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.)"
But just because I know the mechanics of what needs to be done, doesn't mean I can do it. You don't let a character shoot out another's eyes and auto-blind just because he knows where to hit. Or skip the coup de grace rules because someone is a (terrifying) doctor and knows that a stab to a specific place is quickly and irreversibly lethal. In some cases you might give a bonus but that's what the plan will give you and the roll is the execution. Sometimes there are key sequences, but finding them tends to be about gathering info, not technical know-how.
Likewise, if it's a complicated thing with failsafes and the like, hitting it might prevent it from resetting, but it won't prevent it from going off in the first place.
Knowing the villain and recognizing their bypass is different. Seeing what it does and minimizing the impact is different, as well. But if similar thought process would allow my character to program a computer just because I can, that's not immersion-breaking. It's letting you reasonably play someone with different skills and knowledge than you.
|
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 prefer to look at this in the opposite way. The rules are fairly vague on traps, but this gives the GM plenty of leeway to interpret the trap in whatever way best serves the table they are running.
This presents a bit more difficulty in PFS than in a home game, since the GM is less likely to know how these specific players will respond to things, but it still allows them to be more open to creative solutions if the players are having a rough go of things in the scenario, or lacking anyone interested in dealing with traps and just not into that aspect of the game. On the other hand the GM can, if they feel it beneficial, require a more standard disarm or avoid approach if they feel it will add positive tension to the session.Of course my take on it requires a solid amount of trust in the GM to be able to use good judgment in deciding how to handle things. This means that they may make mistakes, or misread the table. They may be in a situation where some players want to just be able to smash the trap and continue and others want to have a chance to use their skills. It is unreasonable to expect any amount of detail in traps or any number of hard and fast rules about them to make everyone happy, so it is best left for individual GMs to make the call on how to deal with them at the table they are running and trust them to do what's best in the situation. Will you be let down sometimes... Probably, but I still think it's the best solution.