Archetypes

[ad_hoc]

Sorry for the confusing use of pronouns. My suggestion wasn't for the character to add traps to the adventure. It was for the DM to add traps to the adventure. I hope that clears things up.

Right, but if traps are added to the adventure because of the character then that's bad because now there are traps to deal with.

I do agree that traps should be an assumed part of D&D. 1 adventure might just not happen to have traps and I think that's fine. If all the adventures don't then that's something that should be talked about in session 0.

 

[Hriston]

Right, but if traps are added to the adventure because of the character then that's bad because now there are traps to deal with.

I would say it’s good because that’s the sort of challenge the player created his/her character to deal with and gives the character a chance to shine and share some of the spotlight. It’s like a ranger encountering its favored enemy or traveling through its favored terrain, or a paladin encountering fiends, celestials, or undead.

I do agree that traps should be an assumed part of D&D. 1 adventure might just not happen to have traps and I think that's fine. If all the adventures don't then that's something that should be talked about in session 0.

I don’t think traps need to be included if that isn’t something the players are interested in, but one of the ways a player can signal to the DM and the rest of the group that s/he’s interested in a game that features traps is to build a character that’s well equipped to deal with them, and I think a good DM is going to pay attention to this sort of thing. I absolutely agree that talking about this in a session 0 is for the best.

 

[ad_hoc]

I would say it’s good because that’s the sort of challenge the player created his/her character to deal with and gives the character a chance to shine and share some of the spotlight. It’s like a ranger encountering its favored enemy or traveling through its favored terrain, or a paladin encountering fiends, celestials, or undead.



I don’t think traps need to be included if that isn’t something the players are interested in, but one of the ways a player can signal to the DM and the rest of the group that s/he’s interested in a game that features traps is to build a character that’s well equipped to deal with them, and I think a good DM is going to pay attention to this sort of thing. I absolutely agree that talking about this in a session 0 is for the best.

I guess this comes down to how we play.

I like the challenges to be the challenges and then how the players approach them depends on what they have and how they go about using those resources.

I think changing the challenges based on what the players have chosen takes away their agency in that regard. And in this case the trap defeater is being a liability on the party because now there are traps when there weren't any before.

 

[Hriston]

I guess this comes down to how we play.

I like the challenges to be the challenges and then how the players approach them depends on what they have and how they go about using those resources.

I think changing the challenges based on what the players have chosen takes away their agency in that regard. And in this case the trap defeater is being a liability on the party because now there are traps when there weren't any before.

Well, I'm not advocating that the DM change any fiction that's already been established, and I understand there's a playstyle in which the DM's prep-work may be considered "established" even though it hasn't seen any actual game-play. What I'm saying is if the player is making a character for one type of adventure, and the DM is running another type of adventure, there's a mismatch of expectations that should be addressed out of game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Lets throw something else out there - what if one player creates a character who focuses on locks and traps and another player creates a character who is just good at locks and traps, but - because 5e supports this - is good at other stuff as well?

 

[ClaytonCross]

Lets throw something else out there - what if one player creates a character who focuses on locks and traps and another player creates a character who is just good at locks and traps, but - because 5e supports this - is good at other stuff as well?

I am not tracking what your saying entirely but Its not unheard of to have a for example a Ranger scout without thieves tools a Wizard to investigate "oddities" for traps mundane or arcane, then have the rogue with low wisdom and intellect disarm them with thieves tools. I think it is far less common that a rogue with expertise in thieves tools and investigation who doesn't need the wizard and often GMs don't allow "visual clues for hidden traps". I prefer traps to have a different perception DC and investigation DC to notice find and allow a perceptive player to be able to tip off the need to investigate. However this is largely a GM play style choice that has developed from being annoyed when GMs I played under only allowed one or the other switching after I revealed I had built a character who was good at the one we were using but wanted us to fail the trap to tell their story.

So now when I GM I use a macro that makes a random DC for each skill separately then modifies:

-to spot: Perception, Investigation, Survival
-to disarm: Thieves' Tools, Intellect, strength
-Failed disarm: Save DC / Attack roll , Damage type , Damage, critical damage (if to hit)

This allows a group effort or unstandardized approach to traps. On the other hand, I highly recommend "role planning" for parties. I don't mean players micro manage eachothers characters, but if there is party role you want to do call it out and let the other players know because the worst player vs player friction I have seen is because two players wanted to do the role in the group not because you to players with the same class, race, background, feats. They start fighting for their moment to shine. If you have a rogue that spots traps and then a rogue that disarm traps they can work as a partnership but if you have a wizard who disarms traps and a ranger who disarms traps their is a chance they will fight about it if that was a primary character archetype goal they don't want to let go of as the OP has described.

 

[ad_hoc]

Well, I'm not advocating that the DM change any fiction that's already been established, and I understand there's a playstyle in which the DM's prep-work may be considered "established" even though it hasn't seen any actual game-play. What I'm saying is if the player is making a character for one type of adventure, and the DM is running another type of adventure, there's a mismatch of expectations that should be addressed out of game.

Maybe we mean different things by 'adventure'.

I think it is fine for an adventure to not have any traps in them.

If a campaign didn't have any traps that would be out of the ordinary and something that should be brought up in session 0.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The point is, a party only needs one character to be good with traps (true, you can split the skills amongst multiple characters, but you don't need to) so, even if you are confident the adventure will feature traps, you run the risk of redundancy unless you can do something else, such as hold your own in a scrap or act as the party face.

Which is why all rogues get sneak attack, whether they like it or not.

 

[Coroc]

To OP:

Nothing easier than that, pick any class of dwarf, let us say a fighter and use the criminal background. It gives you the thieving basics. Use the skilled feat for enhanced capabilities. Of course you should put some attribute points into dex int and wis for your perception investigation and thieving tool skills.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I guess this comes down to how we play.

I like the challenges to be the challenges and then how the players approach them depends on what they have and how they go about using those resources.

I think changing the challenges based on what the players have chosen takes away their agency in that regard. And in this case the trap defeater is being a liability on the party because now there are traps when there weren't any before.

Wha? The player makes a choice with limited and irrecoverable build resources and you say acknowledging that choice is removing player agency?!