure - sure a few very high dc traps can pe fun from time to time - but they will soon be as obsolete as the dc 30 trap is right now.
Disable device could be the skill to reactivate the ancient clockwork machine that is part of the dungeon (with much higher dcs for different steps, finding the right parts in the rubble of the dungeon, non-trap encounters and much at stake since destroying the machine could possibly take away the only know way to defeat the BBEG)
Use some traps to lay down a false trail. For example have the party come to an intersection where one of the ways has a trap. At this point most people will disarm the trap and follow that way. So instead of the trapped way being the correct way, have the other way be the correct way. The trapped way leads to a wild goose chase.
Another thing you can do is to have the act of disarming a trap cause something else to happen. Maybe when he disarms a trap it arms a second trap behind it so the other players stumble into it. Since the second trap is more than 10 feet away he does not get a perception roll to spot it. Or maybe disarming the trap causes a wall to shift blocking the way back.
You could also create a situation where to progress the trap needs to be triggered. Teleport traps work very well for this. Maybe the only way to reach the BBEG lair is to teleport in through a teleportation trap. Another interesting variation is to use benevolent traps. Maybe the gaseous cloud the trap releases is actually a potion of fire resistance and the next part of the dungeon is through an area of fire.
When a trap is just a trap it is a trap, but when a trap is something else it becomes interesting.
Well, it really depends on what you're designing the trap to do. What is it guarding? How is it guarding it. Here are some examples:
1) The trap was built by a races that could naturally fly (like the strix). The trap bars the entrance, but the only way to disarm it is by pressing a switch on the other side of a chasm. Better still, there is a second trap on the other side of the chasm that has an arcane eye effect, and if it sees someone flying across it tries to cast greater dispel magic on the area on the flier, resetting every minute. To disarm the trap, your trap monkey needs to figure out how to get across the chasm.
2) Likewise, the trap is designed to trigger long before the player can get close enough to disarm it. He can still detect it at the usual penalty (–1 on Perception checks for every 10 feet away that the trap is) but he needs to figure out a way to bypass the trap in a different manner.
In both of these situations, you're not talking away from the player's abilities. His massive Perception os still being used to identify the trap and his Trap Spotter talent is coming into play. What you are doing, however, is adding an extra layer of depth to the disarming process. For high-level rogues, numbers aren't enough to challenge them.
I dunno it sounds like his character is working as intended. You should probably ask him to retrain some trap stuff to other stuff so you don't get into an arms race if you want him to have higher odds of failure.
He probably feels pretty badass about not breaking a sweat when disarming deadly traps though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds like quite a pickle for you. While on one hand, as Azyr said, you don't want to make the player's work and effort to become a trapfinder feel muted with traps he can't overcome. But at the same time, now you're down an entire asset that GM's typically use to add flavor to their games. The Moriarty trap is a great way to get around this as others have suggested. Another thing you could do, and not sure how detection rules would work here, would be to trap the trap. You know he's going to find it, and you know he's going to disable it. So make that the trap. I'm not sure what abilities he has specifically, but you need to remember that a lot of traps, the complex ones at least, hide their mechanical function behinds walls, floors or doors. So when he goes to look for a trigger or "off-switch" to disable it, he can only see what's in front of him and maybe draw on his trap knowledge to infer what's going on in the walls and stuff. So while he may be able to get a 40 without trying, what does that represent? It's hard to say. Does it give him the ability to perfectly infer whats going on mechanically 30 feet down the hall behind the walls? I wouldn't think so, but he might disagree. If I have two control boxes for traps on both sides of a hall and all he knows is "each disables one side of the room and they are connected somehow", does he know how they are connected. Probably not, unless he has x-ray vision and can see through foot-thick stone walls and ceiling where the wires and pullies run. So for instance, would this approach be appropriate?
DM: "You walk into a 30 foot long and 15 foot wide hallway. Along the outer walls are several dragon statues facing the opposite wall with gaping maws. Scorch marks mar the floors and statues. Rogue, you are able to see that to you're left and right are loose wall-plates that hides the the mechanisms for each side of the room."
Rogue: "Okay, I'll use perception to inspect them."
DM: "It looks like a fairly standard trap, simple for someone of your skill set. You note that the trigger is rigged with a wire shared between both control boxes."
(What he doesn't know is what that wire does. When he disables one, the wire will trigger the other side. So he has to decide, what is up with that wire?)
Rogue: "Okay, I'll inspect that wire further and try to figure out where it goes."
DM: "You can only assume that it runs to the other control box, connecting the trigger."
Rogue: "Okay, I'll disable the left one."
DM: "You set the trigger from ever switching, but as you get everything in place you hear a click come from the trigger box behind you. Suddenly the all the statues on the right side of the hall are spraying a constant stream of fire."
Not every trap has to be disable-able either. If I've got a big ass boulder hiding in a fake ceiling 40 feet off the ground and it's triggered manually by a kobold peering through two tiny eye holes at the other end of the room, there's no way he's disabling that! No amount sticks, pitons and twigs are going to stuff the cracks enough to hold the weight once the trap is sprung. If the rogue gets upset because you're not giving him a chance to shine or you're undermining his character's specialty, that's partly his fault. He put all his eggs in one basket. And I'm pretty sure the adage tells you NOT to do that lol. But don't take that as a cause to punish him. It's going to be a challenge but there are alternatives.
- Place the control box in a position where the players have to navigate the trap first. Justification for such a setup: the enemies inhabiting the place would normally hail down a person manning the "off-switch" to get safe passage through the room.
- Don't place any control box for the rogue to disable the trap. Justification for such a setup: the trap is triggered manually by another creature, or the mechanics are all behind walls.
- Make the trap giant, with giant mechanisms requiring strength rather than disable device. Justification for such a setup: the players are in a storm giant fortress and come across a large room with a large trap.
- Two triggers have to be disabled at the same time. He can only apply half his disable device modifier to each roll since his concentration is split. Justification for such a setup: the person who built this trap wanted to ensure that no one would be able to find a work-around.
- Remove the rogue from the scenario. Split the party somehow with the most technically inept people in one area (the trapped area) and the magically inept in another (the magical area). Justification for such a setup: The only way forward required activating an artifact that would transport the players to different rooms.
- Use a mimic disguised as the control panel. It gets +30 to disguise as an object, he will be equally matched on that end. Place this in an encounter, and the set-back of dealing with the creature could hurt the party, even as easy at it would be. If he touches it..."Opponents so grappled cannot get free while the mimic is alive without removing the adhesive first."
- "Legends and tales speak of mimics of much greater sizes, with the ability to assume the form of houses, ships, or entire dungeon complexes that they festoon with treasure (both real and false) to lure unsuspecting food within." Make the trap/mechanism a mimic. And make it big.
- Find a way to blind the rogue. Normally, he would fail that because it relies on vision, but give him a chance with a great penalty for being as good as he is. Justification for such a setup: the room has a supernatural darkness, blinding mold covers the control box that release spores when disturbed.
Good luck with your adventuring!
If a martial character is always hitting the enemy, is your response to do your best to make the ACs of the enemy ridiculously high so that no one, not even him, can hit them? No, you let him feel good for being so effective at his job. At least, I hope so.
If a character has built his character to be an unstoppable trapfinding machine, then let him. Geez. Give him his niche, especially since he gave up so much effectiveness in other areas.
How to make traps useful? Place them near the party, let this guy find and deal with them. He feels rewarded. There, useful.
If a martial character is always hitting the enemy, is your response to do your best to make the ACs of the enemy ridiculously high so that no one, not even him, can hit them? No, you let him feel good for being so effective at his job. At least, I hope so.
If a character has built his character to be an unstoppable trapfinding machine, then let him. Geez. Give him his niche, especially since he gave up so much effectiveness in other areas.
How to make traps useful? Place them near the party, let this guy find and deal with them. He feels rewarded. There, useful.
I think you're missing a key part to ensure the player feels rewarded: it still needs to be a challenge. As you say, if a martial character is always hitting the enemy, do I up the AC to make him unhittable? No, but I do up the AC to make it a challenge, at least in steady manner that follows their progression. Elsewise I would throw kobolds and goblins at the party the entire campaign because the melee characters hit and kill them, the casters succeed on their saving throws, and the party never gets hurt. I think the OP is having the problem of presenting the challenge to the player. If I build this awesome incredible trapfinder, and he can tackle anything, I still want some semblance of a challenge. If the combat -focused characters get bad ass enemies to fight that make them feel like gods, I want a trap that does the same thing. I didn't build this character to hear "there's a trap, you disable it." "I didn't roll though?" "It doesn't matter, you always succeed."
This brings up a point I'm not sure has been mentioned. Ask the player if he is satisfied with the challenges he is receiving. Let him know he is extremely powerful in that regard, and not much would stand in his way then ask if he wants you to challenge that, or give him the free-be's. Afterall, it wouldn't be fair to just eliminate traps from dungeons just because he can disable them without looking. At the same time, I would think it'd be pretty boring to say, here's a trap but you can easily disable it. So ask him, does he want you to challenge that aspect of his character as you do the martial's combat prowess and the caster's arcane abilities?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder about his motives for the character's build.
I know when I first started playing with my current group, we felt we always needed a trapfinder. The consensus was that traps were super-deadly, and if you didn't have someone who could reliably disarm or bypass them, the party would TPK pretty quickly. Having an uber-trapfinder wasn't something you wanted to do, it was something you HAD to do. And it sucked.
Since then we have largely been playing without traps or trapfinders, and it's definitely been better.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that your "problem" is likely exactly that, a problem you created. Making traps "challenging again" just furthers the arms race you've created. He wouldn't have put that much effort into being good at disabling traps if he didn't feel it was as useful to survival as being a super rage-pounce murder machine.
It's cause and effect: you make deadly traps, he makes sure they don't kill his character or the party, then you're frustrated that your traps aren't deadly so you make them harder. Even if he finds a way to auto-succeed against your more challenging traps, you will simply make them harder again. Since he has a finite ceiling on his character's ability and you don't have a limit by virtue of being the DM, the end result will be a frustrated player. He has made it his goal to protect the party from traps, and either he will succeed or he will be unsatisfied with his character.
At this point my suggestion is to ditch traps wholesale. Yes, I mean never place another trap in your game again. Let's be honest here, they don't add anything to the story or gameplay that other mechanics can't do better. Let the players know this, and let the trapfinder retrain his trap-related feats and character choices if he wants. You may need to point out that disable device has other uses aside from disabling traps. Hopefully he will take it well, given that you are essentially telling him, "Your character is so good at traps that you win at them forever."
|
So, I learned something today. I had forgotten that disabling traps can take more than 1 round!
So, that leads to a question. If it takes 2d4 rounds to Disable a complex trap (DC 25+), what happens if the Disabler is interrupted during that time? Say, by being attacked, or suddenly having to make a reflex save?
Should the Disabler be considered flat-footed (or denied Dex) during the disable attempt?
What about taking penalties to the Disable check for damage taken during the attempt?
What about a mook running up during the attempt and triggering the trap while the Disabler is working on it (my personal favorite!).
All good points, though the fact that the Pathfinder Delver lets him half the disabling time mitigates it somewhat.
This is a pretty interesting thread, really. I do like the ways to make traps more interesting, not just linearly more difficult. The question about whether Disable Device gives you some degree of Knowledge (Traps) is an interesting one.
To pick a complex lock (part of DD) you most definitely need a working understanding of how locks and various tumbler systems are constructed. It seems likely that while they wouldn't know all the specifics, someone with Trapfinding and a high Disable Device would probably be able to infer a number of things about any given trap. Any trap involving a heavy weight (lowering ceiling, sliding stone blocks) likely involves some kind of counterweight & pulley system, just as most spike, arrow or dart traps are likely powered by springs or a torsion system of some kind. I don't know if players will be as clued up as their characters on dealing with this though!
I never thought traps were all that relevant to the game anyway, standalone they're horribly boring. They're either resolved by an attack roll followed by one sentence of description, or some skills rolls, and one sentence of description. They're basically busy work for a single character that get utilized when a scenario is becoming combat-heavy, but the GM in question is bad with puzzles and other encounter types (Like myself)
But! To actually answer your question I recommend dungeons with high vaulted ceilings, and arrow traps. Lets see that ten foot radius auto check become relevant now, punk. That or you could use traps that have a consequence whether they're disarmed or triggered. For example a pit trap may still reveal the pit once the trap has been disarmed, thus creating a large roadblock for the PC's (Provided they're in a hallway, but you get my point)
Also, your trapfinder doesn't need to feel like a magical fluffy bunny special snowflake every time his party encounters a trap, the Barbarian doesn't automatically hit everything, the wizard's spells don't always work, why does he have to succeed all the time because he hyper specialized to be a pain in your ass? The occasional horrible failure goes a long way to make successes more meaningful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why does he have to succeed all the time because he hyper specialized to be a pain in your ass?
That's a poor attitude for a GM to take. When a player builds his character to be good at a particular task, you think it's to be a pain in your ass?
@Rudy2, I was being facetious. Of course the player isn't trying to purposefully poke me with a stick, but just as I should be accommodating of the character they want to play, they should be understanding about the game I want to run. Again, failure happens to the best of us, it's not a game if he always wins.
@TOZ, Word, it's just the whole vibe of them that turn me off, I can't properly explain it. Even in a dungeon setting I don't enjoy how quickly they're thrown into the game and then swept aside after maybe 20 seconds. Though, I guess that means I should get more creative with how I look at trap placement.
|
|
I had a very enjoyable time throwing a trap at my party recently. It involved a pit whose edges crumbled, dumping the PCs into a hundred foot drop. Creatures flying over the pit trip a falling block from above.
The barbarian did not check for traps, leapt to the other side while the party member holding the rope stepped into the trap and fell. While catching her, he stepped to the edge and fell in as well. The witch feather falled them, then the flying alchemist tripped the block. :) Would have gone much different with the OPs character, but oh well.
|
|
You know, I've seen two sides of this argument so far. That of GM Fiat, and Player Entitlement. To be fair, if you just want to disable every trap ever conceived by your GM, then tell him this. He'll probably be alright with it as long as that is your player expectation. If it isn't your player expectation, and you are honestly afraid of traps TPK-ing the party, then perhaps the GM is too antagonistic. But this all comes down to Player VS GM either way. That's not how things are supposed to work.
My stance in this, is cooperative challenge. The GM should feel that his story is a masterpiece, and the players should feel their characters are living, breathing heroes. It should work both ways. Not one way.
Here's my answer to this question.... Percentage. If you're rogue is disabling every trap in the Gamemastery Guide, your Adventure Path, your homebrew game, or what-have-you. Then make the DCs ever so slightly higher. Can your rogue disable something at a baseline of DC 40 without rolling? Then, make the DC 45. That's only a small percentage of failure for a standard trap. Want to make him feel like his character just went through the ringer just once? Design a dungeon with variant trap setups. Disabling the trap in room 1 turns on and keeps on the trap in room 4. The entire place turns into a logic puzzle that, yes, he can make all the DCs, but he has to figure out in character which traps to leave active, and which to turn off. If you need an idea for it, Lights Out is a good example of a lever setup.
And, before anyone tries to defend "I made this character to do this, so yes, I should always succeed." or brings up the "Oh, in that case you should just make every monster impossible to hit." I have done these things, but in interesting ways. If my party fighter and barbarian specializes in DPR and is hitting for something like 80 dmg per round, then I'm going to make a wizard villain who has tapped into a wellspring of power. This villain only has 10 AC, but he regenerates 75 hp per round. Sure, you can win by slugging it out, or you can think and find a way to turn off his wellspring somehow, even if it's as simple as the barbarian collapsing the roof with the pillars in the wall to seal the wizard inside of the spring.
Edit: This works for my group because I do this sparingly. At the end of important scenes, or story arcs. I'm also open with what's going on behind the screen. After the completion of a dungeon, or a fight, I'll hand them all my notes.
I never thought traps were all that relevant to the game anyway, standalone they're horribly boring. They're either resolved by an attack roll followed by one sentence of description, or some skills rolls, and one sentence of description.
My guess then is you've never utilized the true potential of kobolds. I ran a level 7 party of 4 through a kobold warren filled with traps and it was almost a TPK. When they came out, there were 2. Every single room and hall was a death trap. The kobolds had dug out small tunnels between rooms that were a cake-walk for them to run through, but too burdensome for the party. When the halfing thought to run in and chase them down he found himself falling through a false floor made of ice that he was about 50lbs of weapons and armor too heavy for. He landed in freezing waters that washed out to the sea, he was not rescued. Bye-bye trapfinder. The players insisted that they continue through to recover the white dragon egg that they so desperately needed (I don't really remember why). The remaining players never fought a kobold. Not one. Only an adult white dragon they managed to defeat by luring it into a trap. The dragon managed to take one player with him, though.
I've also had a "trap" that would sink a city into an underground prison if the rogue couldn't disarm it in time. He had to instruct groups of professionals on the matter and send them out to various parts of the city to get it done in time. Meanwhile the rest of the party was underground trying to stop a prison riot and under threat of being crushed by the city above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I've seen two sides of this argument so far. That of GM Fiat, and Player Entitlement. To be fair, if you just want to disable every trap ever conceived by your GM, then tell him this. He'll probably be alright with it as long as that is your player expectation. If it isn't your player expectation, and you are honestly afraid of traps TPK-ing the party, then perhaps the GM is too antagonistic. But this all comes down to Player VS GM either way. That's not how things are supposed to work.
My stance in this, is cooperative challenge. The GM should feel that his story is a masterpiece, and the players should feel their characters are living, breathing heroes. It should work both ways. Not one way.
Here's my answer to this question.... Percentage. If you're rogue is disabling every trap in the Gamemastery Guide, your Adventure Path, your homebrew game, or what-have-you. Then make the DCs ever so slightly higher. Can your rogue disable something at a baseline of DC 40 without rolling? Then, make the DC 45. That's only a small percentage of failure for a standard trap. Want to make him feel like his character just went through the ringer just once? Design a dungeon with variant trap setups. Disabling the trap in room 1 turns on and keeps on the trap in room 4. The entire place turns into a logic puzzle that, yes, he can make all the DCs, but he has to figure out in character which traps to leave active, and which to turn off. If you need an idea for it, Lights Out is a good example of a lever setup.
And, before anyone tries to defend "I made this character to do this, so yes, I should always succeed." or brings up the "Oh, in that case you should just make every monster impossible to hit." I have done these things, but in interesting ways. If my party fighter and barbarian specializes in DPR and is hitting for something like 80 dmg per round, then I'm going to make a wizard villain who has tapped into a wellspring of power. This villain only has 10 AC, but he regenerates 75 hp per round. Sure,...
Here let me summarize what I'm getting out of your post.
Quick! Use fiat until the challenge goes the way you want it to. Make up insane levels regeneration, that'll show a damage dealer to kill things before you want them dead. Chance of success should only be on your terms, and failure should always be an option no matter how many resources a player has invested in doing something well (and ignore the fact that this makes investing in doing something well a bad idea, since it makes you look like jerk).
Did I get that right?