Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[Jimmy]

Wait, what? Don't you have a chance of the trap triggering whenever you try to disable it?

If not, dammit roguelikes, why?

Sure, if you use Disable Device to attempt the check right next to the trap, instead of setting it off by using a Summon Monster spell, or throwing something heavy on the pressure plate. If the trap doesn't reset, you can then just walk past.

Also, even if doing it the traditional way, the Rogue is the one that faces the danger, but typically the whole party gets EXP for what is essentially doing nothing with no risk.

[Rolan7]

Yeah, summoned monsters are kinda OP in general.
Not in a pure combat sense- there they're sorta underleveled, or were in our campaign.  They made good distractions - and that's exactly it.  They're basically free hirelings, without any of the moral qualms because they cannot actually die. 

As a druid I never had one use test an item or trigger a trap, but that's mostly because I didn't think of it.  I did have them run suicidal distraction ops mid-combat, almost constantly.  Because they would dematerialize and be okay as soon as they "died".

Sure, I was mostly controlling animals as a druid, who wouldn't be intelligent or have the right slots.  But a relatively low-level druid can summon a satyr slave do test anything.  And unless the DM gets particularly inventive, that satyr will be immune to any ill effects.

...Unless you rule that summoned creatures take worn items with them when they despawn?  Which would be pretty weird considering their free reincarnation (not even resurrection!), but maybe.

[Jimmy]

I'd strongly disagree, at least regarding 3.5e or Pathfinder and the usefulness of summoned monsters.

Summoner classes in these systems has always been my favourite since I first played a Tiefling Conjuration Wizard. Think about it: every action the summoned creature takes is essentially an extra action you get every round. Every attack your summoned creature takes is an attack that you don't need to worry about healing or blocking. You're breaking the action economy, one of the cornerstones of the game system. Plus the creatures you can summon often have access to stuff your character can't do, be it flying, burrowing, casting from a classes spell list or using supernatural abilities or non-standard senses like tremorsense or automatic true seeing.

All of this, for the cost of a full round spell? Sign me up!

[Neonivek]

But then again 3.5 was still in the Era of "We want Spell casters to be outright better than everyone else" (Linear Warriors, Quadratic Magicians)

And there are quite a few things in 3.5 I just didn't agree with. From intentionally mislabeling the CR of some monsters (Dragons specifically), to excessive save or die mechanics, to some really annoying enemies... Not to mention the over reliance on Rogues and Clerics. With Rogues being so necessary that they built multiple rogues over the years so you wouldn't be stuck playing one.

With Pathfinder fixing SOME of the issues (Fighters are a LOT more amazing in Pathfinder then they are in 3.5) but not all of them (Rogues are still absolutely necessary to the point where one adventure path HILLARIOUSLY includes a feat that exists only so the players don't have to have one). Pathfinder is interesting because it didn't actually introduce many flaws to the game where the problems with Pathfinder are problems that still exists with 3.5.

4e which it the greatest side product of dungeons and dragons ever made!... released as the 4th edition. Essentially murdering its potential.

And 5e which is a HUGE step in the right direction in many ways as we discussed... But achieved it by murdering character creation and essentially customization and owning your character. Along with having an odd absolute refusal to expand its content beyond adventure paths... adventure paths which have an allergy to levels above 15

---

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind that there are roles in dungeons and dragons as far as Rogues are concerned. The issue is that Rogue is one class in an ever expanding class list... AND while a party have other options to deal with a situation that might require a wizard or a cleric... situations that require a Rogue can only exclusively be handled by a Rogue.

[Arx]

My group's been playing for a few months, and nothing's ever come up that only a rogue could handle. Admittedly, our DM is very good.

I definitely agree that fighters are a lot better in PF.

[Neonivek]

My group's been playing for a few months, and nothing's ever come up that only a rogue could handle. Admittedly, our DM is very good.

I definitely agree that fighters are a lot better in PF.

Most DMs when there are no Rogues will just not use situations that call for Rogues.

Creating some sort of weird alternative Universe. It always breaks my immersion because it is very noticeable.

[Arx]

What kind of situation are you thinking of that requires a rogue specifically? We've pulled off breaking and entering without leaving traces and infiltrating a heavily guarded mansion to steal a dragon egg. Both of those kind of favour having a rogue in the party, but we managed both.

[Neonivek]

Having your soul sucked out by a wall.

That save was lucky. But to admit the rogue couldn't fix that situation either due to being a area of death. So we had to go around it.

[Arx]

Having your soul sucked out by a wall.

No offence Neo, but that's very specific.

If you mean traps in general, then I guess I just disagree. Our campaign is set almost entirely in an urban area, with occasional forays into the outlying villages. I'd be much more surprised if we did find traps.

[sjm9876]

Yeah, I'd go with Arx: The kinds of situations that require a rogue are incredibly rare, and basically all of them are intended as death traps anyway. And death traps really shouldn't be all that common in most adventures.

Even then, pretty much any trap should have some way to prevent/circumvent it bar 'roll disable trap', especially if immersion is the issue. A clever rogue-less group should be able to bypass most if not all traps with some effort.

[Neonivek]

Even then, pretty much any trap should have some way to prevent/circumvent it bar 'roll disable trap', especially if immersion is the issue. A clever rogue-less group should be able to bypass most if not all traps with some effort.

What your talking about specifically goes against the book as written. The book goes out of its way to highlight that it is IMPOSSIBLE to even as much as see most traps unless your a Rogue and in some cases even disable them. As well all traps are specifically balanced for the existence of the Rogue as well.

And as always I do not give credit to a system because good DMs learned to ignore the bad sections.

Along with this traps are extremely common in dungeons and dragons lore, especially in an Urban setting (Some adventures in Urban settings being some sort of odd deathtrap dungeon)

But no it isn't just traps anyhow.

[sjm9876]

Well, that depends on the book - in 5e they very much say the opposite

But yeah, only owning the 5e books I can't comment on the other systems, bar that different systems work differently with different groups - some more mechanically minded players would enjoy the 'reward' of being able to disarm the traps because they brought a rogue, though I don't personally see it. To try and get a system to fit any party, DMs essentially have to break the rules to fit the group.

[Neonivek]

Well, that depends on the book - in 5e they very much say the opposite

But yeah, only owning the 5e books I can't comment on the other systems, bar that different systems work differently with different groups - some more mechanically minded players would enjoy the 'reward' of being able to disarm the traps because they brought a rogue, though I don't personally see it. To try and get a system to fit any party, DMs essentially have to break the rules to fit the group.

Hey 5e fixes all that and doesn't exactly rely on traps a lot (One dungeon that had a LOT of traps was because the guy who built it was a total coward who actually could have killed you... if he wasn't so cowardly. As well most of his traps are like... A box filled with rocks and can be spotted by anyone in the party) AND allows all Rogue skills to be used by everyone else AND doesn't give Rogues super duper abilities.

5e 100% fixed Rogues.

I'd love to run a 5e game again. But I promised myself that I wouldn't GM anymore. >_< sucks though because I do want to. My last game went really poorly and murdered me.

[sjm9876]

Yeah, I run 5e for a reason. (I wouldn't say rogues can't get super duper abilities - the 14th level rogue in my game can't possibly get lower that ~25 on a stealth roll - but they're not rogue limited I think is the important point.)

Might I ask why you did, as well, just from curiosity?

[Neonivek]

Yeah, I run 5e for a reason. Might I ask why you did, as well, just from curiosity?

Why I run 5e?