|
1 year ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 8:38PM
#11
|
|
|
I think Find Traps is the near-sighted cousin to Perception. Also, Find Traps is usually Intelligence-based IMO where Perception makes sense as wisdom. Perception looks for the trees in the distance and seeing if any hold bad guys. Find Traps is far more immediate and focused on finding that tripwire or hidden catch that is right next to you.
Agreed. Also, an intelligent character would be able to logically figure out the best places to put traps and deduce where a particular trapsmith may have been placed them.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 10:55PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
So the Dwarven Fighter has Perception +3
The Rogue has Find Traps +3
How do people think these two skills are going to work? I don't think it's reasonable to speculate that a Rogue is going to be able to get Perception +3 at some point, at which time he'll have 2 skills that give him the same bonus on finding traps.
Do they stack? Do I get an extra +1 to finding traps? Do I simply ignore the "Find Traps" skill and use Perception? Is it only possible to find magical traps if you have "Find Traps"?
All this is largely speculation at this point, but I'm curious how people interpret it. I would be inclined to say you get a "+1" bonus to Find Traps (total of +4) but only have +3 on Remove Traps.
I wouldn't go with a straight math bonus. If a rogue playing in my campaign had both Perception +3 and Find Traps +3, I would grant him Advantage on Find Trap checks due to his highly trained ability to pay attention to detail.
Nothing in this playtest "stacks" like they have in past editions. At least not in the rules that we have been given to work with or consider.
I look at the 2 bonuses in this way:
Perception: Soldiers pull guard duty. Newer soldiers pull guard duty a lot. They get to the point where all of that watching and listening become ingrained in their ability to see, hear, and notice things that are out of the ordinary. ie, "No birds chirping today, that's odd, right?"; "Those trees are swaying against the wind"; "All the deer are running out of the woodine and into the open"
Find Traps: Rogues learn how to maneuver through trip wires, poison coated pins in locks, wall blades, pit traps, etc. A thieves guild in a town would train all of their novice rogues on the most common types of traps that they should know about before they let them go out and steal from the locals. Thieves should have this specialized training before going out to perform this function.
If you have both skills, or both bonuses on a character sheet, it would be a lot easier for the broader skill to play into the more specialized skill. ie "You'd think that since needle traps are most common in this town that this chest would have one, right? Funny thing is, it doesn't. So I wonder what else is here to protect this thing?" (Find Traps + Advantage)
That's the way I'd rule it, but I'm just presenting one way, when in fact there are many.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 09, 2012 - 4:59AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
If rogues have the find traps skill wouldn't you just add +3 to perception in situations where perception is the relevant ability - like spotting tripwires and pits, and apply dexterity when dealing with fine work like needle traps on locks. If you want advantage surely you just pitch the dwarf up front with the rogue for pit traps or have two trap finders on your team.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 09, 2012 - 5:29AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
...and this is why I dislike the opaque blobs of text that the rules are buried in, and why I dislike this skill system. Too much is left unexplained, too much is left up to interpretation, and too many conflicts like this one exist to rightfully call them corner-cases.
The problems of scope and specificity need to be addressed in order to clean up the skill system. At minimum, each skill needs to include a relevant ability score and a description of what the skill can be used for. Leaving this up to DM interpretation is a recipe for disaster and absolutely destroys any standardization between groups, which also makes an enormous mess of any kind of organized play.
If one DM says that Perception can be used to find traps, and another DM says it can't, and according to the rules they're both right... we have a problem.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 09, 2012 - 5:49AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
Recipe for disaster is probably a bit hysterical. With the bounded accuracy and flatter power curve I seriously doubt it will make a massive difference to any game. Whatever your rolls, at levels 1-3 they are still going to be massively better than what rogues had in 1e. Be thankful I say!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 09, 2012 - 6:09AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2007
|
If one DM says that Perception can be used to find traps, and another DM says it can't, and according to the rules they're both right... we have a problem.
Not necessarily - the above is only a problem when the players involved in the game (DM included) fail to communicate about these simple differences of interpretation when there is still time to change what skill a character has to get the skill the player they wanted them to have.
No matter how strict or free-form the rules are written, interpretation is always involved and communication about interpretation is always the thing that prevents there being a problem.
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 09, 2012 - 6:33AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Not necessarily - the above is only a problem when the players involved in the game (DM included) fail to communicate about these simple differences of interpretation when there is still time to change what skill a character has to get the skill the player they wanted them to have.
No matter how strict or free-form the rules are written, interpretation is always involved and communication about interpretation is always the thing that prevents there being a problem.
True, but given the choice I'd rather play a game that attempted to be as clear as possible in order to facilitate that intragroup communication and understanding rather than intentionally obfuscating its rules like this playtest does.
It's also less intragrop communication that worries me than intergroup communication. A player who goes from a game where the DM rules one way to a game where the DM rules exactly the opposite could be in for a nasty surprise at an inopportune moment, particularly if the people involved assume everyone plays it the same way they do.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 09, 2012 - 7:00AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
Again I think this is still scaremongering - if your rogue can't score less than 10 on his roll be it wsdom or dexterity related, it just means that it's a bit harder to spot the well hidden stuff. I do agree that it would help if they drew a distinction with previous editions where perception was used and so rogues were counter-intuitively quite bad at locating traps. If the skill is FIND and Remove traps then the skill bonus applies to locating the traps regardless which ability score is most appropriate in the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 09, 2012 - 7:36AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
When I first started playing 3rd Edition, my DM had a lot of strange interpretations on rules. For instance, if you moved adjacent to an enemy and didn't charge, you provoked an attack of opportunity. When I started DMing, I ran a game for people who had played in other groups. It created so much drama and headache as we argued about the interpretation. Consulting with the DMG, I tried the whole, "I may be wrong, but I'm the DM, and you need to abide by the ruling" approach. All that accomplished is having less people want to play in my game.
Additionally, there's a diversity game where the purpose is that everyone is taught different rules to a similar game. I can't describe to you the level of frustration and rage-quits that result from that experience. In short: there needs to be a level of guidance on how each skill is used. Now if we want diversity of which skills can be used in different situations, such as using Intimidate vs. Charm to get information from an informant: I'm game. But the two should be clearly defined how they're used.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jun 09, 2012 - 8:15AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I will admit, it took me running a few play test session in 5E to finally figure out that the Fighter could use STR +6 for Intimidate challenges.
But as everyone else said, it's not abundantly clear that the option of using STR was there from the playtest material as presented. It's been explained in additional posts/columns/webcasts, etc. but that's a poor substitute system for writing a rules based RPG. Especially when it would have taken this much space - "Fighters can use STR for intimidate challenges" to make that clear.
I also tend to prefer another shot at a die roll, when necessary, than a static mathematical bonus or penalty - that feature was one of my least favorite additions to 4E. "Oh, that was very descriptive, you gain +2 to your next 'd20 roll'" vs. "Wow, that's a great idea, roll 2d20 and take the highest roll".
The second one just sounds cooler to say as a DM, in my opinion.
|
|
|
