A rogue and only a rogue...

[Kahuna Burger]

I posted a poll about this over in houserules, but the lack of instant feedback is getting to me , so I thought I'd open a more general discussion on the topic here. Do you use the "only rogues can find (most) traps" rule in your campaigns? Should anyone with a good enough search skill find traps? Should it be limited in some way other than by class (skill synergy perhaps)? Should the other classes have exclusive skill applications related to their niche or flavor?

I'll admit to being not much of a D&D player prior to 3ed, so I'm just not buying the "well it's what rogues DO" reasoning.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Crothian]

I like it. If I were to change it so everyone can do it I'd at least take the skill off of all other class skills lists except the rogue, or make it a feat that anyone can take. So, I? wouldn't automatyically allow all classes to be able to do it as good as the rogue.

 

[SpiderMonkey]

Hmm...my initial impulse is to say that it's probably not a good idea. Speaking from the "that's what rogues DO" perspective it seems to open a veritable Pandora's Box of balance issues. Why not then, make turning available to all classes (hey, any schmoe in a dracula movie could wave a cross at him), or wild shape an ability anyone can take with the appropriate feat. I know that these are extreme (and magical) examples, but speaking from a game mechanics angle, they are an adequate analogy. If someone wants to be able to find magical traps, they can take a level (or so) of rogue, just as if they wanted other class abilities they would do so for other classes.

I understand the perspective you're coming from, and one could argue that instances such as the one you're addressing are a significant weakness of a class-based game system. I wouldn't do it, but if you can find a way that makes it work in your game and is equitable in the eyes of your players, that would be cool.

Good luck, and sorry for the length of this!

 

[Cedric]

For the most part only rogues have a chance of noticing a trap...

The exceptions to this are...

Stonework or dwarven traps...a dwarf might notice

If the character has been "bitten" by a similar trap or trap of the same nature, they can roll to notice it

Magical traps of certain natures "may" be detected by a wizard or sorcerer if I'm feeling nice

Cedric

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I like it. If I were to change it so everyone can do it I'd at least take the skill off of all other class skills lists except the rogue, or make it a feat that anyone can take. So, I? wouldn't automatyically allow all classes to be able to do it as good as the rogue.

Well, it isn't on a lot of other class lists to begin with, and no other class has the skill point glut to invest heavily in it unless its a major aspect of the character, so I'm having trouble seeing the problem of "all classes doing it as well as the rogue".

On the other hand, there are other classes which can play musical instruments as well as the bard, that can track as well as the ranger, that can identify magical effects as well as the wizard, etc. I cannot see the justification for preserving one completely non magical use of skills anyone can have to rogues. (esp since if your campaign involves anything but one on one combat with constructs and undead I find the rogue overpowered.)

Kahuna Burger

 

[mmu1]

I don't think it's a major issue as long as rogues are the only ones that can disable the more complex and magical traps. 90% of the time, they'll probably have the best Search skill in the party anyway. Hmm... Perhaps make it so that Search is considered trained only for the purposes of finding traps with a DC of more than 20?

Preserving class abilities is all well and good, but once it gets to a point where you have to blatantly illogical ("No, there's just no way your 22 INT Elven wizard with several ranks of Search can realize those minute holes scattered in a strange pattern around the keyhole could be a trap...") about it, a house-rule might be indicated.

 

[fusangite]

I'm with you Kahuna Burger. A particular skill roll should always mean the same thing. Period.

This is why I converted Track into a skill in my houserules (yes, there's a synergy bonus with Wilderness Lore); I don't like the idea that a level in a class or a particular feat should cause a roll on a skill to mean something different.

If someone tells me they have got a 30 in search. I shouldn't need to ask "Do you have a level of Rogue?" The 30 should be the whole damn story.

 

[Steverooo]

"Feat" Accompli

I made finding DC:20+ traps a Feat.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'd hate if the changed that in 3.62e or D&DClix or whatever the next version is going to be. The Thief...er Rogue is specially trained at doing that. If you want to have your fighter with his high search finding DC30 traps then take a level of rogue.

 

[Desdichado]

I like to keep classes at a more meta game level; a transparent mechanic, not a locked in place set of skills. I would certainly never say that only rogues can disarm traps -- I'd let anyone try. I'd suspect that in general rogues would be better at it, though. But that really depends on the choices the rogue's character made during generation, though.