|
The encounter was actually in a home game many years ago (back before swarms were a monster, and clerics "dusted" undead who were less than half their level. And detect undead would have given them away... And a lot of other things.) The game was A LOT of FUN. Which is the important part right?
Sure is! Sounds like it was a pretty memorable campaign. Kinda makes me wanna play that turn specialist Sarenrae Cleric that I've been kicking around.
|
Once upon a time we got caught in a sliding wall trap. After fighting a resident monster, our GM asked us if we had something to bypass the corridor now filled with massive blocks of solid stone.
After some quick algebra we answered that it would take about 8 minutes to brute force our way through. The gm took it in stride but we had a good laugh at the pure stubborness pc's of 5th level can sport.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a Half-Orc Breaker/Numerian Liberator Barbarian, who fights with an Adamantine Crowbar, and is rather devout to her following of Rovagug.
Everything can be broken.
It's not just a fact, it's her philosophy, her exclamation of faith.
Saying she can't break it, or even try, is like telling the Paladin he can't kill the demon to save the baby.
Sundering the trap should almost always be an option with non-magical traps. For spell sundering barbarians, sunder should always be an option.
It might have consequences, but hitting it with a big pointy stick should always be an option.
[sarcasm]
You know what I hate? Encounters that force you into combat.It's also kind of a jerk move, because it forces someone to play a [combat PC], even when no one may want to play it, or else have the adventure grind to a halt because you make a [fight] essentially unable to be bypassed.
[/sarcasm]Traps are just another challenge to be overcome.
Like Combat, or Diplomatic events, or puzzles, or any of the other challenges that we will encounter in this adventure...
If all of them can be overcome with a "big stick" - it makes this game of ours one of "Rock-Paper"... not "Rock-Paper-Scissors".
You're sarcasm is irrelevant considering the foundation of this game is combat. It is a role playing game, but the foundation of the mechanics is very very pointed at combat. You don't want to fight? Fine. But you're playing the wrong game.
Further, being able to use a big stick doesn't make the game rock-paper. Actually preventing the stick from working makes the game rock-paper because stick guy can't participate. Letting the non-magical trap be sundered is just as valid as setting off the pressure plate with a 10ft pole, sending in a summoned monster to set off the trap, or any other number of valid strategies.
Now, if you want to be a real stickler (and I hate feats that do this sort of thing), you have this feat:
Trap Wrecker (Orc)
You can smash traps instead of disarming them.
Prerequisites: Power Attack, Disable Device 1 rank, orc.
Benefit: You can attempt to disarm a trap by striking it with a melee weapon instead of making a Disable Device check. As a full-round action, make a melee attack against an Armor Class equal to the trap's Disable Device DC. If you miss, the trap activates. If you hit, roll damage. If this damage is at least half the trap's Disable Device DC, you disable the trap. If this damage is less than half the trap's Disable Device DC, the trap activates. You can only attempt this on non-magical traps. You must be able to reach some part of the trap with your attack in order to use this feat. At the GM's discretion, some traps may not be susceptible to this feat.
Now, I say I hate this feat because it sets up a situation where it shouldn't really require a feat to do this sort of thing, especially not one with a racial requirement. Much like the feat Strike Back is a terrible feat because it set a precedent that you needed to have a feat to ready an action to hit a creature that attacked you with reach. This same feat creates a precedent that a feat is required to be able to smash a trap.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't just smash the trap, it smashes it in such a way that it doesn't go off: its the fonze hitting the jute box. Anyone can hit it and set it off.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[sarcasm]
You know what I hate? Encounters that force you into combat.It's also kind of a jerk move, because it forces someone to play a [combat PC], even when no one may want to play it, or else have the adventure grind to a halt because you make a [fight] essentially unable to be bypassed.
[/sarcasm]Traps are just another challenge to be overcome.
Like Combat, or Diplomatic events, or puzzles, or any of the other challenges that we will encounter in this adventure...
If all of them can be overcome with a "big stick" - it makes this game of ours one of "Rock-Paper"... not "Rock-Paper-Scissors".
You're sarcasm is irrelevant considering the foundation of this game is combat. It is a role playing game, but the foundation of the mechanics is very very pointed at combat. You don't want to fight? Fine. But you're playing the wrong game.
Further, being able to use a big stick doesn't make the game rock-paper. Actually preventing the stick from working makes the game rock-paper because stick guy can't participate. Letting the non-magical trap be sundered is just as valid as setting off the pressure plate with a 10ft pole, sending in a summoned monster to set off the trap, or any other number of valid strategies.
Now, if you want to be a real stickler (and I hate feats that do this sort of thing), you have this feat:
...Trap Wrecker (Orc)
You can smash traps instead of disarming them.
Prerequisites: Power Attack, Disable Device 1 rank, orc.
Benefit: You can attempt to disarm a trap by striking it with a melee weapon instead of making a Disable Device check. As a full-round action, make a melee attack against an Armor Class equal to the trap's Disable Device DC. If you miss, the trap activates. If you hit, roll damage. If this damage is at least half the trap's Disable Device DC, you disable the trap. If this damage is less than half the trap's Disable Device DC, the trap activates. You can only attempt this on non-magical traps. You
lol! The foundation of this game is a group of people sitting around a table having fun.
I actually was playing when the hobby was making the jump from a Combat Simulation game (Chainmail)... to RPG (D&D). Lots of fun. Know the history.
But this is NOT at it's core a Combat Game (at least not for all the players) - some of the best scenarios have little or no combat.
Ouch! "But you're playing the wrong game." ... sorry, I don't think so. I rather enjoy this game I play, played the way I play. This is too close to saying I am playing the game wrong or having "bad-wrong-fun".
|
|
interesting side note on the name of the original RPG game
Dungeons (that part of the game that involves non-combat challenges such as puzzles and traps - sometimes referred to as "tricks and traps"
&
Dragons (that part of the game that involves combat challenges - sometimes referred to as "Monsters").
The game is made up of both parts.
There are lots of people who play this game for only PART of what is offered. Sometimes we play for one part more than the other. Right now (and fairly often) I play for the first part (the non-combat challenges, the "tricks and traps") more than the second part (the combat challenges, the "Monsters"). And that does not mean that I am "...playing the wrong game", it just means that I am finding my enjoyment in a different part of the game that some other people.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're sarcasm is irrelevant considering the foundation of this game is combat. It is a role playing game, but the foundation of the mechanics is very very pointed at combat. You don't want to fight? Fine. But you're playing the wrong game.
See, this bit of your post stuck in my brain and wouldn't quit wobbling around. Back in the late 90's through the mid aughts, I played a collectible card game (Iron Crown Enterprises' MECCG, still one of my favorite games of all time) that was known for having convoluted rules. Many of those rules dealt with the game's combat system. Similarly, many of the cards published for the game were combat-related. However, almost no one who played the game heavily would have called combat the foundation of MECCG. I took fifth place in one year's world championships with a deck that avoided as much combat as possible, and most top-tier strategies focused on never allowing combat to happen in the first place.
Conflating the amount of rules text devoted to something with its importance to the game does the whole system a disservice.
Is this game we play together at it's core a Combat game? Is "the foundation of this game is combat"?
This seems to be a mindset that I encounter a lot - and I really don't agree with...
I think you're running under the old idea that you need to be bad at combat to be good at skills.
If it really was a game all about the combat, don't you think it would do a better job of it?
If it really was a game all about the combat, don't you think it would do a better job of it???? huh?
ah, do a better job of ... combat you mean? PFS would do a better job of simulating combat?
Yes, I meant that it would do a better job of making the combat in game more about skill, tactics and strategies. I'm not saying it would necessarily be realistic, but rather it would fit in with the genre conventions from the types of fantasy stories it tries to emulate.
People talk about the rocket tag nature of high level play. In stories you have combats that last much longer and only the mooks tend to be one-shotted.
I have seen parts of parties built on the 'fifteen minute work-day' paradigm. It doesn't end well when they blow through their kit and kaboodle in what feels like a 'tough' encounter and suddenly the *real* tough encounter happens.
But that's a diversion.. back to the topic at hand...
We actually played in a relatively recent scenario where we had the Perception (almost every member in the party) to detect traps, but no one to disable them. However, with Perception rolls that on the *low* rolls were in the low 20's and on the high rolls hitting near 40, we were able to determine ways to use creative solutions.
Sometimes leaving a trap in place, untouched, is the better option. Rare, but it does happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me clarify, because I think my statement has been misunderstood.
The basis of Pathfinder is combat. It hearkens back to Chainmail, which was a combat miniatures game. Saying you don't want to participate in combat when playing Pathfinder is akin to missing the forest for the trees. You can certainly play a game of Pathfinder without combat, but it isn't the best system to do so (using the wrong game). You're effectively doing collaborative storytelling. Which is absolutely fine, and as long as your group is having fun then that's what matters the most.
Why do I bring this up? Because the assertion was made that somehow expecting combat to be a part of Pathfinder was somehow equivalent to making traps in such a way that they cannot be bypassed without the use of disable device thus requiring a trap specialist to be played so that a group can complete an adventure.
These are not remotely the same to me and I took offense to the sarcasm used.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just think traps should have an alternate method of deactivation.
That would result in seeing even fewer Rogues at the table.
It also punishes people invested in Disable Device. My Rogue is currently +40 to Disable Device (still not high enough for some locks, believe it or not). If a level 1 PC with a 10ft pole can disable the same trap, or poor acid down a keyhole to open the door, then you simply don't need Disable Device as a skill. You could just "theatre of the mind" it all away.
Elder Basilisk's breakdown was splendid. Your three options are Deactivation, Triggering, or Avoiding. If the group chose not to bring a character who could Deactivate, they still have two other options.
|
|
Let me clarify, because I think my statement has been misunderstood.
The basis of Pathfinder is combat. It hearkens back to Chainmail, which was a combat miniatures game. Saying you don't want to participate in combat when playing Pathfinder is akin to missing the forest for the trees. You can certainly play a game of Pathfinder without combat, but it isn't the best system to do so (using the wrong game). You're effectively doing collaborative storytelling. Which is absolutely fine, and as long as your group is having fun then that's what matters the most.
Why do I bring this up? Because the assertion was made that somehow expecting combat to be a part of Pathfinder was somehow equivalent to making traps in such a way that they cannot be bypassed without the use of disable device thus requiring a trap specialist to be played so that a group can complete an adventure.
These are not remotely the same to me and I took offense to the sarcasm used.
And I was pointing out that to make ALL traps passable by combat means - that there is NO trap could not be removed by "hitting it with a big stick" - was reducing the game to "Rock-Paper". To a game where the challenge is always able to be overcome by inflicting damage to it. And I used sarcasm to point out that this would be like requiring all combat challenges to be passable by diplomatic means.
Clearly you are not seeing my viewpoint, so I will just move on.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deactivation - If you break the blade off the "Scything Blade" door trap before opening the door, all it does is make noise when it's triggered
Except that, if you don't have Disable Device, you set off the trap, and the still-attached-blade-because-you-haven't-had-the-chance-to-break-it-off-yet hits you instead.
That's "triggering", not "deactivating".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deactivation - If you break the blade off the "Scything Blade" door trap before opening the door, all it does is make noise when it's triggeredExcept that, if you don't have Disable Device, you set off the trap, and the still-attached-blade-because-you-haven't-had-the-chance-to-break-it-off-yet hits you instead.
That's "triggering", not "deactivating".
I concur.
Deactivation - If you break the blade off the "Scything Blade" door trap before opening the door, all it does is make noise when it's triggeredExcept that, if you don't have Disable Device, you set off the trap, and the still-attached-blade-because-you-haven't-had-the-chance-to-break-it-off-yet hits you instead.
That's "triggering", not "deactivating".
Well, the original proposition is that you somehow find a way to break off the blade beforehand - if the blade is visibly poised above the doorway that would be possible. But if the trap is well-made, it's probably impossible without Disable Device.
For resetting traps, there's always the option of triggering THEN deactivating. "I ready an action to sunder the scything blade before it can withdraw."
|
I concur.Deactivation - If you break the blade off the "Scything Blade" door trap before opening the door, all it does is make noise when it's triggeredExcept that, if you don't have Disable Device, you set off the trap, and the still-attached-blade-because-you-haven't-had-the-chance-to-break-it-off-yet hits you instead.
That's "triggering", not "deactivating".
This makes sense to me, too. Having Disable Device (and making the DC) is having the knowledge of where to strike the trap to safely disable it. Without the skill (or the Orc feat mentioned above, apparently), you don't have the knowledge to deactivate the trap without first triggering it. Whether or not it then hits you instead would depend on whether or not you're standing in its affected area when you trigger it.
You might, in striking it, end up breaking it after it is triggered, and that could still be beneficial if it has an auto-reset time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Traps in pfs suffer the problem of vagueness. A trap says spot DC, disarm DC, trigger mechanism, attack or reflex, and damage. A bunch of rules numbers, but rarely more than one line describing what it actually is. If you bothered to describe the trap, then players would have something to work with to come up with clever solutions to bypass. As long as the trap is just a set of numbers, the only way to beat it is to meet the numbers.
Also, unless the place trapped was intended never to be used again ever, the builder of the trap would include a bypass for those who use it. Finding the bypass should often be an option, but is rarely written in scenarios.
I just think traps should have an alternate method of deactivation.That would result in seeing even fewer Rogues at the table.
It also punishes people invested in Disable Device. My Rogue is currently +40 to Disable Device (still not high enough for some locks, believe it or not). If a level 1 PC with a 10ft pole can disable the same trap, or poor acid down a keyhole to open the door, then you simply don't need Disable Device as a skill. You could just "theatre of the mind" it all away.
Elder Basilisk's breakdown was splendid. Your three options are Deactivation, Triggering, or Avoiding. If the group chose not to bring a character who could Deactivate, they still have two other options.
Nefreet, the choice doesn't always exist. A LOT of factors can (and often do) restrict who can be at the table and what skills are available. Please don't imply that there is always a choice.
|
|
I feel that you focused on the wrong point of my post.
My point was that, if the game introduced alternative methods to disabling traps, then there would be even less need to put ranks in Disable Device, and thusly less reason to have a character with Trapfinding, and thusly less reason to ever make a Rogue.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your three options are Deactivation, Triggering, or Avoiding. If the group chose not to bring a character who could Deactivate, they still have two other options.Nefreet, the choice doesn't always exist. A LOT of factors can (and often do) restrict who can be at the table and what skills are available. Please don't imply that there is always a choice.
The choice may be made before the VC Briefing, i.e., when you decide which character to play, but there is always a choice.
If your character can't Disable and cant Avoid a trap because it doesn't have the ability, you have chosen to Trigger.
Eat the effects of the trap, and create a solution from there.
Your three options are Deactivation, Triggering, or Avoiding. If the group chose not to bring a character who could Deactivate, they still have two other options.Nefreet, the choice doesn't always exist. A LOT of factors can (and often do) restrict who can be at the table and what skills are available. Please don't imply that there is always a choice.The choice may be made before the VC Briefing, i.e., when you decide which character to play, but there is always a choice.
If your character can't Disable and cant Avoid a trap because it doesn't have the ability, you have chosen to Trigger.
Eat the effects of the trap, and create a solution from there.
That's not a real choice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not a real choice.Your three options are Deactivation, Triggering, or Avoiding. If the group chose not to bring a character who could Deactivate, they still have two other options.Nefreet, the choice doesn't always exist. A LOT of factors can (and often do) restrict who can be at the table and what skills are available. Please don't imply that there is always a choice.The choice may be made before the VC Briefing, i.e., when you decide which character to play, but there is always a choice.
If your character can't Disable and cant Avoid a trap because it doesn't have the ability, you have chosen to Trigger.
Eat the effects of the trap, and create a solution from there.
Keep in mind if the trap keeps you out, the trap is doing it's job.
As a Pathfinder, it's on you to bypass it. Whether that's with skill and ingenuity (Disable Device or something similar), quick thinking and agility (Evasion, Trap Sense, jumping over a pressure plate/tripwire), or by accepting the consequences (brace yourself and go through), is up to you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not a real choice.
It most certainly is. You make it when you roll your character, you make it when you level them up, and you make it when you sit down and choose which character to play.
At any of those points, you could have chosen to include an ability to deal with traps. If you didn't, you still made a choice.
Player creativity can come i handy too. That's why you see 100 uses of a dead goblin...
|
|
Go into combat rounds.
Player A with adamantine weapon readies an action to hit the blade.
Player B steps onto the trap and prays player A does not roll a 1...I agree, it is still triggering.
Keep in mind that even if the GM allows this under creative thinking, Player A still has to actually destroy the blade. An Adamantine weapon makes that more likely, but if Player A only breaks the blade, it can still function as a weapon (presumably with the -2 penalty to hit and damage and the crit modifier reduced to x2). It's also possible Player A might not even do enough damage to give the weapon the broken condition, especially if they don't have an Adamantine weapon to hit it with.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that you focused on the wrong point of my post.
My point was that, if the game introduced alternative methods to disabling traps, then there would be even less need to put ranks in Disable Device, and thusly less reason to have a character with Trapfinding, and thusly less reason to ever make a Rogue.
This sounds like a dangerous line of thinking to me.
"We have to maintain this poorly implemented mechanic, otherwise people might stop playing this poorly implemented class."
In reality, people continued to make rogues even before Unchained, not because of traps. Some did it because the name "rogue" was compelling. Some because they didn't know there were other classes to cover nearly any other aspect of roguery, like ninjas (sneak attack) or investigators (skills, and they also handle traps). And some for the bragging rights, "my rogue is actually quite effective".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traps in pfs suffer the problem of vagueness. A trap says spot DC, disarm DC, trigger mechanism, attack or reflex, and damage. A bunch of rules numbers, but rarely more than one line describing what it actually is. If you bothered to describe the trap, then players would have something to work with to come up with clever solutions to bypass. As long as the trap is just a set of numbers, the only way to beat it is to meet the numbers.
I strongly agree with this analysis, and the implication. Traps as currently written are often rather dumb, immersion-denying. If you're trying to be immersed and actually try to engage with the trap by figuring out how it works and finding a solution, you get slapped in the face with "just use DD" like this is some kind of video game element you're just supposed to do with as you're told.
Also, unless the place trapped was intended never to be used again ever, the builder of the trap would include a bypass for those who use it. Finding the bypass should often be an option, but is rarely written in scenarios.
Agree strongly.
Traps in pfs suffer the problem of vagueness. A trap says spot DC, disarm DC, trigger mechanism, attack or reflex, and damage. A bunch of rules numbers, but rarely more than one line describing what it actually is. If you bothered to describe the trap, then players would have something to work with to come up with clever solutions to bypass. As long as the trap is just a set of numbers, the only way to beat it is to meet the numbers.I strongly agree with this analysis, and the implication. Traps as currently written are often rather dumb, immersion-denying. If you're trying to be immersed and actually try to engage with the trap by figuring out how it works and finding a solution, you get slapped in the face with "just use DD" like this is some kind of video game element you're just supposed to do with as you're told.
Also, unless the place trapped was intended never to be used again ever, the builder of the trap would include a bypass for those who use it. Finding the bypass should often be an option, but is rarely written in scenarios.Agree strongly.
This sort of thing was what I was trying to get convey all along. Being told "Look, you just have to use Disable Device" is a completely unsatisfying answer that basically just says "I'm here so the rogue doesn't feel useless (excepting the other archetypes and traits that rob the rogue of this "unique" talent.)"
So... if you have Passwall, for example and you know there's a trap, you can't use that to access the parts of the trap and make it stop functioning?
I mean, admittedly it'd just be better to open an unaffected wall, but if you don't know HOW big the trap is (because no Disable Device)...
This would be a niche case, of course, most parties wouldn't use that resource. Dead opponent bodies and brave meat popsicles are probably more efficient and cheaper...
Though...
"Okay, first body got sliced. Have to see if it resets..."
I think blood loss should be treatable with disintegrate. Lose a limb, lose a wound!
But does Disintegrate cauterize a wound?