Knock has a range of 100' + 10' per level, so that kind of mitigates the danger. Unless the trap targets someone down the hall rather than someone right in front of the door/chest, in which case I'd suspect the DM is trying to make a point. Also, Summon Monster I and Unseen Servant are alternative methods to set off traps.
First, not many dungeons allow for distances that great. You have to have line of sight to the door, which means the trap has line of sight to you.
Second, in a world with knock, you don't think people that can afford traps don't take knock into consideration when building traps?
Third, deliberately setting off traps when you could have a rogue disarm them is not smart. You could easily end up destroying something very important that you need by doing that, or create a dead end in a direction that you need to go, or a number of other bad for the party situations.
I'm not interested in the improbability of some of these things, although I don't think rules give a lot of support to traps that target the caster of knock instead of targeting a specific square or squares. Your real point seems to be that the DM can contrive some ways to protect the non-casters' roles in a party, while simultaneously working against the casters.
To some extent the DM should try to equalize spotlight time. The timid new guy should be encouraged to speak up when the noisy old-timers take charge of every social situation. Everyone's story and motivations should be explored pretty equally, unless the group is happy focusing on one character. Creating circumstances that favor the weaker classes over the more powerful shouldn't be the DM's job.
Even more than that, I frankly can't stand the idea that one PC's role is to trudge around taking 20 on Search checks so no one dies opening a door, and to then hope he doesn't roll low on Disable Device and get owned by a poisoned crossbow, and to then take 20 on Open Locks, all to justify his existence. In general I dislike the idea of tying some potentially vital resources (like Trapfinding or thief skills, depending on edition) to one class (or a few imitators later on in 3.5) when the exercise of these resources is often totally routine. Stuff like taking 20 to open locks or find traps that the DM put there to justify or necessitate the presence of a trap class is really boring to me.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
I think the point we are trying to make here is that any situation you can come up with that another class should excel at the Wizard can at least match them (if not exceed them) using just spells...
My main point is exactly this. Where is the problem if the wizard (Sorcerer, cleric, druid) can match another party member with his spells? If the wizard, using spells, can match his party member in their strong spot, using his spell to teamplay he will just make his companion the best in existance. So if a wizard uses his power to compete with his companions ni their roles he is using them in a non optimal way.
I think the point we are trying to make here is that any situation you can come up with that another class should excel at the Wizard can at least match them (if not exceed them) using just spells...
My main point is exactly this. Where is the problem if the wizard (Sorcerer, cleric, druid) can match another party member with his spells? If the wizard, using spells, can match his party member in their strong spot, using his spell to teamplay he will just make his companion the best in existance. So if a wizard uses his power to compete with his companions ni their roles he is using them in a non optimal way.
If a wizard has to choose between turning himself into a Roper and turning the fighter into one, he's probably better off letting the fighter go around smacking stuff and inflicting massive Str damage. Here's the thing though: if the wizard does cast it on himself, he's still making 6 attacks per round that have a chance to do 2d8 Str damage.
So the real choice is whether to play the class that has great abilities or the one that doesn't. Teamwork is great, sure, but giving some class incredible abilities to share with the team isn't the ideal way to make that happen. Rather than bothering with a fighter, why not just pick another caster class that can add more than full BAB and some bonus feats to the party?
No one is arguing against teamwork, in other words. We're against abilities that make the caster, his fighter buddy, his cleric friend, or anyone else too powerful. We're in fact in favor of making teamwork more necessary and more even. Teamwork shouldn't mean that you cast Reverse Gravity and I fill the enemies with arrows while they stare at me from the ceiling, or that you cast Evard's Black Tentacles and I fill the enemies with arrows while they get molested, or that you cast Magic Jar and make the enemies fight amongst themselves until there's one left and I fill him with arrows after he removes all his equipment. Teamwork is most rewarding when everyone's contribution is hard to replace.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Really, I read someone saying that a DM being smarter than players (play-wise, surely) and making it clear that was not good. Well, the DM _needs_ to be smarter than at least most players game-wise, he will be telling a story, making sure realistic and fantastic play fits the setting, handling tons of NPCs, describing cities, improvising as their players do random stuff, etc. If you get a DM that lacks these skills, you'll have a poor game session, that's a fact.
One thing is for the system to provide support for the DM and help him learn how to deal with being a DM, another is ruling everything and making the DM act like some sort of machine-storyteller.
Be it a wizard, a fighter, a rogue, a balor, a tarrasque, etc, it falls to the DM to fit the game in the playstyle of the group. The players can help, but much of the fun of the game will be in the hands of the DM, if you want yo play something that's not like this, so you're not exactly looking to play RPG.
..
Anyway, a wizard can be a jack-of-all-trades, surely. He may be insivible, fly, teleport, plane-travel, etc, but he won't do 10d6 sneak attack damage (and possibel 30d6 in a round, no way to resist except being a construct/undead, making even the terrible one-hit spells not that of a threat), he won't reach 40 AC, 250 hp, he won't heal 150 hp in a round, he will be useless when his most powerful spells are depleted, etc. He can't do everything at excellence.
I'm not saying the 3.5e was balanced, it was not. It had lots of problems and most of them were in spells simply because we had hundreds of them and they did thousands of different things.
But balancing everyone combat-wise is not a way to fix a RPG. What if a player wants to play a diplomatic king? Does he needs to have the same combat-capabilities as the other who plays a gladiator? Certainly not, his skills will shine when he is talking, convincing foes, etc, while the Gladiator would be better in combats. I think it's fair to give the player options to choose what he wants and give him different options.
The 4e edition was far too concercend in giving a full combat experience to everyone (probably based on the great success of MMOs when it was released) that it lured lots of players who only focus on fighting and made all classes mechanically the same, only with different combat-roles. Like someone said before, the difference between a wiz and a fighter in 4e was like "wiz causes 3d10 fire damage with Int, and fighter deals 3d10 damage with Str". I liked the system in many ways, but I wish options, I wish to play a jack-of-all-trades like the 3e wizard (but with a more controlled spell system), or a diplomatic bard who cares little about fights, or a nature-linked druid who fares better at using animals to his aid instead of taking arms himself. The 4ed gave no support for such things, whatever class I choose had the same balance in combat-social-mental skills =/ the feats and skills there were not enough to break this balance.
I think it would be nice to keep the Power style and Rituals of the 4ed to wizards, clerics and other spellcasters, but give other options to fighters, rogues, paladins, bards, etc. I don't want my rogue to be a super-killer untouchable light warrior, I want him to be sneaky, to infiltrate a palace, be a skilled liar, to kill targets from behind, etc, suffer when he's caught unprepared but be rewarded when acting with foresight.
I liked the system in many ways, but I wish options, I wish to play a jack-of-all-trades like the 3e wizard (but with a more controlled spell system), or a diplomatic bard who cares little about fights, or a nature-linked druid who fares better at using animals to his aid instead of taking arms himself. The 4ed gave no support for such things, whatever class I choose had the same balance in combat-social-mental skills =/ the feats and skills there were not enough to break this balance.
I think it would be nice to keep the Power style and Rituals of the 4ed to wizards, clerics and other spellcasters, but give other options to fighters, rogues, paladins, bards, etc. I don't want my rogue to be a super-killer untouchable light warrior, I want him to be sneaky, to infiltrate a palace, be a skilled liar, to kill targets from behind, etc, suffer when he's caught unprepared but be rewarded when acting with foresight.
I highly recommend you check out the discussion in the Legend and Lore: Rogue Design Goals thread. Towards the last few pages, discussion on the character building the in new system, theories on how it will work and how you can manage to do X, Y, or Z are there.
Towards your first comment of the DM needing to be smarter than his players, I disgree. He does however need to be respected by his players, such that if he says X and someone claims Y, X is the result. There are times when this is not the case, but they shouldn't be every moment of conflict. If a player pulls out a sneaky trick, that's fine. It is now up to the DM to sit with that player after the game but before the next time said trick is used at a session (if possible) and talk with the player about potential consequences of doing the trick again and again. If the player gets on a soapbox about how it's unfair that the DM is limiting his choices, I'd ask him to sit out a session. If he gets rude further, I would tell him he is no longer welcome at the table. Not because his spell choice was too powerful, but because the player was clearly being disrespectful, rude, and I do not encourage poor manners in my house. That is my personal thing, and has nothing to do with the system.
The system for casters has always been and will likely, forever be, broken. It is be the power of the social contract that people are not jerks at the table. This includes letting others take time to shine in the scene. Sure, maybe with the right combination of spells the wizard can easily eliminate any threat ever, but the player is held to a social contract to not be a jerk to his fellow players, nor disruptive to the game as a whole. He can be powerful, sure, but must be respectful. Besides how many kindly old wizards are jerks (who after meeting the heroes continues to draw breath)?
I have had a player in my game, playing the absolutely by and far most powerful character in the campaign by design. This was a 3.X game, with a wizard based homebrew. He could at any time have killed everyone in my villain list (aside from my "Know It All" NPC) and killed the party probably in 2 rounds, tops. Why would I hand this player an Atomic Bomb of a character? I knew he respected me and the game enough to NOT do that. He had power for when rolls were terrible that night and it was going to be a TPK, he could save the party. Why? I wanted them to win. Did he do this every single fight? No. Did he sometimes change the plot of my game a little? Yes. Was this a bad thing? Heck no, it was wonderful.
Lots of power, the ability to ruin worlds - but it's the respect for the other players, and the DM and the game itself that holds them in check. I guess in the long run, as a DM, I won't let certain people play spellcasters, simply because, I cannot trust them. That's my call as a DM, and they are welcome to game elsewhere if it's a problem. I know that doesn't work for everyone - and if I do let a poor spellcaster get in and he begins to ruin the game for others - if a simple talk isn't enough to put the player on the right track, either accepting consequences for his actions, or laying off ruining other people's moment to shine - then said character clearly had something to do back in town, and leaves the party, because that player will undoubtably not be coming back to my table.
1) 4 orcs ambush the pcs. This fight is a little much for the group but the wizard decides to use his crossbow so the fighter and rogue can shine. Soon the fighter and rogue are down and out so the wizard casts sleep on the remainig orcs and the cleric coup de graces the now helpless orcs.
2) 4 orcs ambush the pcs. This fight is a little much for the group so the wizard casts grease and laughs maniacally as the now helpless orcs struggle to stand or even move. The party then fills the helpless orcs with arrows.
3) 4 orcs ambush the pcs. This fight is a little much for our group so the wizard casts grease. He reshapes the battlefield so three of the four orcs are now caught in the grease making it difficult for them to get to the party. The fighter and rogue make quick work of the lone Orc while the wizard uses bursts of freezing wind to slide the orcs around so the party can continue to pick them off one at a time. Had the wizard not used grease the fight would have been far more difficult but the grease spell did not end the fight by itself.
Which scenario seems more like a team effort? 1) 4 orcs ambush the pcs. This fight is a little much for the group but the wizard decides to use his crossbow so the fighter and rogue can shine. Soon the fighter and rogue are down and out so the wizard casts sleep on the remainig orcs and the cleric coup de graces the now helpless orcs. 2) 4 orcs ambush the pcs. This fight is a little much for the group so the wizard casts grease and laughs maniacally as the now helpless orcs struggle to stand or even move. The party then fills the helpless orcs with arrows. 3) 4 orcs ambush the pcs. This fight is a little much for our group so the wizard casts grease. He reshapes the battlefield so three of the four orcs are now caught in the grease making it difficult for them to get to the party. The fighter and rogue make quick work of the lone Orc while the wizard uses bursts of freezing wind to slide the orcs around so the party can continue to pick them off one at a time. Had the wizard not used grease the fight would have been far more difficult but the grease spell did not end the fight by itself.
The fight is hard - so the rogue going first in initiative - grabs a ball of sand in his hand as he rushes the first orc, stopping short and using his attack to put the sand into the eyes of the orc. The fighter rushes in next, but so do the orcs, the fighter clashing with two of them, manages to land a solid blow on one, knocking it down, and takes a hit from the other one, an open wound on his shoulder. The blinded orc stumbles forward and swings wildly at the halfling rogue, missing. The final one, smart, avoided the two with close combat weapons drawn and closes towards the cleric and wizard. Knowing that the rogue can likely finish off the one in front of him, and the fighter will handle the 3rd, he knows that grease, his go to, won't work, and it's a waste to throw magic missile now, he's got a long day ahead of him and they just entered the orc territory this won't be the last fight. Stepping away, he pulls down his crossbow and fires, winging the orc close to them. The cleric finally, steps between the mage and the last orc and drives his mace upon the creature. It is felled. Knowing that the fighter can take another hit, but not wanting to risk it, he sends tendrils of magic forward to heal his companion. Top of the round, the rogue slips behind his blinding enemy and places his dagger firmly between the back of the ribs and lances vital organs, killing him opponent. The final orc makes a swing at the fighter, the fighter makes a swing at the orc. the shaft of the orc's axe shatters as the great sword tears through the wood and then down upon the orc's skull. The fight is over. No wizard spells. One healing spell. One inventive tactic, and the fighter fighting.
It can go a lot of different ways - If the fight calls for a spell, then a spell happens, but wasting one now could mean a dead party later. The problem became in 3.X that a wizard would blow ALL THE SPELLS immediately, and then force the party to rest for 8 hours - OR he got to such a power-level that party? What party?
My main point is exactly this. Where is the problem if the wizard (Sorcerer, cleric, druid) can match another party member with his spells? If the wizard, using spells, can match his party member in their strong spot, using his spell to teamplay he will just make his companion the best in existance. So if a wizard uses his power to compete with his companions ni their roles he is using them in a non optimal way.
That's a bug, not a feature. When we can also adequately replace a caster's role with a non-caster then we can talk.
