| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, that is exactly what you are supposed to do. The rules for this are out HERE and work in a similar fashion. These are a draft version of the final rules for both monsters and hazards coming in the Gamemastery Guide, out in February.
I believe what Zapp is trying to say is that after a certain point adventures know what creatures are a danger, and which are a walk in the park. They tend to have the levels, and present the same challenges. Why shouldn't hazards be the same?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... what?
Yeah seconding this.
No... the current pit trap isn't meant to represent every pit trap. Just like the goblins we see in the bestiary won't represent every goblin. Paizo will put out goblin NPCs of various levels over time.
Same thing with hazards.
They even got into a bit of trouble with some users over it recently thanks to the age of ashes adventure path with there being a fire at the start of the path and a fire at the end but the one at the end has a higher DC.
(that said, I believe the flavour of what is causing the DC somewhat justifies it. Not entirely, but they are obviously not the same situations)
If they will go out of their way to print more pit traps? who knows. Given the nature of the trap I would say quite likely.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe what Zapp is trying to say is that after a certain point adventures know what creatures are a danger, and which are a walk in the park. They tend to have the levels, and present the same challenges. Why shouldn't hazards be the same?
"Tends to" being the operative word there. Ghasts default to level 2, but they have already made a level 13 ghast and some ghast bears around 6-8.
So creatures obviously aren't set in stone, so there's no reason to assume hazards are.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe what Zapp is trying to say is that after a certain point adventures know what creatures are a danger, and which are a walk in the park. They tend to have the levels, and present the same challenges. Why shouldn't hazards be the same?
Using the actual rules presented to increase the levels of creatures/hazards isn’t house rules though. It’s the literal rules.
So long as it’s not just the same trap but with higher levels.
You can have a pit trap that’s covered with a fake floor that crumbles away and whose pit is covered in glass shards, and that’ll be higher level due ti being harder to notice and dealing more damage, but a wooden pit trap with a short fall will always be lv0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing wrong with modifying hazards to work at different levels, but one should think a step extra before doing so. For example, take the archetypal pit trap. You'd think that it's just a matter of boosting the Stealth DC, Grab an Edge DC, and damage to make a higher-level pit trap, right? But consider that the pit trap serves a dual purpose:
1. Deal damage.
2. Remove a combatant from a fight.If you increase the damage, you generally do so by making the pit deeper. But that also means that the climb back up is longer, so the victim will be out of commission for longer.
That doesn't mean "Don't do it." It just means that you should think an extra time about what the non-obvious consequences of boosting the hazard will be.
To avoid that particular pit fall (if you want to be clever about it) you can out spikes at the bottom rather than increase the fall distance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One easy way to make the trap more interesting is to not increase the damage, but have it shut afterwards.
You are now downstairs, in a large chamber, in the NEXT part of the dungeon, with your party elsewhere.
Have fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using the actual rules presented to increase the levels of creatures/hazards isn’t house rules though. It’s the literal rules.Excuse me if I don't find it obvious what changes are to be taken as rules as written and what changes are relegated to mere houseruling.
And yet you tell others that their RAW on diseases are not but house rules.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe a stupid question but can't there be, say, a Hidden Pit trap of a higher level than 0? More well-hidden, deeper... (I realize it's inappropriate at a really high level where yousimply fly or teleport over it, but within reasonable bounds)
Sure, why not?
As a second example, I'm liking the Bloodthirsty Urge haunty trap thing (page 524). But is there anything that says it must be of level 10?
What if you simply take the level 5 hazard's numerical values and apply it to Bloodthirsty Urge - will that be a legit level 5 hazard, or is there something that makes it inadvisable to use the Urge against lower-leveled heroes?
In other words, what about this:
Bloodthirsty Urge Hazard 5
Haunt
Stealth DC 24 (Expert)
Disable Religion DC 22 (Trained) to exorcise the spirit or
Diplomacy DC 24 (Expert) to talk it down
Quietus [reaction] The creature must attempt a DC 22 Will save.Everything else remains as written.
How RAW or houseruley is this?
You're asking two different questions - "is it advisable" and "is it according to the rules".
Is it advisable Hard to give a single rule for this. Some of the effects of a high level trap may be much harder for a low level party to handle. For example, a high level scythe trap that severs a limb could be handled with a Regeneration spell. The party cleric could prepare that spell themselves. A low-level party would not be able to repair that themselves. So just changing the numbers on the trap would not be enough to make it suitable for low level.
Is it allowed Well by "The First Rule" (CRB p. 7) you're certainly allowed to do it. Coming up with new hazards is obviously not "as written" because you're making something new that isn't written yet. But so is coming up with your own adventures instead of strictly following a published adventure path. In other words, it's totally fine.
But if you want to do it "right", the Gamemastery Guide will contain a lot of information on how to design your own hazards, and how to make them properly balanced. Just like the monster building guidelines that have already been published, these aren't going to be rigid rules that must be strictly followed; it's more like a kitchen full of ingredients and advice about which ones go well together in which proportions.
The game mastery guide excerpt they released already includes hazard creation rules, BTW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet you tell others that their RAW on diseases are not but house rules."Their" RAW?
I can't take you seriously as a rules authority if you even imply there can be more than one RAW, since then you don't agree with the basic definition of that term.
This is the point where I need to ask you if you're here to engage meaningfully on a subject, or if you're here just to argue.
And please discuss disease in the disease thread.
I understand the fundamental definition just fine. I was referring to their take on the RAW. I'd hope that was obvious. Just as it is obvious that hazards and monster numbers can be raised up or down, or diseases can spread, has always been the intent of the developers and the rules of the game that they designed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just as it is obvious that hazards and monster numbers can be raised up or down, or diseases can spread, has always been the intent of the developers and the rules of the game that they designed.You use the word "obvious" a lot.
Maybe you shouldn't...
Yes, quite right. I'm sure with a little bit more thought, I could come up with a better tool to add to my debate arsenal.
As I participate in numerous threads though, in between my more important day-to-day responsibilities, I don't always have the time to put in as thorough a response as would be ideal. Many are off-the-cuff comments as a result, and probably should be taken/weighted as much.
I'll work on my decorum; at not coming off as so antagonistic/condescending in the future.
|
Just as it is obvious that hazards and monster numbers can be raised up or down, or diseases can spread, has always been the intent of the developers and the rules of the game that they designed.You use the word "obvious" a lot.
Maybe you shouldn't...
Yes, quite right. I'm sure with a little bit more thought, I could come up with a better tool to add to my debate arsenal.
As I participate in numerous threads though, in between my more important day-to-day responsibilities, I don't always have the time to put in as thorough a response as would be ideal. Many are off-the-cuff comments as a result, and probably should be taken/weighted as much.
I'll work on my decorum; at not coming off as so antagonistic/condescending in the future.
I've always liked "Incontheevable"! my self.
I've always liked "Incontheevable"! my self.Just as it is obvious that hazards and monster numbers can be raised up or down, or diseases can spread, has always been the intent of the developers and the rules of the game that they designed.You use the word "obvious" a lot.
Maybe you shouldn't...
Yes, quite right. I'm sure with a little bit more thought, I could come up with a better tool to add to my debate arsenal.
As I participate in numerous threads though, in between my more important day-to-day responsibilities, I don't always have the time to put in as thorough a response as would be ideal. Many are off-the-cuff comments as a result, and probably should be taken/weighted as much.
I'll work on my decorum; at not coming off as so antagonistic/condescending in the future.
Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
I don't understand.
When designing an adventure, you have got all the freedom that you need. Even official modules have things that go 'out of the rules'.
Modifying creatures or hazards to match the level of difficulty you want is nothing compared to the power you have on all the other elements of the world.