| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I was tinkering with ideas on how to make Disable Device skill challenges more interesting. A lot of stuff I've seen is too unnecessarily complex, and I wanted something that made unlocking a door or disarming a trap a quick, painless (hopefully), but engaging experience. Puna'chong senior suggested Blackjack, since it is essentially the most impartial playing card game out there, and it's focused around a 1v1 fight. So I made a system around it and tested it last night with my group to great success.
Disable Device still matters, but it's less "Thou comest upon the mystical Door of Archthanaton [Perception perceives a trap]. Roll, thou rogue, thine Disable Device check! [It's a 30]. Ok. You're in." Instead, I made success increase the odds just enough to make having a good Disable Device check useful. The system also allows for doors to be bypassed eventually, keeping players from being totally locked out unless there's a really big "bust," but it makes traps comparatively much scarier:
-The party comes upon a lock or a trap that needs to be disabled.
-With a normal pack of playing cards, the DM (dealer) shuffles them up (no jokers; more on that later)
Lock
For a lock, the DM doesn't get his own cards, since a lock doesn't bite you if you screw up.
-The player gets 2 cards, face-up. He decides whether to hit or restart. [This is intentional, since it lets a cautious character take their time on the lock rather than push to open it right away. Note that this might not work if a lock has to be unlocked quickly/in combat/etc., since each game is a full attempt]
- If the player hits and gets 21, the lock is unlocked. If they hit and they're still below 21, they can choose to hit again, or restart.
-If the player hits and gets above 21 (or "busts"), they don't succeed at opening the lock, but can try again. If, however, they bust by 5 or more, they break the lock.
Pretty simple. Just a game within a game that makes something more interesting that otherwise isn't all that exciting.
Traps
Traps are scarier. Against traps, the player is playing against the DM/"Trap," which plays like a normal game of Blackjack.
-The player gets their two cards face-up. The DM gets one card face-down, and one face-up.
-The player decides to hit or stay. Once they decide to stay, the DM does what a Blackjack dealer normally does: they reveal the face-down card and hit until they reach 17, 21, or they bust.
-If the DM's total exceeds the player's total without busting, the player loses and the trap goes off. If the DM gets 21, the player loses and the trap goes off. If the DM busts, the game starts over.
-If the player gets 21, they succeed at disabling the trap.
Disable Device
The way Disable Device plays into this is that if the player succeeds at their check, they win on a 20, 21, or 22. Which is pretty big, if you've ever played Blackjack, and is usually enough to win right there. If they succeed by 10 or more, they increase that range by one more: 19,20,21,22,23.
If the player doesn't succeed at their disable check, they still get one attempt to pick the lock or disable the trap. This keeps parties from being totally locked out of a cool room or totally dead just because the rogue flubbed one roll; they could still win the game. If they fail their disable device check by less than 4, they can try again as normal. However, a trap still goes off if the player fails their Disable Check by 5 or more, and a lock is now broken if they fail their check by 10 or more, though they still get one Blackjack game before either of these events happen.
If the player fails their disable check against a trap, but wins Blackjack, the trap doesn't go off, but it isn't disabled, and they can attempt their disable check again. If the player fails their disable check against a lock, but wins Blackjack, the unlock it.
The idea is that the player could get lucky and catch themselves at the last minute, keeping the trap from springing, or blunder into the correct pins to open the door, even though they were a dingaling and jammed their lockpick in too hard.
Trapfinding
If a class has the Trapfinding class feature, they get one free reset on any given lock or trap once per day, and they can take the reset even after the results are known. Other classes disable as normal.
My players went through this last night and they enjoyed it quite a bit. There was a bit more suspense at a door (though not much; doors are usually pretty trivial anyways), but traps were a new game. The whole table was involved, yelling at the rogue to either hit or stay, and one trap even went through three games of Blackjack. I've also been planning some feats or maybe rogue talents that play off of this a little bit, like if a player gets a 21 on their first two cards they get one free d20 reroll for the next 10 minutes.
Hope it makes sense.
This is.... a really good idea. I may have to use this, especially for hacking. I'm going to be running a hacking science fiction game so this would make hacking more engaging. Hell, I could see this with a lot of "tinkering" skill checks.
How would you handle lockpicking during combat rounds? A limit to cards drawn per round perhaps?
But, I guess I don't get it: by RAW if you roll a success with a Disable Device you succeed. In your minigame, if you roll a success you only have a slightly better chance of winning. In the meantime if they want to try again it's supposed to get progressively harder. So even though the trap doesn't blow up in their face they keep rolling and playing the odds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand wanting to make it more engaging...but as a player, if I'm investing ranks in disable device and I get up to a +20 and then you tell me that I can't disable a trap that is a DC 30 (take 10) because I'm unlucky with the cards...
I'm going to start calling bullshit.
The whole point of my investing skill points is to guarantee success. I know you want to make it more "fun", but as a player all it would do it piss me off if I don't get to instantly succeed when my skill is so high that I can't fail.
You don't make your players throw lawn darts to make ranged attacks do you?
You don't make them pull out foam weapons and attack you for melee attacks do you?
Players want their investments of skill points, BAB, etc to mean something. You're game eliminates the point of investing.
This is.... a really good idea. I may have to use this, especially for hacking. I'm going to be running a hacking science fiction game so this would make hacking more engaging. Hell, I could see this with a lot of "tinkering" skill checks.
How would you handle lockpicking during combat rounds? A limit to cards drawn per round perhaps?
Thanks! It worked much better than I had expected. They got way into it, and it was a pretty quick process. Rolling the damage and subsequent fortitude saves took about as much time as doing the actual game itself. I also like it because I can make traps nastier or less nasty by increasing the number of games that have to be won, or having a 20-22 spread right off the bat (like for a simple tripwire).
During combat it would be about the same, but I would say a good metric for in-combat is that one full game is the equivalent of disabling as a full-round action. So if you're slower than that, then you can split up the game accordingly: a minute would be 1/10 of a game. You could split it up however you want, though, and assign an action value to each turning of a card. Getting an Ace and a Face would be a very quick unlock, while going into the full five cards would be a slow, tedious process.
As far as skill checks are concerned: yes. It does make Disable Device less of an auto-win, but it also isn't an auto-fail now either. They still get one shot, and a rogue with trapfinding can still get two shots against a trap they fail against. Additionally, you're still incentivized to crank up Disable Device, because if you succeed hard, it's essentially a trivial encounter anyways; if you know the odds of Blackjack, increasing the range by two is huge, and will often let you win against a dealer on the spot. Sure, you could not invest in the skill and get lucky, but eventually that luck runs out, you fail, and you lose. It makes traps more interesting, and less of an auto-win that's dependent on one roll. Traps are boring otherwise.
Disable Device gives you consistency, but you still play the game because the whole point is to play the game. That's what is supposed to make disabling a trap or unlocking something more engaging. One roll and done, while maybe great for a player that just wants to power through everything, isn't (in my opinion, or my players') as interesting as playing a game of blackjack and still having that chance of messing up, even with a +30 Disable Device. My players are used to doing a lot of little minigames, and they enjoy them. I've been plugging them in for years: I've used Prof. Layton puzzles, card games, and even old LSAT questions if I really wanted a hard puzzle. I even made an entire board game for my Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign, complete with cards, a color-coded map, and full set of rules.
So if as a player you'd feel miffed by not being able to roll d20 to beat a trap, this isn't for you. If you want something that makes traps deadlier and more engaging, then this could be fun.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand wanting to make it more engaging...but as a player, if I'm investing ranks in disable device and I get up to a +20 and then you tell me that I can't disable a trap that is a DC 30 (take 10) because I'm unlucky with the cards...
I'm going to start calling b%$+&~$$.
The whole point of my investing skill points is to guarantee success. I know you want to make it more "fun", but as a player all it would do it piss me off if I don't get to instantly succeed when my skill is so high that I can't fail.
You don't make your players throw lawn darts to make ranged attacks do you?
You don't make them pull out foam weapons and attack you for melee attacks do you?
Players want their investments of skill points, BAB, etc to mean something. You're game eliminates the point of investing.
Agreed. Plus, if I'm not the player with disable device, I don't really want to sit back and watch someone else play card games every time there's a trap or lock.
Agreed. Plus, if I'm not the player with disable device, I don't really want to sit back and watch someone else play card games every time there's a trap or lock.I understand wanting to make it more engaging...but as a player, if I'm investing ranks in disable device and I get up to a +20 and then you tell me that I can't disable a trap that is a DC 30 (take 10) because I'm unlucky with the cards...
I'm going to start calling b%$+&~$$.
The whole point of my investing skill points is to guarantee success. I know you want to make it more "fun", but as a player all it would do it piss me off if I don't get to instantly succeed when my skill is so high that I can't fail.
You don't make your players throw lawn darts to make ranged attacks do you?
You don't make them pull out foam weapons and attack you for melee attacks do you?
Players want their investments of skill points, BAB, etc to mean something. You're game eliminates the point of investing.
Honestly the same argument is there for role-playing. If you don't have diplomacy or intimate or bluff, you don't want to stand and watch the bard making nice with the npc. Besides, blackjack is a quick game. If it takes you over a minute to do it, then the problem isn't with the system.
It takes longer to shuffle the deck than to play a game of Blackjack. Like Odraude said, any role-playing challenge will usually feature one, maybe two characters, and often will take a few minutes at least. The snark of "do you make your players play lawn darts?" is also pretty insulting. You're in the homebrew section. And you know, if I worked with my players and we decided to make a game that combined lawn darts and rolling for ranged weapon attacks, that's well within our rights.
I'm not making anyone do anything. I asked my players if they'd want to try out a system I made, they said "Sure!" enthusiastically, because I've made things like this in the past that have turned out to be fun additions. We played it, they enjoyed it, and we're keeping it. Being the member of the Paizo community that I am, I decided to share it in case someone (like Odraude) would want to use the system or could glean inspiration from it.
Thanks for checking in though.
I have a PC in a game we're going to be starting; he's a brawler but it so happens that he's the defacto skills monkey. I took a trait to get Disable Device but I'll never get trapfinding. With this game I would've spent a trait, plus rare skill points to take a skill that now may not do what it's supposed to do because I myself am unlucky?
This might be a better alternative, and it engages the entire party: use the Chase mechanic.
Surprise round: as PCs are poking around the dungeon they detect the tell-tale signs of a trap. Since it's impeding their progress and they didn't roll high enough to know how to bypass it, they decide to disarm.
The GM rolls a d4; this trap will take three rounds to disarm.
Round 1: GM pulls a card, puts it down, and there's 2 obstacles: one can be removed by Disable Device and the PCs can move right on through that card to the next. However, if the PCs successfully cancel BOTH obstacles, they progress 2 cards (2 rounds).
Round 2 (and on) repeat round 1 until all the cards are resolved.
If the PCs botch both obstacles on a single card, the trap resolves (PCs fall in a pit, take the javelin attack, etc). If however someone in the party has Trapfinding then they can maybe get a do-over on a card or something.
This way not only is the rogue validated for taking Disable but also the wizard and fighter might get to tag-team on a knowledge: dungeoneering to identify a standard underground hazard associated with the trap or maybe the cleric gets to make a heal check to ID the poison used on the needle in the wall or whatever.
One thing to reward the ranks in disable device. How about instead of rolling, if they have X amount of ranks in disable device, it increases the range of cards automatically. Maybe every three or four ranks it increases the range? It would reward the investment in the skill.
Those are both options, but I chose Blackjack because it's ideally random, impartial, and quick. Making it a chase means I have to devise a whole deck of cards around a single trap, which may not always apply to every trap, and it's less streamlined. Also, why does the whole party (of characters; people watch Blackjack/professional card games all the time) need to take part in what is very much an individual assignment? You bring a rogue or other character with disable device, because he/she alone is the one that has the knowhow to figure out and disarm or unlock things.
In movies, when the hacker is getting into government files, it's his time to shine. Everyone else is in suspense, but it's fundamentally about the hacker's skill. BUT, even though he's a fantastic hacker, he can still fail. It's that chance of failure that makes the scene exciting. If he just said, "Oh yeah. I'm really good at this, we're in. I don't even really have to try, necessarily, because I'm so good that it's a done deal. Even though we're level 15."
I do want to make using the skill important, though, and I'm not sure a static rank thing plays as much into that. I'm trying to remove the RAW method of rolling one die for Disable Device, seeing the result, and then moving on one way or the other. Blackjack's just a quick, easy game, and it's just strategic enough (I think) that a player can think a little or get lucky and still win on a botched roll.
It may be possible to make the game a best 2/3 for easier traps, best 3/5 for harder, or whatever, to give some leeway for classes that don't get the free reset from Trapfinding. But then that also somewhat devalues a class feature to a degree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It takes longer to shuffle the deck than to play a game of Blackjack. Like Odraude said, any role-playing challenge will usually feature one, maybe two characters, and often will take a few minutes at least. The snark of "do you make your players play lawn darts?" is also pretty insulting. You're in the homebrew section. And you know, if I worked with my players and we decided to make a game that combined lawn darts and rolling for ranged weapon attacks, that's well within our rights.
I'm not making anyone do anything. I asked my players if they'd want to try out a system I made, they said "Sure!" enthusiastically, because I've made things like this in the past that have turned out to be fun additions. We played it, they enjoyed it, and we're keeping it. Being the member of the Paizo community that I am, I decided to share it in case someone (like Odraude) would want to use the system or could glean inspiration from it.
Thanks for checking in though.
You're perception of insult and snark is not what I intended. I made those statements to illustrate a point. The point that you are removing the point of character investment (or at least heavily trivializing it). I'm not telling you to not make up house rules to make the game more fun, but I was telling you my opinion of your game, which was that I would hate it because my character investment means next to nothing.
Now, if you wanted to modify your system....
I would suggest that for every 5 of the skill modifier you give the player an additional hand to play against the dealer hand, and requiring only one hand to beat or meet the dealer hand to succeed. This makes skill investment more meaningful. I would also add that for every 5 in the skill you can add or remove 1 point to any hand. Such that, at a 20 you could add or remove 4 to any hand you have.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly the same argument is there for role-playing. If you don't have diplomacy or intimidate or bluff, you don't want to stand and watch the bard making nice with the npc. Besides, blackjack is a quick game. If it takes you over a minute to do it, then the problem isn't with the system.Agreed. Plus, if I'm not the player with disable device, I don't really want to sit back and watch someone else play card games every time there's a trap or lock.I understand wanting to make it more engaging...but as a player, if I'm investing ranks in disable device and I get up to a +20 and then you tell me that I can't disable a trap that is a DC 30 (take 10) because I'm unlucky with the cards...
I'm going to start calling b%$+&~$$.
The whole point of my investing skill points is to guarantee success. I know you want to make it more "fun", but as a player all it would do it piss me off if I don't get to instantly succeed when my skill is so high that I can't fail.
You don't make your players throw lawn darts to make ranged attacks do you?
You don't make them pull out foam weapons and attack you for melee attacks do you?
Players want their investments of skill points, BAB, etc to mean something. You're game eliminates the point of investing.
Except even if you don't have social skills, you can still PARTICIPATE in social encounters, if not meaningfully influence them.
Honestly the same argument is there for role-playing. If you don't have diplomacy or intimidate or bluff, you don't want to stand and watch the bard making nice with the npc. Besides, blackjack is a quick game. If it takes you over a minute to do it, then the problem isn't with the system.Agreed. Plus, if I'm not the player with disable device, I don't really want to sit back and watch someone else play card games every time there's a trap or lock.I understand wanting to make it more engaging...but as a player, if I'm investing ranks in disable device and I get up to a +20 and then you tell me that I can't disable a trap that is a DC 30 (take 10) because I'm unlucky with the cards...
I'm going to start calling b%$+&~$$.
The whole point of my investing skill points is to guarantee success. I know you want to make it more "fun", but as a player all it would do it piss me off if I don't get to instantly succeed when my skill is so high that I can't fail.
You don't make your players throw lawn darts to make ranged attacks do you?
You don't make them pull out foam weapons and attack you for melee attacks do you?
Players want their investments of skill points, BAB, etc to mean something. You're game eliminates the point of investing.
Except even if you don't have social skills, you can still PARTICIPATE in social encounters, if not meaningfully influence them.
In my experience, I've rarely, if ever, have seen anyone try and use diplomacy skills without having the ranks in the skill.
Besides, this minigame wouldn't be hard to adopt an aiding aspect to. Multiple people could have their hand at this. An aiding roll could increase the range of the number the main disabler needs to be successful at it. There are definite ways to use this mini game and keep people engaged. And hell, there's still the tension of seeing that next card flip that would keep the group enthralled.
I didn't say use skills, I said participate in socializing.
It takes longer to shuffle the deck than to play a game of Blackjack. Like Odraude said, any role-playing challenge will usually feature one, maybe two characters, and often will take a few minutes at least. The snark of "do you make your players play lawn darts?" is also pretty insulting. You're in the homebrew section. And you know, if I worked with my players and we decided to make a game that combined lawn darts and rolling for ranged weapon attacks, that's well within our rights.
I'm not making anyone do anything. I asked my players if they'd want to try out a system I made, they said "Sure!" enthusiastically, because I've made things like this in the past that have turned out to be fun additions. We played it, they enjoyed it, and we're keeping it. Being the member of the Paizo community that I am, I decided to share it in case someone (like Odraude) would want to use the system or could glean inspiration from it.
Thanks for checking in though.
You're perception of insult and snark is not what I intended. I made those statements to illustrate a point. The point that you are removing the point of character investment (or at least heavily trivializing it). I'm not telling you to not make up house rules to make the game more fun, but I was telling you my opinion of your game, which was that I would hate it because my character investment means next to nothing.
Now, if you wanted to modify your system....
I would suggest that for every 5 of the skill modifier you give the player an additional hand to play against the dealer hand, and requiring only one hand to beat or meet the dealer hand to succeed. This makes skill investment more meaningful. I would also add that for every 5 in the skill you can add or remove 1 point to any hand. Such that, at a 20 you could add or remove 4 to any hand you have.
I like the idea of adding a benefit at "X amount of ranks" though I think having the extra hands would begin to slow down the mini game a bit. Also I think five might be too long of a wait for setting the investment pay off. Three or four seems like a good fit. Hell I'd even go with every two levels, you get a boon to your skill, if only because I like interesting mechanics to make skill challenges more fun. Increasing the range is the obvious go-to, since it is simple and requires little math. I could see the disabler gaining points based on Disable Device ranks that allow a redraw or add/subtract points to the total.
Only thing I do wonder is how one differentiates the DCs of the traps if you are using skill ranks instead of rolls with this method? Would harder traps and locks have lower values to match with blackjack?
|
I didn't say use skills, I said participate in socializing.
That's not exactly the best system when players and the GM are in a rather immersion-heavy style. In some games players don't say "I use perception," or "I use linguistics." They say something akin to "I examine the room to see if any of the furniture has been moved recently." at which point the GM asks for what they feel is an appropriate roll.
Going into social interactions, a player character says to a bar owner: "I've heard about you good sir, news of your charity to those down on their luck is something of common knowledge in the city." and the GM then asks for a diplomacy roll (and possibly even providing a circumstance bonus depending on what was said to add to whatever result the player gets.)
If the player with the 7 charisma elf walks up to an NPC and says the same thing, and ends up prompting a diplomacy roll for a grand total of -1 before immediately sparking the other to punch them in the face, that's what happens.
Meanwhile when said same elf is leading the party on the trail of goblins they need to find before they sacrifice the mayor's daughter, they can let loose in describing how they find the an apple gnawed on by a ravenous goblin, a splash of mud on a tree trunk as they ran by, or the bent grass at the edge of the field, and get a whopping 28 on their check.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you wish to make locks and traps interesting, then make them interesting.
A regular Pit Trap or lock isn't interesting.
A very large pit filled with crumbling pillars in which you have to navigate swiftly to stay alive is interesting. A mechanical lock which has two possible effects if disabled is interesting.
I just wouldn't attempt to make unlocking regular door or disabling common trap interesting, simply because, it's really not. It's simple obstacle on the way.
Agreed. Plus, if I'm not the player with disable device, I don't really want to sit back and watch someone else play card games every time there's a trap or lock.
I'm gonna disagree with this. Sometimes an encounter pretty much stars one guy. That's how things go when the party faces swarms, when everyone but one PC is unconscious, or when you have to do Diplomacy. I think the other players could have fun watching and giving advice.
That said, I agree that this is too rough on people who take ranks. You should consider moving it up a step—if they succeed, they win the game on a 19-23, if they succeed by 10 or more, they don't have to play at all.
Personally, I think players depend too much on Take Ten sometimes. I don't mind nerfing that a bit. Traps should be suspenseful!
If you wish to make locks and traps interesting, then make them interesting.
A regular Pit Trap or lock isn't interesting.
A very large pit filled with crumbling pillars in which you have to navigate swiftly to stay alive is interesting. A mechanical lock which has two possible effects if disabled is interesting.
I just wouldn't attempt to make unlocking regular door or disabling common trap interesting, simply because, it's really not. It's simple obstacle on the way.
I actually do like the idea of having Disable Device require more than just the one check. Force an Acrobatics/Climb/Swim check to reach the mechanism. Have a demon get summoned when the rogue touches the mechanism, forcing the other parties to fight (this would be a good place to use the Blackjack mechanism, too). Maybe a trap inhabited by a fell GLaDOS-like sentience, playing mind games with the rogue through opposed Int checks to make them hesitate and double-guess (penalties to Disable Device checks), as well as activating minor traps that the rogue has to avoid through Reflex saves (poisoned needle inside the mechanism). And then it summons monsters.
DM: "The giants' arrow trap will fire directly on your location, but the mechanism to disable it is quite high up."
Dwarf Rogue: "Blast! I cannae jump that high!"
Barbarian: "Here, allow me."
Dwarf Rogue: "Hey, what're ye—"
*TOSS*
DM: "Make a check."
Dwarf Rogue: "19."
DM: "You fall back down, barely failing the check."
Barbarian: "AGAIN!"
Dwarf: "Ah, no..."
The key to this is that the majority of these "extra checks" should allow the disabler to get help if he's not suited to it. Partymembers fight the demon, the wizard councils the rogue on the mind games, the acrobatic PC carries the rogue to the mechanism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say use skills, I said participate in socializing.That's not exactly the best system when players and the GM are in a rather immersion-heavy style. In some games players don't say "I use perception," or "I use linguistics." They say something akin to "I examine the room to see if any of the furniture has been moved recently." at which point the GM asks for what they feel is an appropriate roll.
Going into social interactions, a player character says to a bar owner: "I've heard about you good sir, news of your charity to those down on their luck is something of common knowledge in the city." and the GM then asks for a diplomacy roll (and possibly even providing a circumstance bonus depending on what was said to add to whatever result the player gets.)
If the player with the 7 charisma elf walks up to an NPC and says the same thing, and ends up prompting a diplomacy roll for a grand total of -1 before immediately sparking the other to punch them in the face, that's what happens.
Meanwhile when said same elf is leading the party on the trail of goblins they need to find before they sacrifice the mayor's daughter, they can let loose in describing how they find the an apple gnawed on by a ravenous goblin, a splash of mud on a tree trunk as they ran by, or the bent grass at the edge of the field, and get a whopping 28 on their check.
"Immersion heavy" is not the game I think of when the GM requires a Diplomacy roll just to get the freakin' bartender to gossip.
They're used to drunk ass people coming up to the bar like "Hey bartendah, what'sh new?" and still give those guys the time of day, after all.
Personally, I think players depend too much on Take Ten sometimes. I don't mind nerfing that a bit. Traps should be suspenseful!
You know how to make traps suspenseful? Make them actually matter.
Ain't nobody got time to play a game of Blackjack every time you want to stop the crossbow trap from dealing WHOO 1d6+1 damage WHOOO.
Wow, love the idea! Goes nicely with a rogue's theme, too. Automatic deck shuffled on hand would be useful, if it's not too noisy. Wonder if there's a way to help balance higher level casting with a mini game?
|
|
@kobold cleaver
Let me say first that I can completely understand why you and both creator of this topic wish to create more interesting environment for Pathfinder gaming. I have been in those waters and experienced much same desire over and over until I finally gave up and realized that answer lies in different area of game.
What exactly am I talking about?
For starters, Disable Device is skill designed to disable traps and locks. Changing it in such way that it requires another skill to operate or simply works as a mini-game, devalues it. How many times did you see characters bashing at the door with brute force? I have seen it plenty. It will even further provoke this type of behavior because unlocking doors might be interesting for 1st or even 2nd time, but after you reach a room with 10 locked doors in it... Yeah, exactly. Boring as hell. Just imagine how much time with party waste waiting for GM and rogue to play out 10 card games. So leave the Disable Device as it is.
If GM wishes to make traps & locks interesting, he should create unique examples of those locks which are partially or aren't dependent on Disable Device skill. A room with crumbling pillars could be interpreted as a big unique trap. It also forces entire party to come up with collective solution instead of watching same old guy trying to rig the trap off.
In your specific example with Barbarian and Rogue, it's far more realistic that barbarian will walk over the trap, trigger it and get healing via Wand of CLW. Why? Simply because DD requires another skill to operate. Why bother? This is the mindset of players. It might feel right from roleplaying perspective and in theory, but fails in practice.
I haven't seen many people trying to bash a trap mechanism down with brute force (that's more a lock thing), and when I add traps to a game, I generally put them in at a higher CR so they're a bigger challenge than "d6+1 damage".
Take note of my second post, which I think tries to clarify my views. I would rather reserve puzzles and minigames like these for special traps, and in general make traps more like encounters. A good installment doesn't pit PCs against nothing but progressively stronger orcs charging across featureless gray rooms, so why should traps all be nothing but ordinary skill challenges?
In other words, I would rather not use non-unique traps at all, or make those that are generic very minor.
In your specific example with Barbarian and Rogue, it's far more realistic that barbarian will walk over the trap, trigger it and get healing via Wand of CLW.
And if you're trying to make a unique, difficult-to-solve trap that only does some minor HP damage, it's not really unique at all, is it? Use poisons, diseases, curses. Even if the barbarian has a good chance of making his save, the potential for nasty debuffs will make him think twice before acting like an idiot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Make traps work like Haunts and they become a bit more interesting.
Also, my Orc Barbarian bashes traps down with brute force. He's the party's trap and locked door guy.
That plus Spell Sunder = "Suck it, Rogue!"
In fairness, that's investing enough of his build into it that he's arguably just the group's trapmaster at this point. :P
In fairness, that's investing enough of his build into it that he's arguably just the group's trapmaster at this point. :P
He was indeed. Doors, traps, levers and plot relevant info written in strange languages (8 Int, max ranks in Linguistics.).
Crokus was a collection of contradictions. It was fun.
In fairness, that's investing enough of his build into it that he's arguably just the group's trapmaster at this point. :P
While the Rogue gratefully takes an archetype that trades out trapfinding for some fun stuff like Charm Person SLAs.
|
|
@kobold cleaver
I have played and GMed for a lot of people in my PFS area. Use of Disable Device to unlock door or disarm trap is rare in my experience. People prefer to reserve skills for something else, like Perception or Diplomacy and rare few play any skill-based characters. Of course experience may vary from area to area.
You are completely correct that good installment of traps makes them better. I have to admit personally that I have spent a lot of time pondering about it before. People often make same old mistakes when designing them but their general problem is, high CR and insufficient resource drain. Whenever you attempt to make a deadly trap, CR is off the charts, while regular average CR trap is nuisance or even less. They are hard to balance out.
Key is to make combination of them or simply combine them with creatures. What often people ignore is Reset factor. It's merely +1 CR bump, but those resetting floor spikes suddenly become a lot more dangerous even though they hit for moderate damage.
There is really a lot that can be said about traps, but I don't wish to clog OP's thread too much. Suffice to say, that there are other ways of playing mental games without nullifying Disable Device skill.
What you have to keep in mind is that Challenge Rating is nothing but a guideline, too. In my Age of Worms game, it's basically a joke—the party is oversized, contains three extremely optimized characters, uses very effective tactics most of the time, and is just a bit over-equipped. They're level 8 now, but they could probably take on a CR 15 encounter. Some of them would die, but they'd probably win. CR just becomes very flawed in certain cases.
|
|
@kobold cleaver
Again, you are correct. CR is just a guideline. But if you could make CR appropriate and fairly challenging encounter, wouldn't you do so? When you simply use higher CR encounter to justify party's strength, sometimes, it can ping-pong back at you if encounter proves to be too difficult. I personally strive to challenge PC's, but I ultimately want them to win. I'v learned to hate character deaths also. They always provide sore moods, but that's something else.
What you have to keep in mind is that Challenge Rating is nothing but a guideline, too. In my Age of Worms game, it's basically a joke—the party is oversized, contains three extremely optimized characters, uses very effective tactics most of the time, and is just a bit over-equipped. They're level 8 now, but they could probably take on a CR 15 encounter. Some of them would die, but they'd probably win. CR just becomes very flawed in certain cases.
And we use Disable Device, too.
Make traps work like Haunts and they become a bit more interesting.
Also, my Orc Barbarian bashes traps down with brute force. He's the party's trap and locked door guy.
That plus Spell Sunder = "Suck it, Rogue!"
I think I understand what you mean by "play it like a Haunt" but can you give an example? Here's the image that your statement conjured for me:
1. PCs make a Perception; those who make it detect the trap before it goes off
2. The trap begins triggering and will go off at the end of the round. PCs succeeding at their Perception get a chance to do SOMETHING. One of the somethings might be Disable Device
3. A successful DD shuts off the trap before it hurts someone
I like this. Minigames are cool.
Other minigames that could work for this:
simple jigsaw puzzles
Operation! (a good choice for traps)
Perfection (likewise)
Simon
Where's Waldo? (you could use this for Perception checks, too)
Push-your-luck games such as stop light, pass the pigs, or zombie dice might have interesting applications in this area as well.
Make traps work like Haunts and they become a bit more interesting.
Also, my Orc Barbarian bashes traps down with brute force. He's the party's trap and locked door guy.
That plus Spell Sunder = "Suck it, Rogue!"
I think I understand what you mean by "play it like a Haunt" but can you give an example? Here's the image that your statement conjured for me:
1. PCs make a Perception; those who make it detect the trap before it goes off
2. The trap begins triggering and will go off at the end of the round. PCs succeeding at their Perception get a chance to do SOMETHING. One of the somethings might be Disable Device
3. A successful DD shuts off the trap before it hurts someone
That COULD be one effect, but Haunts are more varied and dangerous, and generally require unique tactics to fully destroy.
1.) Make a Perception, those who make it detect it before it goes off.
2.) The PCs get a "Surprise Round" before the trap goes off to do something.
3.) (And I'm making stuff up now) A successful Disable Device halts the trap going off for 1 round and/or "damages" the trap. Since this is technically a combat, no taking 10. The Other PCs have a chance to assist every round with Aid, or spells, or whatever. Even just hacking at the trap if need be.
4.) On a failed DD, the trap goes off. On a number of successful ones (keep within the 2d4 round limit, but either roll when maing the trap or set it based on CR), the trap is disabled, but...
5.) The trap resets after a round/minute unless something special (and somewhat esoteric) is done to prevent it.
Definitely want to reiterate, how would we do harder locks with the blackjack method? Lower target number? Maybe multiple checks? I'm curious how to represent more difficult locks.
Dot for interest! This sounds awesome. Our last session had heavy dungeon crawling and the constant "roll" "OK" got dull fast.
Doing a bump as I'm still curious about varying the difficulty of blackjack.
FWIW, Savage Worlds: Deadlands uses a poker mechanic.
One of the "archetypes" in it is the Huckster, who is an arcane gifted individual who is able to draw on playing cards to cast their spells. They get a low number of spell points compared to other caster types, but they get to "play with the devil" if they want. This involves playing a quick game of poker. You can get additional cards to pull from with certain Edges to generally allow you to stack the deck (literally) in your favor.
It also uses this poker playing system for gun duels, to help figure out who goes first. I think it may use the same system in other places too, but I'm not recalling details.
In the deadlands game I ran, it was not well received. I think most of it was how I presented it (kind of forgot to mention the card playing aspect until the first gun duel came up), but also people didn't like how it was much more complex than a die roll.
It also creates an oddity where player skill in another game matters in a game where player skill is supposed to be minimized by the use of dice rules (you don't need to be a world-grade fencer to use a rapier well, nor do you need to be an awesome real-life wizard to cast fireball in Pathfinder.)