I hate trapfinding [Archive] - Wizards Community

I hate trapfinding [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Germytech
05-25-07, 02:32 PM To put it simply: why can only the rogue find traps? That seems silly. Anyone that puts the effort into a Search should be able to find the same things that a rogue does....

However, I recognize it as an important ability to the rogue, and simply removing it, or allowing all classes access to trapfinding, can significantly alter its balance.

So, I propose this:

Trapfinding is a Spot check. A different Spot check for any trap that would be visible (with the same DC as usually listed for Search), and you can even take 20 to "glance around the room."

Anyone can use Search to find traps, but only one 5-foot-square at a time. Only the rogue can recognize a trap at a glance.

I like this mechanic, plus it even seems to fit the "rogue" better. Movies, books, what have you, rarely have the roguish character searching for traps, but actually spotting them a split second before setting it off.

What do others think?
Illithid_Tentacles
05-25-07, 03:28 PM Anyone CAN find traps, it's just that only rogues can find traps if the Search DC to find them is 20 or higher. Why? If you MUST have an in-game reason, say it's because they've been specifically trained in what to look for.
Neutronium_Dragon
05-25-07, 11:53 PM If it's special training then others should be able to pick it up as a feat.

And frankly, I'd probably allow just that. It annoys me that Trapfinding essentially stamps a rogue as a required PC in any party in order to deal with any significant traps. 3E generally doesn't try to force any specific class(es) to be included in a party, but this is one area where that breaks down, since the rogue is the only one who can do it. (Whereas for pretty much any other function, at least two classes can cover that base.)

Granted, the presence of the Artificer in Eberron (and elsewhere if it's adopted in other settings) loosens that problem up somewhat.
Morwen
05-26-07, 12:13 AM The Beguiler (PHB2), Ninja, Scout, and Spellthief (all CAdv) also have trapfinding like a Rogue.

So, even if you need a person in the group to be able to find magical traps, you have some options :)
Nathreet
05-26-07, 12:33 AM One level dip into rogue. There, now any class can be a trapfinder, and be just as good as a rogue. I'm surprised more builds don't do this. For that matter, I'm surprised more builds don't make use of 1-2 level dips into core classes to grab special abilities.

rogue 1 / barbarian 1 / paladin 2 / ranger 1 (in no particular order)

3d6 + 19 (29.5 avg) raging smiting favored enemy greatsword power attack (+3) sneak attack at level 5, assuming 18 strength, 16 charisma (=> +3 AB). Good saves, track and trapfinding too. Continue with dips into prestige classes. Maybe horizon walker 1 for fatigue immunity, dwarven defender 1 for +1 AC and defensive stance (combined w/ rage, of course), shadowdancer 1 for hide in plain sight, etc.
Thane26425
05-26-07, 12:59 AM I think it is a game balance thing. The rogue has trapfinding to distinguish itself from the fighter, which can specialize in weapons.

I see it as an artifact of the system where different classes do different jobs. This is different from many other systems, like GURPS, where characters can learn any features they want depending on how they spend their points. That can result in a character so broad that they are ineffective, however.

But by the same token, D&D character classes are also restrictive in other ways, though much of that can be solved by gestalting.
Zyrusticae
05-26-07, 03:04 PM rogue 1 / barbarian 1 / paladin 2 / ranger 1

Keeping mind that if you are using standard D&D multiclassing rules, that character will be picking up an XP penalty of 40% throughout its lifetime if it ever specializes in a single class. (Which I think is B.S., but eh. Them's the breaks.)

Anyway, I was never a fan of one-level-dips in order to get certain class features. Just seemed rather tacky.
Xeviat-DM
05-26-07, 05:16 PM I keep trapfinding as a Search function, and I make the trapfinding ability a function of having 5 ranks in Search (the ability to find traps with a DC of 20 or higher). I allow Search to be used passively; if you move at half speed, you get a search check for every trap you come into range of (I roll this so you don't know); if you move at full speed, you suffer a -10 penalty to search checks, and if you are running, you suffer a -20 penalty to search checks.

This way, search doesn't slow the game down. Trapfinder players get the simplicity of saying "I'm searching for traps and moving half-speed", and that being it.

Oh, and these passive search checks will find any traps you are coming within range of setting off, for simplicity.
User5127
05-26-07, 05:51 PM Keeping mind that if you are using standard D&D multiclassing rules, that character will be picking up an XP penalty of 40% throughout its lifetime if it ever specializes in a single class. (Which I think is B.S., but eh. Them's the breaks.)

Anyway, I was never a fan of one-level-dips in order to get certain class features. Just seemed rather tacky.

he'll pick up XP penalty when the difference between any class in that list grows above 2 levels... so if he level pally to lvl 3 he'd get XP penalty.

Page 60 PH.

EDIT:
also: perhaps a modification to the trapfinding class feature and the way in wich traps and the search skill interact?

Increase the DC of all traps but say +10. anyone can search for traps (even above DC 20 -> now 30), but the rogue is esspecially good at finding them. Trapfinding grants a +10 bonus to search checks.

Perhaps even scale it: Trapfinding 1, Trapfinding 2, Trapfinding 3.

Rogue lvl 1
Trapfinding 1: The rogue has a better understanding of traps than most characters. She gets a +10 bonus on all search checks to find traps.

Rogue lvl ?
Trapfinding 2: Same as Trapfinding 1 and the rogue now becomes especially familiar with searching out traps and can do so in half the time. They also gain a +2 bonus on disable device checks.

Rogue lvl ?
Trapfinding 3: Same as Trapfinding 2 and the rogue is quite intimate with the inner workings of traps. they can take 10 even when threatened while searching and disabling traps. The disable trap bonus goes up to +4.

Hmm... not sure what levels the rest of the ability would be put at. but it's an idea. and itsa suggeestion. pehaps it'll get some ideas flowing.
Tequila_Sunrise
05-26-07, 09:44 PM However, I recognize it as an important ability to the rogue, and simply removing it, or allowing all classes access to trapfinding, can significantly alter its balance.

You think so? I think that, without trapfinding, the only reason to play a rogue is if a player wants to play a rogue. That's the good kind of balance, in my opinion.
starfire311
05-26-07, 09:59 PM If it's special training then others should be able to pick it up as a feat.

this is like saying that since favored enemy is from special training you should be able to pick it up as a feat, or flur of blows or any other number of class abilties that are special training.

And frankly, I'd probably allow just that. It annoys me that Trapfinding essentially stamps a rogue as a required PC in any party in order to deal with any significant traps. 3E generally doesn't try to force any specific class(es) to be included in a party, but this is one area where that breaks down, since the rogue is the only one who can do it. (Whereas for pretty much any other function, at least two classes can cover that base.)

Granted, the presence of the Artificer in Eberron (and elsewhere if it's adopted in other settings) loosens that problem up somewhat.

this is not true, you basically need a rogue, a spellcaster or a tank with healing to overcome any trap. If you don't have any of those then yes you will be in trouble.
Nathreet
05-26-07, 10:50 PM Keeping mind that if you are using standard D&D multiclassing rules, that character will be picking up an XP penalty of 40% throughout its lifetime if it ever specializes in a single class. (Which I think is B.S., but eh. Them's the breaks.)

Anyway, I was never a fan of one-level-dips in order to get certain class features. Just seemed rather tacky.

You can still advance in your favored class without penalty. If you are a human taking all those dips, you can advance in any class you want. Multiclassing exp penalties only apply when the difference between any two classes, except the favored class, is more than one.
NoldorForce
05-26-07, 11:37 PM Trapfinding is a defunct legacy in the rules, and a glaringly poor one at that. It's the one vestige remaining of the concept of exclusive skills. Sure, others who don't have trapfinding can use Search, but they're barred from the uses that people actually care about.

Truly, it either needs to be thrown out or to be converted into a function within the Search skill itself. (Xeviat-DM's suggestion works reasonably.)
Metafictional
05-27-07, 04:51 AM Honestly, I found searching for traps to be something of a nuisance in my games, since it basically means the party is slowly slogging through every square inch of corridor on the off chance there's a trap.

It's enough to make me PUT a trap there, just so they can try to find it, you know, to break the monotony. Which I hate, since I tend to only put traps in locations that are important enough to be trapped (of course, this lends itself to a little metagame thinking, on the part of my players, if they see an area that looks like a good place for a trap, they expect one. This never bothered me, because it's logical, and even if there IS a trap, there's no guarantee they'll find it).

I finally fixed it this way.

1) finding a trap is a function of Search, and I don't limit people on what kinds of traps they can find.

2) trapfinding allows the character to automatically make a Search check to find a trap whenever they come within 5' of one (just like Elves and secret doors).

Suddendly, my games became a lot less monotonous!
Illithid_Tentacles
05-27-07, 07:05 AM Trapfinding is a defunct legacy in the rules, and a glaringly poor one at that. It's the one vestige remaining of the concept of exclusive skills. Sure, others who don't have trapfinding can use Search, but they're barred from the uses that people actually care about.

Truly, it either needs to be thrown out or to be converted into a function within the Search skill itself. (Xeviat-DM's suggestion works reasonably.)

Yeah, and anyone should be able to take Weapon Specilization! And hell, how come only sorcerers and bards can cast spontaneously? Why not give fighters, rogues, and barbarians the ability to cast sorcerer spells? Nothing should be exclusive like that!
Venenum
05-27-07, 08:06 AM Yeah, and anyone should be able to take Weapon Specilization! And hell, how come only sorcerers and bards can cast spontaneously? Why not give fighters, rogues, and barbarians the ability to cast sorcerer spells? Nothing should be exclusive like that!

Nobody is planning to do that, its just it seems rediculous, that a character by 20rd level that has maxed out search can't even find a simple hidden pit trap. that has a dc of 21. He has a roll modifier of 23+int bonus, and yet he is obblivios to something a 5 lvl rouge could spot right off the bat.

In one of my games we went to 50th lv, and i had a dwarf that had craft trapmaking, search, and disable device maxed as cross-classed and class skills, but had not taken a level of rouge, and yet stll could not even find the most easily hidden traps, thats just dumb.
Vaalingrade Ashland
05-27-07, 08:18 AM However, I recognize it as an important ability to the rogue, and simply removing it, or allowing all classes access to trapfinding, can significantly alter its balance.
No, it's really not.

Sneak attack is an important ability to the rogue.

Evasion is an important ability to the rogue.

An actual appropriate number of skill points is an important ability to the rogue.

Trapfinding is flavor text at best. Typecasting at worst. It should just be a feat with a number of ranks in search as a prerequisite. Done. It's actually worth less than a feat for what it does, so also give a +2 unnamed bonus to search checks to find traps.
Metafictional
05-27-07, 12:06 PM Hm, I guess the concept behind Weapon Specialization is that the Fighter is the natural class to be a weapons master.

I used to be annoyed when they allowed other classes to get WSpec.

Now I'm just annoyed that anyone thinks the ability to spend 2 Feats to get +1 to hit and +2 to damage is a fair deal. For God's sakes, a 2nd-level SPELL can do better than that!
Neutronium_Dragon
05-27-07, 03:18 PM > this is like saying that since favored enemy is from special training you
> should be able to pick it up as a feat,

This already exists in various sourcebooks.

> or flur of blows or any other number of class abilties that are special
> training.

Two-Weapon Fighting. That's basically what Flurry of Blows is, specialized to the Unarmed Strike progression.

> this is not true, you basically need a rogue, a spellcaster or a tank with
> healing to overcome any trap. If you don't have any of those then yes you
> will be in trouble.

In order to actually disarm it rather than simply blundering through it, you need a Rogue - unless you're looking beyond the core for other classes with Trapfinding.

Any other function in the party, however - tank, healer, blaster, troubleshooter, and so on - can be filled by multiple classes, even using just the core ones. Trapfinding is one of those proud nails which stamps "Rogue Required" on an area of functionality, and as others have pointed out, is probably really only there because of legacy issues.
dndfencer
05-27-07, 03:31 PM Actually, rogues aren't required for trapfinding. There are a couple spells which allow clerics and wizards to do the same thing but i'm still agreeing with the fact that trapfinding is stupid.
reason why is that it just doesn't make any sense and it forces rogueish things upon us.
I mean really, the reason why someone finds something is becuase they spot it and anyone can so that.
My suggestion, either make it a feat or don't and just give rogues a bonus to spotting traps.
LadyAlaria
05-27-07, 04:02 PM I finally fixed it this way.

1) finding a trap is a function of Search, and I don't limit people on what kinds of traps they can find.

2) trapfinding allows the character to automatically make a Search check to find a trap whenever they come within 5' of one (just like Elves and secret doors).

Thanks for the house rule. Will implement immediately.
Illithid_Tentacles
05-27-07, 04:11 PM In one of my games we went to 50th lv, and i had a dwarf that had craft trapmaking, search, and disable device maxed as cross-classed and class skills, but had not taken a level of rouge, and yet stll could not even find the most easily hidden traps, thats just dumb.

"The most easily hidden trap" would probably have a Search DC of less than 20. As I said in my first post, anyone CAN find a trap if the DC to find it is less than 20.

Also, IT'S A GAME. Of COURSE it's not going to be realistic.
Zyrusticae
05-27-07, 06:07 PM You can still advance in your favored class without penalty. If you are a human taking all those dips, you can advance in any class you want. Multiclassing exp penalties only apply when the difference between any two classes, except the favored class, is more than one.

Which I already know about. Except that there are many more races out there besides humans, and any of these races would be suffering said XP penalty save for the ones with one of those particular favored classes (which, again, I think is total B.S.).

But anyways, this has little to do with the thread.

I think that, indeed, anybody should be able to find traps of a DC higher than 20, and making trapfinding work much like an elf's ability to detect secret doors is a really fine way to work it. I like it. I think I'll keep it.
Xelblade
05-28-07, 09:44 PM I actually like this house rule. In campaigns, I find it's usually sort of annoying and a drag on the game to always have one person (the rogue) doing everything outside of fights, including looking for traps, and the party moving at the incredible pace of five feet a turn.
trapspringer
05-29-07, 10:00 PM Thanks for the house rule. Will implement immediately.

Agree. That's a damn fine house rule. I have never before felt that anyone's house rule should be implemented, by the way.
CrazyOzzy
05-30-07, 06:44 AM Thanks for the house rule. Will implement immediately.

Same here. I will still rule that only those with Trapfinding can find Magic Traps.
Thane26425
05-30-07, 01:33 PM I applied to a game last night and it worked quite well. It helps if the DM makes the roll though so the players don't too suspicious. That is, the Dm should roll if they are just passing and haven't announced that the party is actively searching a room or item.
starfire311
05-30-07, 01:51 PM I applied to a game last night and it worked quite well. It helps if the DM makes the roll though so the players don't too suspicious. That is, the Dm should roll if they are just passing and haven't announced that the party is actively searching a room or item.

what I would do is have the player roll several search checks ahead of time, and just secretly reference those when it is needed, or you can inform them that due to the new rule you will have them roll for search checks at random times in addition to when there is a trap.
dndfencer
05-31-07, 12:09 AM nice idea with the players rolling and you referencing. I've never done that but it sounds like a great idea
Thane26425
05-31-07, 03:24 AM what I would do is have the player roll several search checks ahead of time, and just secretly reference those when it is needed, or you can inform them that due to the new rule you will have them roll for search checks at random times in addition to when there is a trap.

I might have to try that.
trapspringer
05-31-07, 03:54 PM nice idea with the players rolling and you referencing. I've never done that but it sounds like a great idea

That is the best method, but honestly that's usually more set up than I'd like.

The running system in our group is for the DM (whoever that is for a given set of characters) to keep a list of stuff like AC, saves, spot, listen, search, and that kinda' thing in his or her notebook along with the adventure arc and maps and stuff.
Metafictional
06-01-07, 06:41 PM Hm, good point with the checks needing to be "secret". I hadn't considered that before, I'll remember that for future games.

As for finding magical traps, something always bothered me about that. How does one detect a magical trap without, I don't know, detect magic? Some people say the Rogue naturally can notice arcane symbols and such...

Without Spellcraft. Dunno, you'd think someone with Spellcraft would be better at this sort of thing. Like, I dunno, the Bard, who has most of the same skills set, and much more familiarity with magic?
trapspringer
06-03-07, 10:47 PM 'Course with a sufficiently high search score there is nothing you can't find because that is the only skill which describes a character's ability to notice the inconspicuous.

(To clarify: spot and listen are for noticing the inconspicuous. Finding is a much more active process than noticing.)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Germytech 05-25-07, 02:32 PM	To put it simply: why can only the rogue find traps? That seems silly. Anyone that puts the effort into a Search should be able to find the same things that a rogue does.... However, I recognize it as an important ability to the rogue, and simply removing it, or allowing all classes access to trapfinding, can significantly alter its balance. So, I propose this: Trapfinding is a Spot check. A different Spot check for any trap that would be visible (with the same DC as usually listed for Search), and you can even take 20 to "glance around the room." Anyone can use Search to find traps, but only one 5-foot-square at a time. Only the rogue can recognize a trap at a glance. I like this mechanic, plus it even seems to fit the "rogue" better. Movies, books, what have you, rarely have the roguish character searching for traps, but actually spotting them a split second before setting it off. What do others think?
Illithid_Tentacles 05-25-07, 03:28 PM	Anyone CAN find traps, it's just that only rogues can find traps if the Search DC to find them is 20 or higher. Why? If you MUST have an in-game reason, say it's because they've been specifically trained in what to look for.
Neutronium_Dragon 05-25-07, 11:53 PM	If it's special training then others should be able to pick it up as a feat. And frankly, I'd probably allow just that. It annoys me that Trapfinding essentially stamps a rogue as a required PC in any party in order to deal with any significant traps. 3E generally doesn't try to force any specific class(es) to be included in a party, but this is one area where that breaks down, since the rogue is the only one who can do it. (Whereas for pretty much any other function, at least two classes can cover that base.) Granted, the presence of the Artificer in Eberron (and elsewhere if it's adopted in other settings) loosens that problem up somewhat.
Morwen 05-26-07, 12:13 AM	The Beguiler (PHB2), Ninja, Scout, and Spellthief (all CAdv) also have trapfinding like a Rogue. So, even if you need a person in the group to be able to find magical traps, you have some options :)
Nathreet 05-26-07, 12:33 AM	One level dip into rogue. There, now any class can be a trapfinder, and be just as good as a rogue. I'm surprised more builds don't do this. For that matter, I'm surprised more builds don't make use of 1-2 level dips into core classes to grab special abilities. rogue 1 / barbarian 1 / paladin 2 / ranger 1 (in no particular order) 3d6 + 19 (29.5 avg) raging smiting favored enemy greatsword power attack (+3) sneak attack at level 5, assuming 18 strength, 16 charisma (=> +3 AB). Good saves, track and trapfinding too. Continue with dips into prestige classes. Maybe horizon walker 1 for fatigue immunity, dwarven defender 1 for +1 AC and defensive stance (combined w/ rage, of course), shadowdancer 1 for hide in plain sight, etc.
Thane26425 05-26-07, 12:59 AM	I think it is a game balance thing. The rogue has trapfinding to distinguish itself from the fighter, which can specialize in weapons. I see it as an artifact of the system where different classes do different jobs. This is different from many other systems, like GURPS, where characters can learn any features they want depending on how they spend their points. That can result in a character so broad that they are ineffective, however. But by the same token, D&D character classes are also restrictive in other ways, though much of that can be solved by gestalting.
Zyrusticae 05-26-07, 03:04 PM	rogue 1 / barbarian 1 / paladin 2 / ranger 1 Keeping mind that if you are using standard D&D multiclassing rules, that character will be picking up an XP penalty of 40% throughout its lifetime if it ever specializes in a single class. (Which I think is B.S., but eh. Them's the breaks.) Anyway, I was never a fan of one-level-dips in order to get certain class features. Just seemed rather tacky.
Xeviat-DM 05-26-07, 05:16 PM	I keep trapfinding as a Search function, and I make the trapfinding ability a function of having 5 ranks in Search (the ability to find traps with a DC of 20 or higher). I allow Search to be used passively; if you move at half speed, you get a search check for every trap you come into range of (I roll this so you don't know); if you move at full speed, you suffer a -10 penalty to search checks, and if you are running, you suffer a -20 penalty to search checks. This way, search doesn't slow the game down. Trapfinder players get the simplicity of saying "I'm searching for traps and moving half-speed", and that being it. Oh, and these passive search checks will find any traps you are coming within range of setting off, for simplicity.
User5127 05-26-07, 05:51 PM	Keeping mind that if you are using standard D&D multiclassing rules, that character will be picking up an XP penalty of 40% throughout its lifetime if it ever specializes in a single class. (Which I think is B.S., but eh. Them's the breaks.) Anyway, I was never a fan of one-level-dips in order to get certain class features. Just seemed rather tacky. he'll pick up XP penalty when the difference between any class in that list grows above 2 levels... so if he level pally to lvl 3 he'd get XP penalty. Page 60 PH. EDIT: also: perhaps a modification to the trapfinding class feature and the way in wich traps and the search skill interact? Increase the DC of all traps but say +10. anyone can search for traps (even above DC 20 -> now 30), but the rogue is esspecially good at finding them. Trapfinding grants a +10 bonus to search checks. Perhaps even scale it: Trapfinding 1, Trapfinding 2, Trapfinding 3. Rogue lvl 1 Trapfinding 1: The rogue has a better understanding of traps than most characters. She gets a +10 bonus on all search checks to find traps. Rogue lvl ? Trapfinding 2: Same as Trapfinding 1 and the rogue now becomes especially familiar with searching out traps and can do so in half the time. They also gain a +2 bonus on disable device checks. Rogue lvl ? Trapfinding 3: Same as Trapfinding 2 and the rogue is quite intimate with the inner workings of traps. they can take 10 even when threatened while searching and disabling traps. The disable trap bonus goes up to +4. Hmm... not sure what levels the rest of the ability would be put at. but it's an idea. and itsa suggeestion. pehaps it'll get some ideas flowing.
Tequila_Sunrise 05-26-07, 09:44 PM	However, I recognize it as an important ability to the rogue, and simply removing it, or allowing all classes access to trapfinding, can significantly alter its balance. You think so? I think that, without trapfinding, the only reason to play a rogue is if a player wants to play a rogue. That's the good kind of balance, in my opinion.
starfire311 05-26-07, 09:59 PM	If it's special training then others should be able to pick it up as a feat. this is like saying that since favored enemy is from special training you should be able to pick it up as a feat, or flur of blows or any other number of class abilties that are special training. And frankly, I'd probably allow just that. It annoys me that Trapfinding essentially stamps a rogue as a required PC in any party in order to deal with any significant traps. 3E generally doesn't try to force any specific class(es) to be included in a party, but this is one area where that breaks down, since the rogue is the only one who can do it. (Whereas for pretty much any other function, at least two classes can cover that base.) Granted, the presence of the Artificer in Eberron (and elsewhere if it's adopted in other settings) loosens that problem up somewhat. this is not true, you basically need a rogue, a spellcaster or a tank with healing to overcome any trap. If you don't have any of those then yes you will be in trouble.
Nathreet 05-26-07, 10:50 PM	Keeping mind that if you are using standard D&D multiclassing rules, that character will be picking up an XP penalty of 40% throughout its lifetime if it ever specializes in a single class. (Which I think is B.S., but eh. Them's the breaks.) Anyway, I was never a fan of one-level-dips in order to get certain class features. Just seemed rather tacky. You can still advance in your favored class without penalty. If you are a human taking all those dips, you can advance in any class you want. Multiclassing exp penalties only apply when the difference between any two classes, except the favored class, is more than one.
NoldorForce 05-26-07, 11:37 PM	Trapfinding is a defunct legacy in the rules, and a glaringly poor one at that. It's the one vestige remaining of the concept of exclusive skills. Sure, others who don't have trapfinding can use Search, but they're barred from the uses that people actually care about. Truly, it either needs to be thrown out or to be converted into a function within the Search skill itself. (Xeviat-DM's suggestion works reasonably.)
Metafictional 05-27-07, 04:51 AM	Honestly, I found searching for traps to be something of a nuisance in my games, since it basically means the party is slowly slogging through every square inch of corridor on the off chance there's a trap. It's enough to make me PUT a trap there, just so they can try to find it, you know, to break the monotony. Which I hate, since I tend to only put traps in locations that are important enough to be trapped (of course, this lends itself to a little metagame thinking, on the part of my players, if they see an area that looks like a good place for a trap, they expect one. This never bothered me, because it's logical, and even if there IS a trap, there's no guarantee they'll find it). I finally fixed it this way. 1) finding a trap is a function of Search, and I don't limit people on what kinds of traps they can find. 2) trapfinding allows the character to automatically make a Search check to find a trap whenever they come within 5' of one (just like Elves and secret doors). Suddendly, my games became a lot less monotonous!
Illithid_Tentacles 05-27-07, 07:05 AM	Trapfinding is a defunct legacy in the rules, and a glaringly poor one at that. It's the one vestige remaining of the concept of exclusive skills. Sure, others who don't have trapfinding can use Search, but they're barred from the uses that people actually care about. Truly, it either needs to be thrown out or to be converted into a function within the Search skill itself. (Xeviat-DM's suggestion works reasonably.) Yeah, and anyone should be able to take Weapon Specilization! And hell, how come only sorcerers and bards can cast spontaneously? Why not give fighters, rogues, and barbarians the ability to cast sorcerer spells? Nothing should be exclusive like that!
Venenum 05-27-07, 08:06 AM	Yeah, and anyone should be able to take Weapon Specilization! And hell, how come only sorcerers and bards can cast spontaneously? Why not give fighters, rogues, and barbarians the ability to cast sorcerer spells? Nothing should be exclusive like that! Nobody is planning to do that, its just it seems rediculous, that a character by 20rd level that has maxed out search can't even find a simple hidden pit trap. that has a dc of 21. He has a roll modifier of 23+int bonus, and yet he is obblivios to something a 5 lvl rouge could spot right off the bat. In one of my games we went to 50th lv, and i had a dwarf that had craft trapmaking, search, and disable device maxed as cross-classed and class skills, but had not taken a level of rouge, and yet stll could not even find the most easily hidden traps, thats just dumb.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-27-07, 08:18 AM	However, I recognize it as an important ability to the rogue, and simply removing it, or allowing all classes access to trapfinding, can significantly alter its balance. No, it's really not. Sneak attack is an important ability to the rogue. Evasion is an important ability to the rogue. An actual appropriate number of skill points is an important ability to the rogue. Trapfinding is flavor text at best. Typecasting at worst. It should just be a feat with a number of ranks in search as a prerequisite. Done. It's actually worth less than a feat for what it does, so also give a +2 unnamed bonus to search checks to find traps.
Metafictional 05-27-07, 12:06 PM	Hm, I guess the concept behind Weapon Specialization is that the Fighter is the natural class to be a weapons master. I used to be annoyed when they allowed other classes to get WSpec. Now I'm just annoyed that anyone thinks the ability to spend 2 Feats to get +1 to hit and +2 to damage is a fair deal. For God's sakes, a 2nd-level SPELL can do better than that!
Neutronium_Dragon 05-27-07, 03:18 PM	> this is like saying that since favored enemy is from special training you > should be able to pick it up as a feat, This already exists in various sourcebooks. > or flur of blows or any other number of class abilties that are special > training. Two-Weapon Fighting. That's basically what Flurry of Blows is, specialized to the Unarmed Strike progression. > this is not true, you basically need a rogue, a spellcaster or a tank with > healing to overcome any trap. If you don't have any of those then yes you > will be in trouble. In order to actually disarm it rather than simply blundering through it, you need a Rogue - unless you're looking beyond the core for other classes with Trapfinding. Any other function in the party, however - tank, healer, blaster, troubleshooter, and so on - can be filled by multiple classes, even using just the core ones. Trapfinding is one of those proud nails which stamps "Rogue Required" on an area of functionality, and as others have pointed out, is probably really only there because of legacy issues.
dndfencer 05-27-07, 03:31 PM	Actually, rogues aren't required for trapfinding. There are a couple spells which allow clerics and wizards to do the same thing but i'm still agreeing with the fact that trapfinding is stupid. reason why is that it just doesn't make any sense and it forces rogueish things upon us. I mean really, the reason why someone finds something is becuase they spot it and anyone can so that. My suggestion, either make it a feat or don't and just give rogues a bonus to spotting traps.
LadyAlaria 05-27-07, 04:02 PM	I finally fixed it this way. 1) finding a trap is a function of Search, and I don't limit people on what kinds of traps they can find. 2) trapfinding allows the character to automatically make a Search check to find a trap whenever they come within 5' of one (just like Elves and secret doors). Thanks for the house rule. Will implement immediately.
Illithid_Tentacles 05-27-07, 04:11 PM	In one of my games we went to 50th lv, and i had a dwarf that had craft trapmaking, search, and disable device maxed as cross-classed and class skills, but had not taken a level of rouge, and yet stll could not even find the most easily hidden traps, thats just dumb. "The most easily hidden trap" would probably have a Search DC of less than 20. As I said in my first post, anyone CAN find a trap if the DC to find it is less than 20. Also, IT'S A GAME. Of COURSE it's not going to be realistic.
Zyrusticae 05-27-07, 06:07 PM	You can still advance in your favored class without penalty. If you are a human taking all those dips, you can advance in any class you want. Multiclassing exp penalties only apply when the difference between any two classes, except the favored class, is more than one. Which I already know about. Except that there are many more races out there besides humans, and any of these races would be suffering said XP penalty save for the ones with one of those particular favored classes (which, again, I think is total B.S.). But anyways, this has little to do with the thread. I think that, indeed, anybody should be able to find traps of a DC higher than 20, and making trapfinding work much like an elf's ability to detect secret doors is a really fine way to work it. I like it. I think I'll keep it.
Xelblade 05-28-07, 09:44 PM	I actually like this house rule. In campaigns, I find it's usually sort of annoying and a drag on the game to always have one person (the rogue) doing everything outside of fights, including looking for traps, and the party moving at the incredible pace of five feet a turn.
trapspringer 05-29-07, 10:00 PM	Thanks for the house rule. Will implement immediately. Agree. That's a damn fine house rule. I have never before felt that anyone's house rule should be implemented, by the way.
CrazyOzzy 05-30-07, 06:44 AM	Thanks for the house rule. Will implement immediately. Same here. I will still rule that only those with Trapfinding can find Magic Traps.
Thane26425 05-30-07, 01:33 PM	I applied to a game last night and it worked quite well. It helps if the DM makes the roll though so the players don't too suspicious. That is, the Dm should roll if they are just passing and haven't announced that the party is actively searching a room or item.
starfire311 05-30-07, 01:51 PM	I applied to a game last night and it worked quite well. It helps if the DM makes the roll though so the players don't too suspicious. That is, the Dm should roll if they are just passing and haven't announced that the party is actively searching a room or item. what I would do is have the player roll several search checks ahead of time, and just secretly reference those when it is needed, or you can inform them that due to the new rule you will have them roll for search checks at random times in addition to when there is a trap.
dndfencer 05-31-07, 12:09 AM	nice idea with the players rolling and you referencing. I've never done that but it sounds like a great idea
Thane26425 05-31-07, 03:24 AM	what I would do is have the player roll several search checks ahead of time, and just secretly reference those when it is needed, or you can inform them that due to the new rule you will have them roll for search checks at random times in addition to when there is a trap. I might have to try that.
trapspringer 05-31-07, 03:54 PM	nice idea with the players rolling and you referencing. I've never done that but it sounds like a great idea That is the best method, but honestly that's usually more set up than I'd like. The running system in our group is for the DM (whoever that is for a given set of characters) to keep a list of stuff like AC, saves, spot, listen, search, and that kinda' thing in his or her notebook along with the adventure arc and maps and stuff.
Metafictional 06-01-07, 06:41 PM	Hm, good point with the checks needing to be "secret". I hadn't considered that before, I'll remember that for future games. As for finding magical traps, something always bothered me about that. How does one detect a magical trap without, I don't know, detect magic? Some people say the Rogue naturally can notice arcane symbols and such... Without Spellcraft. Dunno, you'd think someone with Spellcraft would be better at this sort of thing. Like, I dunno, the Bard, who has most of the same skills set, and much more familiarity with magic?
trapspringer 06-03-07, 10:47 PM	'Course with a sufficiently high search score there is nothing you can't find because that is the only skill which describes a character's ability to notice the inconspicuous. (To clarify: spot and listen are for noticing the inconspicuous. Finding is a much more active process than noticing.)