A rogue and only a rogue...

[Kahuna Burger]

In my next campaign, that silly rule about only rogues being able to fnd high DC traps is probably going to go. I won't even go into all the reasons its foolish. But I haven't fully decided whether to eliminate it entirely, replace it with a more sensible requirement (so many ranking in disable device or craft(trapmaking) instead of a class level) or leave it but add similarly biased divisions of skill use to other classes.

After much changing of my mind, I'm going to have a poll option for saying the rule should be kept as it is, but mentally I'll only be counting those votes if you post to this thread justifying it. (and 'balancing' the rogue ain't even close )

Kahuna Burger

 

[GuardianLurker]

The rogue's Thing(tm), its Sacred Cow(r), is the ability to find and disable traps. The rule is an attempt to preserve this "special ability" since neither Search nor Disable Device are exclusive skills.

Option 3 is a possibility, though you might have to change the interval (X+15?). But I'm not sure how well this would work in practice, since so otherwise easy-to-find things would be impossible for low-skilled characters. ("I don't care that you rolled a nat 20! The search DC is 15, and you don't have any ranks in search at all!")

Option 4 continues the analogy, but is a right proper mess. You'd have to choose a "special" skill for each class, and it'd have to be one you could justify special knowledge/training for.

Another option (one you didn't list) would be to make one (or both) of the skills exclusive. (I'd vote for Disable Device). Or you could give all non-rogues a significant penalty to their rolls.

But I'm not real comfortable with any of those. My gut feel is that this is one of those "cascade" rules - it looks really simple to change, but ends up affecting a lot more than you think.

For that reason, I'd rather just leave it alone.

 

[Witch Doctor]

My question would then be, "What are you going to give rogues in replacment?"

Seriously, searching and disabling traps is one of the 2 things that rogues do (the other is scouting). Rogues aren't very good in combat and can't cast spells.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

My question would then be, "What are you going to give rogues in replacment?"

Seriously, searching and disabling traps is one of the 2 things that rogues do (the other is scouting). Rogues aren't very good in combat and can't cast spells.

Nothing of course, I said "balancing the rogue" wasn't a legitamate reason for me to keep the ability.

With flanking and sneak attack rogues are just fine and dandy combatants. Their lack of magic is iffy when you start thinking about abilities like improved evasion. (I'm honestly considering declaring evasion supernatural) and they are so overpowered in the skill department, allowing them to be the only ones to use a skill in a particular way is just overkill.

A rogue can be good at scouting AND finding and disabling traps AND an excellent support fighter with the right feats, AND better at negotiations and "Facing" than the bard, even without this silly rule.

Think of it this way. The fighter is only good at fighting. Yet three other classes have a fighter BAB, the monk can get more attacks and the rogue can easily do more damage. The cleric is mostly good at healing, but three other classes can magically heal in a pinch. The wizard has nothing but magic, yet there are other magic using classes. If you can have a fighting, healing, magic slinging party without needing a single one of the "fighting, healing and magic using classes", why should something as simple as making a search check in a high DC dungeon be limited to parties with a rogue?

Kahuna Burger

 

[AEtherfyre]

I, personally, think the rule is stupid.

Firstly, any character with so much as a single level of rogue qualifies - the rule is very poorly implemented.

Secondly, the search and disable device skills are usually - dare I say nearly exclusively? - used for dealing with traps. If only rogues can use them for their primary purpose, only rogues will take them - and I consider that poor game design. Don't make abilities available to everyone, and then make them useless to almost everyone. Better to just declare them exclusive skills!

Thirdly. The rogue isn't exactly the weakest class out there, and given the skill ranks needed to be an effective trap disarmer, few who aren't rogues will take the skills anyway.

Fourthly. Disable device is a class skill for rogues alone, and search is only for rogues and rangers. Given that - it's still pretty much exclusively rogues using the skills. Given this, the rule that only rogues can detect / disarm traps is pretty pointless - multiclassing bypasses it readily, and the serious limit is the skill ranks.

As far as I can tell, the only likely consequence of this change will be the occasional ranger or wizard trying their hands at dealing with traps, and neither will be as good at it as the rogue. Having wizards be almost as good as rogues at the job (about 5 ranks short at level 20, if the rogue doesn't have a high int) seems relatively minor, in my opinion, and gets rid of a poorly designed and implemented rule.

 

[comrade raoul]

Have you considered making the ability to disable high DC traps a feat, and giving that feat to rogues as a 1st-level bonus feat, like the ranger's Track?

See, I do think the ability to disable high DC traps should be something like a special perk; and I do think it should be something that, ceteris paribus, rogues should have a special knack at. On the other hand, it should also be the sort of thing that other classes should be able to get if they'd really like to -- and the feat solution manages to accomodate all of that.

 

[Nifft]

Make it a Feat, like Track. Rogues get it free, everyone else can take the Feat.

That's what I'm going to do.

-- Nifft

 

[Steverooo]

Make it a Feat, like Track. Rogues get it free, everyone else can take the Feat.

That's what I'm going to do.

-- Nifft

I already did, I just left Rogues as they are (without it). Plenty of Feats allow you to "break the rules".