| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From obvious examples like the rolling boulder of Indiana Jones to subtler ones like the Death Star trash compactor or really weird skull traps, the trap is a classic of the adventure genre. As such, it seems fitting that it be as well a classic of the Pathfinder game.
Instead, they tend to be one of the least-enjoyed aspects of the game. Invariably, the "encounter" goes like this:
Rogue: "I roll a die to see traps. Are there traps?"
Yes: And you see them -->
Rogue: "Everyone moves out of the way and I disable them."
Yes: And you don't see them -->
Rogue: "Oh, joy, ten damage. I drink a potion and keep moving."
No:
Rogue: "I keep moving."
Funny enough, the only really good trap in the default game is the pit trap—a rudimentary type of trap, yes, but one that can actually redefine the situation meaningfully. It introduces new challenges instead of just dealing a bit of damage.
But even the the pit trap falls victim to the same big two problems: High levels pretty much ignore them, and if they're spotted, the PCs never get to see them in action, even though that's the coolest part. So even they don't really work.
So here are the big issues with traps as-is:
1. High Levels
High levels cut out the "And you don't see them" possibility entirely, and can easily skirt around barrier-type traps like pits. High levels reduce the skill checks to nothing. DC 32? My campaign's slayer literally can't fail to spot the trap, and after that, disabling is almost always a piece of cake*-. The traps in the game don't go nearly high enough in Perception and Disable Device DCs to keep up—probably because Paizo realized nobody likes traps enough to accept a challenge. The only traps that activate at high levels are ones the players forget to look for.
2. Trapfinders Must Optimize for Boredom
There are only ever two ways a trap encounter can go: You get hit by it, or you get rid of it entirely and never see it deployed. So even if the GM designs a really cool chamber-flooding zombie piranha-based trap, the only thing a player can hope for is to eliminate it entirely with a single check. In combat, there's some medium—there are many different sorts of checks, and everyone gets to be involved, and the monster gets to pull out its awesome abilities before (generally) being defeated. In traps, though, only one PC gets to play, and there's absolutely no creativity required. You're playing to keep the cool flavorful things from happening. Traps become a nuisance to eliminate.
3. Most Traps are Boring Anyways
With the aforementioned exception of pit traps, almost all traps have very boring effects. The only way they get at all interesting is by being magical. Even traps that should be really cool, like deadfalls, generally get reduced to simple damage. Traps should really be more like spells, with diverse effects and in-depth descriptions, instead of basic effects and short, vague explanations that often don't even tell you what you need to run them (automatic reset, cool, is that in one hour or one round?).
4. The Commoner Trapmaster Problem
It's as simple as this: Why would I bother hiring a trapfinder when I can hire a farmer to toss a few chickens down the hall? And don't give me that "it's cheaper" nonsense—thieves tools cost three times as much as a 300-pound pig. This is a minor issue, but worth considering along with the others, since in practice this means that summoners end up perfectly capable of doing the trapfinder's job and more.
So, with these problems established, what are your thoughts? What do you do in your games to make traps work?
*Speaking of actually interesting traps...
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, with these problems established, what are your thoughts? What do you do in your games to make traps work?
Well, for starters, I quit Pathfinder and switched to 5E. Bounded accuracy means you don't get to that "auto-succeed" milestone, different healing paradigms means even a damage-only trap can have a meaningful impact on the adventuring day, and traps aren't basically a keyworded mechanic that guarantees 100% neutralization if you make a single Disable Device check.
But since this is the Suggestions/Houserules/Homebrew forum for Pathfinder, let's see if I can offer some applicable ideas.
Now, the DC issue is inherent to the Pathfinder skill system as a whole (it's not even specifically a trap issue), so there's not a lot you can do about it.
For issues #2 and #3, let me give an example of a trap I recently made up in my campaign:
While exploring a dungeon, the party comes to a door. They spot the trap, determining that the floor directly in front of the door is actually a platform rigged to collapse when the door is opened. They successfully disable it, then open the door.
Behind the door is a room whose floor is set 5ft lower than the rest of that dungeon level, and is full of undead creatures (thus, combat ensues).
So what was the trap?
Had it gone off, they'd be having the same encounter, but starting with the lead party member prone in a zombie pit. But thanks to successfully disabling it, they got to have the encounter with all of them up on the ledge firing down on the monsters from above (well, until the zombies dragged the eldritch knight into the pit and the dwarf jumped in after him, but that's beside the point).
So the trap wasn't the challenge. The trap helped set the difficulty of the next challenge. Failing to overcome the trap makes the combat harder, while success makes the combat easier. Additionally, while technically only the "trap guy" was doing anything to disable the trap, that part was over quickly and then the results affected the whole party in a way they got to engage with.
(Unfortunately, even this example wouldn't work past fairly low levels in Pathfinder, because MAGIC. But hopefully the concept can be helpful.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is what I came up with at 1 AM in the morning:
-throw Disable Device out the window. Instead there should be something like "knowledge:traps".
-Perception check doesn't reveal that there is "a trap", it reveals particular parts of the trap(a trapdoor, a boulder suspiciously positioned down the hall, a pressure plate, etc.), and DC for main parts of the trap should be low enough that pretty much anyone would be able to notice it.
With this in mind:
1. Disabling a trap at high levels is just as hard as at low levels*, but because your "knowledge:traps" is higher you know that much more about this particular trap you encountered, and thus have more information to work with
2. No disable device=no single check. Instead you would see something similar to how Indiana Jones deals with traps(put a bag that weighs the same as the treasure on the pressure plate) which is necessarily creative. Simple traps(do you really need those?) like tripwires and such can be disabled automatically with a feat(disable simple traps) or some such. Rogues get it for free.
3. Shouldn't DMs design traps themselves? If your traps are boring, you probably made them boring. Am I missing something?
4. 8 words: YOU DO NOT WANT TO TRIGGER A TRAP. Most traps you see in the media are the sort of traps that either kill everything in the room(you probably don't want that) or destroy the whole dungeon(you don't want that either). That doesn't have to be the standart, but players should be discouraged from just triggering every trap they encounter.
*Unless Wizards are involved. Is there a problem you can't solve by throwing enough Wizards at it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First point, make the DCs interesting for the group. Consider that the guy who built the trap is probably high level (or else why are your high-level PCs hunting him?) and he probably is not building a trap that only catches level 1 heroes - he can kill them with his bare hands. No, this guy is building traps to catch heroes he actually fears, which means he needs more than a DC20 covered pit, and he knows it. So have him put in the time an effort to build a trap that your high-level PCs might miss, or even probably will miss.
(side note to that point - if you have a PC who has focused hard on building a perfect trap finder, then let him have his fun. You let the wizard cast his Fireballs and you let the barbarian rage-pounce, so let that trapfinder find and disable lots of traps, but that means to MAKE lots of traps, many of which fall well into this ability to find an disable, but still a few of which are more interesting and more likely to slip under even his radar).
Second point, high level traps shouldn't just burn HP. Make traps that blind or curse or paralyze or even kill. Petrify is good too, it's like death but way more fun...
Third point, don't let that trapfinder player get too bored. Make traps that have sub-traps (sure, you can disable this pit, but you have to stand under that deadfall to do it, or sure, you can disable that petrification symbol trap, but only if you crawl out on that fragile platform over the lava to reach it).
Fourth point, don't make the trap the whole encounter. Make the traps PART of other encounters. For example, fighting a group of fire giants who have concealed pits in the floor and there are levers concealed in the walls near the giants - they ready actions to catch charging rage-pouncers by popping a lever to open a pit under the guy as he runs into battle. Another lever drops a deadfall on that wizard hiding in the back of the room, etc. Now maybe the rogue abandons his sneak attacking in favor of neutralizing traps. If not, well, at least you've solved the problem you mentioned where "You're playing to keep the cool flavorful things from happening" - in this scenario, those traps WILL happen, so make them as cool and flavorful as you like.
Here is what I came up with at 1 AM in the morning:
-throw Disable Device out the window. Instead there should be something like "knowledge:traps".
-Perception check doesn't reveal that there is "a trap", it reveals particular parts of the trap(a trapdoor, a boulder suspiciously positioned down the hall, a pressure plate, etc.), and DC for main parts of the trap should be low enough that pretty much anyone would be able to notice it.
With this in mind:
1. Disabling a trap at high levels is just as hard as at low levels*, but because your "knowledge:traps" is higher you know that much more about this particular trap you encountered, and thus have more information to work with2. No disable device=no single check. Instead you would see something similar to how Indiana Jones deals with traps(put a bag that weighs the same as the treasure on the pressure plate) which is necessarily creative. Simple traps(do you really need those?) like tripwires and such can be disabled automatically with a feat(disable simple traps) or some such. Rogues get it for free.
3. Shouldn't DMs design traps themselves? If your traps are boring, you probably made them boring. Am I missing something?
4. 8 words: YOU DO NOT WANT TO TRIGGER A TRAP. Most traps you see in the media are the sort of traps that either kill everything in the room(you probably don't want that) or destroy the whole dungeon(you don't want that either). That doesn't have to be the standart, but players should be discouraged from just triggering every trap they encounter.
*Unless Wizards are involved. Is there a problem you can't solve by throwing enough Wizards at it?
Thanks for your response, Klara. Lots of good stuff here, but I think something needs to be clarified with regards to #3.
First, my post was addressing default traps first and foremost. If people have ideas for cool traps, they are welcome to post them here. That's kind of the idea. Second, my post was also addressing the problem of the actual trap format, which discourages elaborate effects. Third, DMs can design traps themselves, but the ones included in the book and in modules are the ones that actually, you know, get used. And if the traps in the book are poorly-designed, that makes it very hard for a DM to get a baseline on how to build new ones.
Has anyone mentioned trap oozes yet?
I'll reiterate what others said: the best traps are part of encounters, rather than standalone.
Examples:
Emerald Spire level 12 lich & symbols
2nd Dwarven sky citadel PFS scenario (the one in hold of belzken)
Also, compound them - traps upon traps.
That's all I have right now.
Jiggy's zombie-floor-trap is a great example. I'll have to remember that one!
my post was addressing default traps first and foremost. If people have ideas for cool traps, they are welcome to post them here. That's kind of the idea. Second, my post was also addressing the problem of the actual trap format, which discourages elaborate effects. Third, DMs can design traps themselves, but the ones included in the book and in modules are the ones that actually, you know, get used. And if the traps in the book are poorly-designed, that makes it very hard for a DM to get a baseline on how to build new ones.
This here is the real problem. Published traps are just not trappy enough and they do usually just waste the space they're given in the books and published adventures, for all the reasons in the OP.
It's as if BBEGs are all too stupid to build a good trap (or hire a good trapsmith) and also too stupid to realize that paying cheaply for cheap traps is a complete waste of their money.
I figure I should just add the INT mod (or WIS mod) of the BBEG to the DCs of all their traps - they either figure it out themselves or they're clever enough to hire the very best. Either way, they make/purchase traps that satisfy their own intellect. Or they just don't bother.
So If I find one in an AP, I often beef it up a bit, to make it more interesting.
You want good traps? Look at the "Elemental Plane of Dungeon" in Rise of the Runelords book 5. There's some stuff there that's just not fun for people. Like [REDACTED] in Pride, which nearly led to a TPK. Or [REDACTED], which heals [REDACTED] while hurting the PCs at the same time. And then there's [REDACTED], which pisses everyone off.
It also helps that all of these can't really be disabled in the traditional sense, due to the timeframes involved.
Honestly, the biggest problem is that the CRB fails to actually explain how to run trap encounters. It just gives you a bunch of stats for traps and expects you to figure it out yourself.
They don't have to inflict damage.
A trap could alert the enemy and give them time to prepare.
A trap could change the battlefield, such as dumping out liquid (water, lava, etc) into s moat, turning a staircase into a ramp, or dropping the ceiling to create difficult terrain.
A trap could separate a PC from the party.
A trap could cast a spell, such as a summon or illusion.
Thanks for your response, Klara. Lots of good stuff here, but I think something needs to be clarified with regards to #3.
First, my post was addressing default traps first and foremost. If people have ideas for cool traps, they are welcome to post them here. That's kind of the idea. Second, my post was also addressing the problem of the actual trap format, which discourages elaborate effects. Third, DMs can design traps themselves, but the ones included in the book and in modules are the ones that actually, you know, get used. And if the traps in the book are poorly-designed, that makes it very hard for a DM to get a baseline on how to build new ones.
That makes a whole lot more sense than what I was thinking. Thanks for an explanation)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Traps are a trap. Don't use them. They don't work in group play.
My zombie pit trap upthread disagrees with you. Traps CAN work in group play, they just have to be handled differently than how the Pathfinder CRB (and apparently, many published adventures) treat them.
Just because lots of people are doing traps poorly doesn't mean traps don't work.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's been said before and will be said again, but bears repeating: most traps should be part of an encounter, not a standalone thing.
For example:
* tripwire rings an alarm bell, alerting the hobgoblins
* rabbit/deer snare or deadfall. Knowledge-Local shows that it was made by kobolds. Smart PCs know that there are kobolds about.
* corridor with kobolds at the end. Barbarian PC charges, triggering a trap which pivots the floorboards and a) dumps him in a pit and b) lifts a barrier that blocks the other PCs from helping or knowing what's going on.
* bridge over a chasm can be collapsed by the orc defenders by pulling a rope that pulls out a pin underneath.
* a covered pit which is actually the BBEG's secret escape route
* trap covers victim with something pungent, so the orcs' pet wolves can track the PCs to their base after the 15-minute adventuring day ends.
* dangerous stairs the PCs must ascend while under fire
As an oblique point, trap costs should be divided by about 10. Except some pits, which should be expensive depending on construction method.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traps in Pathfinder requires some improvements in general. In a private homegame, they can be tweaked, but in more official games like PFS, there is little to no fun in playing them out. Here is a few things I feel that are missing in Pathfinder traps:
- Their CR should be lower by 1 point since traps typically do not pose enough danger to a group of adventurers. Wand of CLW or Summon Monster I can be used to disarm traps effectively, but we all know that story.
- More complicated traps (magical or mechanical ones) should be resettable by default. This mechanic isn't used often enough and simple traps with average or low effects become more dangerous through a long run forcing adventurers to either avoid them somehow or invest into Disable Device skill.
- Traps should be made as part of an encounter or part of a longer trap chain as often as possible. In such circumstances, they can even reduce the action economy of adventuring party or even become deadly enough. A combination of several low CR traps can likewise be used with much deadlier effect (per current PF rules) then assigning it to a single stand-alone trap of same CR.
- Simple mundane traps shouldn't require Disable Device skill to be disarmed. Disarming a trip wire or a small foot-hold trap for example is easy enough.
- Trap rules need to be further expanded. Some traps might be easily visible, but hard to disarm and vice versa. A mine in middle of minefield could be easily visible (DC 10 Perception check), but very hard to disarm for example (DC 25 Disable Device check). GM's need these kinds of rules to create much larger variety of traps.
That's a few points and ideas that I have noticed thus far. I am fairly sure that if those five points would be solved, everyone, even GM, might enjoy themselves with making and avoiding traps.
Adam
I agree with Mudfoot that traps are way too expensive. Poison seems too expensive too.
I also think that most traps aren't dangerous enough. Since our groups use the crit and fumble decks I rule that traps always get a card when they crit. The cards have some more interesting effects like blinding, maiming, or even outright killing the victim. If a DM really wanted to emphasize traps it might not be totally crazy to house rule that traps which make attack rolls always threaten a crit. If nothing else that would help boost the damage to a threatening level.
Maybe some traps which use poison could also include something to lower the victim's saving throws or boost the poison's DC. I guess that delivering multiple doses of poison would do that (if I understand the poison rules properly, which is questionable). When a PC takes ability damage that can be tough to deal with at low levels and often requires a significant use of resources even later on.
It seems easy enough for a trap to also set off an alarm, whether that's some bells or a shrieker. If the PCs are in a pit or a cage and have to engage in ranged combat that can be enough to make some parties struggle (note all the threads about flying foes, bows, etc)
@Goddity - I was amused by the idea of the Rogue checking for traps and then leaving the area while the Fighter opens the door. I'll admit that I've done stuff like that before. We've even had a few DMs who have the trap go off down the hall or around the corner where people are likely to be hiding from the trap which they'd assumed would blast the area around the door.
Having the mechanism controlling the trap in a different location from the traps effects is one of the easiest curve balls to throw on the standard trap.
Also, it's important to think up ways for the other members of the party to be useful in bypassing a trap. Maybe the mechanism is on the opposite side of a very heavy porticullus that only the barbarian can lift. And even then only with the bard singing "lift, lift, lift that spiky gate!"
Or the wizard might need to use his mage hand to reach past the bars and flip a lever, or the gunslinger use his trick shot to shift the lever from a distance.
You get the idea.
Don't forget Grimtooth's traps. There were at least three volumes back in the dawn age of RPGs, sometime before the earth's crust began to cool. You'll find it with google foo. Without quite going to all of *those* extremes, some of the ideas are good to separate from the absolute death traps they accompany.
Cooperative traps are the way to go. Keep the party working together!
And then again, there are traps that are worth it all on their own!!!
Okay, Atarlost, we get it, you hate traps. What are you doing here, then?
I agree with Mudfoot that traps are way too expensive. Poison seems too expensive too.
I also think that most traps aren't dangerous enough. Since our groups use the crit and fumble decks I rule that traps always get a card when they crit. The cards have some more interesting effects like blinding, maiming, or even outright killing the victim. If a DM really wanted to emphasize traps it might not be totally crazy to house rule that traps which make attack rolls always threaten a crit. If nothing else that would help boost the damage to a threatening level.
Maybe some traps which use poison could also include something to lower the victim's saving throws or boost the poison's DC. I guess that delivering multiple doses of poison would do that (if I understand the poison rules properly, which is questionable). When a PC takes ability damage that can be tough to deal with at low levels and often requires a significant use of resources even later on.
It seems easy enough for a trap to also set off an alarm, whether that's some bells or a shrieker. If the PCs are in a pit or a cage and have to engage in ranged combat that can be enough to make some parties struggle (note all the threads about flying foes, bows, etc)
Hm...that crit deck seems like it's ripe for additional moving parts, too. Like, the rogue who finds the trap can pick three cards and choose the effect, or maybe that's a "lesser disable" option.
|
|
The important part is to use them with a tactical mindset. Remember a trap maker is using them to discourage interlopers (low level), or kill major threats (high level). How would they go about doing it?
I'm a big fan of sparingly trapping the traps. For example, making a simple trap such as a covered pit trap with a low DC to spot, easy or obvious to disable and then attaching a magical trap to it- such as when something is jammed in a slot, it sets off a 9th level lightning bolt that rolls down the corridor- hitting the entire party (more or less)
If you do this often enough- just to make PC's semi-paranoid, traps become important, or at least a source of worry
Also,
traps as part of combat-3.5 had rules for automatically resetting mass harm traps- hideously expensive, but when paired with powerful undead, a full heal every few rounds. There are similar rules in Pathfinder, but magical traps paired with enemies that heal from the trap going off. (undead, constructs, etc.). Also, you can pair them with things that weaken the encounter, PC's set off fireball trap, which injures the them and the troll they were fighting.
traps that block off exits- oops you set off the collapsing tunnel trap, have fun trying to dig your way out. Teleport, yes you just walked through the area, but you have no idea how far it goes, you have no idea how deep you are (in this scenario they were underground), and you have no idea how far you are from a place you know well. You currently have no way to get back here. Do you want to risk it?
I generally warn my PCs if I create a "funhouse," but one or two traps that are matched with a tactical mindset are usually enough to merit serious thought about traps
The thing is, you've already told us your thoughts. In fact, you're repeating them now. So it seems like you're really just sticking around to try to shut down further discussion. You aren't giving any constructive ideas—you're just deconstructing what other people propose.
But wait, how is it "completely out of character" for hobgoblins to use traps? Are hobgoblins Luddites? Are they afraid of machines taking therr jerbs? Hobgoblins are intelligent, technologically active and very practical. They'll use living or nonliving guards, whether it be hobgoblins, goblins, trained birds or tripwires, as the need dictates. The only thing that would actually be "totally out of character" for them to resort to would be using wizardly magic.
|
|
Atarlost wrote:
The only traps anyone finds exciting are ad hoc scripted events or terrain features that avoid using the trap rules. The notion of disarming traps as a skill is nonsense for most kinds of traps. The existence of trap rules and a trap skill encourages the misuse of traps.
I disagree fervently, yes traps annoy PCs, they use PC resources and experienced PCs know it. However, the creative use of traps adds to play not detracts from it
Atarlost wrote:
because traps need to exist to justify the existence of the disable device skill and the rogue, people put traps where they have no business being.
Traps are part of adventure, in every novel, movie, and story I can think of. If anything the use of disable device to disable traps is there only to provide a way around a player expectation. If a scenario places traps poorly, mention it on the review page. If a homebrew campaign places it poorly, ask your GM for a bigger challenge in regards to traps. Poor placement is a design problem, not a problem with the tool.
I'd be interested in running a poll to see if the majority of players really hate traps as much as Atarlost says they do. However, it's not the subject of this thread. Atarlost has adequately explained why he doesn't think traps are fixable and does not need to repeat it on a thread dedicated to the goal of fixing traps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Atarlost: But traps are an entirely plausible and real thing. So if there are no trap rules, how is one supposed to adjudicate them? It's a valid complaint to say that the rules aren't very good, or treat all traps with the same game mechanics, but it's pretty dumb to say that the rules shouldn't exist. It's like saying that SoD spells are a bad thing so saving throws shouldn't exist.
Hobgoblins would indeed post sentries, but that in no way prevents them from making a simple tripwire alarm which takes 5 minutes and requires virtually no special equipment. Like, a string and a bell.
As for your other complaints:
* The kobold deer trap is intended to catch a deer but will trap an unwary PC just the same. And if he's dangling upside-down from a tree while the kobolds come to inspect their trap (because, you know, bell) that makes a more interesting encounter.
* The corridor with a blocking trap doesn't stop the other PCs from doing anything. It makes them frantically try to do something other than what they were previously expecting. IMHO this is a good thing.
* The collapsing bridge can be identified as a trap and can be disabled as a trap, despite being triggered by an observer. So how else would you handle it?
* The escape route pit needs to be detected somehow. Maybe Perception? The skill that you'd use anyway? And if said escape route dumps pursuers into a cloud of poison gas (to which the BBEG is immune) that's a fairly plausible escape route that he might allow someone to find. And anyway, he has other escape routes.
* Pungent stuff: yeah, you could do it as a meatlocker, but that leaves the attackers in control, not the defenders. Defenders would use traps instead of meatlockers for defence.
* Stairs: again with the perception. And if you can drop a fog cloud or wall of foo to block the missiles, the rogue can make the stairs safe. Or maybe he can stealth his way to the mechanism so he doesn't get shot at?
I get the idea that you and/or your players like simple stand-up-and-melee encounters, rather than having to think and improvise.
|
|
@Atarlost
Not that I am kicking you down further, but some of your statements are simply incorrect. Namely about splitting party and setting traps during encounters, but I am kind of disinterested into explaining it further since several people already gave good answers. It would just degrade such a nice topic.
|
|
Handling a split party is part of being an experienced GM. If you have GM more than 20 PFS scenarios there is at least one where the party was split up, usually by a player, likely depending on interpretation, it maybe all where a scout type PC is played.
I have never had a homebrew campaign where it didn't happen at least once a session.
-Don't allow table talk, unless PCs are all together, even then this violates stealth.
-Keep a spare piece of paper to describe what is happening to those that split up, or better yet a computer printout of what they see and have backups for the easiest path to get to the party
-Whisper to the PC that is separated, make them switch seats to make it easier on you.
|
|
@ Andromaxx
I realize that you tried to point how to handle split party, but splitting the party has nothing to with traps. Splitting the party is usually done out of combat during the session and usually ends badly when PCs try to poke and prod on their own. This has nothing to do with the topic really. Atarlost simply gave inaccurate example.
Maybe Atarlost failed to spot a trap on this trap thread...
Anyhow, temporarily splitting the party during combat is the point of certain spells (Walls come to mind) and several monster abilities (bar-lgura and handmaiden devil for instance) - Divide and conquer!
A very amusing moment for me as a DM a couple of years back was when an archer around 13th level with very good accuracy and DPR got bull rushed into a well by a melee mook. It wasn't exactly a trap, but it served about the same purpose since despite his level the PC hadn't bothered to acquire any means of flight. I guess that being an archer he generally dealt with flying foes by shooting them, but being down a well he was only able to shoot stuff which was directly over it. The PC also had no ranks in Climb and had a heck of a time getting back up into the combat.
You could easily use traps to impose similar problems, and while most high level PCs are clever enough to have at least emergency flight capabilities you could always use walls, cages, giant masses of sticky stuff which temporarily trap people, etc.