Big party, no rogue

%<-----------------------------SNIP------------------------
> I guess I want to know if there is a conceiveable way to get a non-rogue
> to be good at trapfinding without forcing him to take rogue levels (which
> I don't think anyone wants to do). The machine mage can already disarm
> things pretty well, though he might not want to be at ground zero if he
> fails. Party consists of a dwarven wizard, a human
> wizard/humanparagon/machinemage, a human fighter/cleric of Boccob (heavy
> on the cleric), a permanently Enlarged lizardman paladin/discipleofbahamut
> with uberstats, a human ranger/animallord(wolf), and a (slightly mutated)
> human bard.
>
> - Ron ^*^
>
Well, being the jack of all trades, the bard should have the base for adding
some trapfinding/disabling skills. If they don't want to take a couple of
lvls
of rogue, then a houserule could allow them to "pick up" the appropriate
skills. Rogue is one of the classes that stack well with other classes, so
if
the bard doesn't mind, the skill point boost might even give his bard
abilities
a bit of a kick. The Ranger would be the other option, but since he(she) is
already multi-classed, it would be a bit much for them to add rogue. The
only
other option would be to create a prestige class for your bard that allows
the
skills of a rogue at a lower level to be mixed with important bard
abilities.
Maybe allowing for trapfinding and disable and allowing them to increase
their
bard song by 1 lvl but not their spells. Skills for spells is a decent
tradeoff.
 >> Stay informed about: Big party, no rogue 

In article <7NA1h.5951$IC.1149@newsfe21.lga>, ranpoirier RemoveThis @cox.net says...

>
> We have currently got six players, none of whom is playing a rogue. A
> seventh player made a rogue, played one night, and has not shown in four
> sessions (still claims he wants to play but we are pretty much writing
> him off until he starts showing regularly). Other players decided to
> ditch his character, then got to talking about how to deal with the
> problem of having no rogue around to search for traps.
>
> We had cohorts at one time, but chose to get rid of them because enough
> players joined us that the party was just too huge with cohorts (and it
> caused a problem when people missed a session as well).
>
> The way I see it there are a few options:
>
> 1. One player drops his current character and plays a rogue.
>
> 2. We reinstate cohorts, maybe only for one player.
>
> 3. I allow the effigy master (machine mage) to create a "trapfinding"
> effigy. I don't see how to allow this by the book, but it was brought
> up as a possibility.
>
> 4. We keep playing the rouge PC with his player in absentia indefinitely.
>
> 5. ???

Allow Trapfinding to be taken as a feat.

Use less traps than you would otherwise.

Let them cast shield other on the paladin, send him in and hope for the
best.


--
Jasin Zujovic
 >> Stay informed about: Big party, no rogue 

Topposting.

Maybe it's just me, but when I place traps it's almost unheard of for
anyone to search where they are. You can't search everywhere, and traps
should be placed where people (other than the inhabitants) are likely
to trigger them, not in special locations that might as well have a
billboard saying "search hear for traps". This assums the trap setter
doesn't just do the obvious and have an undead minion tasked to
manually activate the trap at an appropriate time or put the traps
where your active defenders cover them.

Traps that aren't actively covered are a minor problem (at worst) in
most cases, you take the damage and get out the magic stick of CLW and
continue. No real cost and you get XP worth far more than the CLW
charges for "defeating" the challenge. A failed save vs. poison hurts
some, but that's why you use the Paladin (or at higher levels Monk) as
your trap detector.

IMAO where no Rogue ACTUALLY hurts is not finding all those hidden
treasures. I'd guess about 1/4 of the loot in my world is reasonably
well concealed.

DougL

On Oct 30, 11:05 pm, Werebat <ranpoir....DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
> We have currently got six players, none of whom is playing a rogue. A
> seventh player made a rogue, played one night, and has not shown in four
> sessions (still claims he wants to play but we are pretty much writing
> him off until he starts showing regularly). Other players decided to
> ditch his character, then got to talking about how to deal with the
> problem of having no rogue around to search for traps.
>
> We had cohorts at one time, but chose to get rid of them because enough
> players joined us that the party was just too huge with cohorts (and it
> caused a problem when people missed a session as well).
>
> The way I see it there are a few options:
>
> 1. One player drops his current character and plays a rogue.
>
> 2. We reinstate cohorts, maybe only for one player.
>
> 3. I allow the effigy master (machine mage) to create a "trapfinding"
> effigy. I don't see how to allow this by the book, but it was brought
> up as a possibility.
>
> 4. We keep playing the rouge PC with his player in absentia indefinitely.
>
> 5. ???
>
> I guess I want to know if there is a conceiveable way to get a non-rogue
> to be good at trapfinding without forcing him to take rogue levels
> (which I don't think anyone wants to do). The machine mage can already
> disarm things pretty well, though he might not want to be at ground zero
> if he fails. Party consists of a dwarven wizard, a human
> wizard/humanparagon/machinemage, a human fighter/cleric of Boccob (heavy
> on the cleric), a permanently Enlarged lizardman
> paladin/discipleofbahamut with uberstats, a human
> ranger/animallord(wolf), and a (slightly mutated) human bard.
>
> - Ron ^*^
 >> Stay informed about: Big party, no rogue 

Werebat wrote:
> We have currently got six players, none of whom is playing a rogue. A
> seventh player made a rogue, played one night, and has not shown in four
> sessions (still claims he wants to play but we are pretty much writing
> him off until he starts showing regularly). Other players decided to
> ditch his character, then got to talking about how to deal with the
> problem of having no rogue around to search for traps.

> 5. ???

Summon monster/nature's ally.

Buy a dog.

- Justisaur
 >> Stay informed about: Big party, no rogue 

Try making your way to 14th level w/no real dedicated healer in the
party. For most of the game, we had a Warlock with a stack of
wands....
--

Personal Blog:http://www.xanga.com/lizard_sf
Ranty Political Blog:http://www.pontification.com
 >> Stay informed about: Big party, no rogue 

Justisaur wrote:
> Werebat wrote:
>> We have currently got six players, none of whom is playing a rogue.
>> A seventh player made a rogue, played one night, and has not shown
>> in four sessions (still claims he wants to play but we are pretty
>> much writing him off until he starts showing regularly). Other
>> players decided to ditch his character, then got to talking about
>> how to deal with the problem of having no rogue around to search for
>> traps.
>
>> 5. ???
>
> Summon monster/nature's ally.
>
> Buy a dog.

Bag of Tricks.

--
Mark Blunden.
 >> Stay informed about: Big party, no rogue 

"Mark Blunden" <markATmarkdb.plus.com.DeleteThis@address.invalid> wrote in
news:4547a07a$0$8721$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net:

> Justisaur wrote:
>> Werebat wrote:
>>> We have currently got six players, none of whom is playing a rogue.
>>> A seventh player made a rogue, played one night, and has not shown
>>> in four sessions (still claims he wants to play but we are pretty
>>> much writing him off until he starts showing regularly). Other
>>> players decided to ditch his character, then got to talking about
>>> how to deal with the problem of having no rogue around to search for
>>> traps.
>>
>>> 5. ???
>>
>> Summon monster/nature's ally.
>>
>> Buy a dog.
>
> Bag of Tricks.
>
Hobbits. Specifically, test hobbits. Thrown one in the room. If it crawls
back out, you know there's no traps. If it doesn't, after you retrieve
the body, their skin makes excellent boots.

--
"What is the first law?"
"To Protect."
"And the second?"
"Ourselves."

Terry Austin
 >> Stay informed about: Big party, no rogue 

Justisaur wrote:
> Werebat wrote:
>> We have currently got six players, none of whom is playing a rogue. A
>> seventh player made a rogue, played one night, and has not shown in four
>> sessions (still claims he wants to play but we are pretty much writing
>> him off until he starts showing regularly). Other players decided to
>> ditch his character, then got to talking about how to deal with the
>> problem of having no rogue around to search for traps.
>
>> 5. ???
>
> Summon monster/nature's ally.

Particularly rats, which can climb & thus set off wall traps.

> Buy a dog.

"If you don't buy this magazine, we'll kill this dog."

http://lampoon.rwinters.com/Lampoon1973.htm
 >> Stay informed about: Big party, no rogue 

On Oct 31, 12:56 pm, Lizard <liz....TakeThisOut@dnai.com> wrote:
> Try making your way to 14th level w/no real dedicated healer in the
> party. For most of the game, we had a Warlock with a stack of
> wands....

Our party is mostly 12th-13th level and we've never had a "real" cleric
or any other sort of dedicated healer.
 >> Stay informed about: Big party, no rogue 

DougL wrote:
> Topposting.
>
> Maybe it's just me, but when I place traps it's almost unheard of for
> anyone to search where they are. You can't search everywhere, and traps
> should be placed where people (other than the inhabitants) are likely
> to trigger them, not in special locations that might as well have a
> billboard saying "search hear for traps". This assums the trap setter
> doesn't just do the obvious and have an undead minion tasked to
> manually activate the trap at an appropriate time or put the traps
> where your active defenders cover them.
>
> Traps that aren't actively covered are a minor problem (at worst) in
> most cases, you take the damage and get out the magic stick of CLW and
> continue. No real cost and you get XP worth far more than the CLW
> charges for "defeating" the challenge. A failed save vs. poison hurts
> some, but that's why you use the Paladin (or at higher levels Monk) as
> your trap detector.
>
> IMAO where no Rogue ACTUALLY hurts is not finding all those hidden
> treasures. I'd guess about 1/4 of the loot in my world is reasonably
> well concealed.

As I said, this discussion only came to a head when the party was
walking through a "rubble-strewn room". I suspect one of the players
has a feeling there might be something hidden in the rubble which the
party wasn't going to find without a decent Searcher.

It's worth noting that the PCs are up against a lich, and know that they
need to destroy its phylactery but don't know exactly where the
phylactery IS.

- Ron ^*^
 >> Stay informed about: Big party, no rogue 

***TOPPOSTING!!!!***


****PLONK****



(you're slipping, Ron)


DougL wrote:
> Topposting.
>
> Maybe it's just me, but when I place traps it's almost unheard of for
> anyone to search where they are. You can't search everywhere, and traps
> should be placed where people (other than the inhabitants) are likely
> to trigger them, not in special locations that might as well have a
> billboard saying "search hear for traps". This assums the trap setter
> doesn't just do the obvious and have an undead minion tasked to
> manually activate the trap at an appropriate time or put the traps
> where your active defenders cover them.
>
> Traps that aren't actively covered are a minor problem (at worst) in
> most cases, you take the damage and get out the magic stick of CLW and
> continue. No real cost and you get XP worth far more than the CLW
> charges for "defeating" the challenge. A failed save vs. poison hurts
> some, but that's why you use the Paladin (or at higher levels Monk) as
> your trap detector.
>
> IMAO where no Rogue ACTUALLY hurts is not finding all those hidden
> treasures. I'd guess about 1/4 of the loot in my world is reasonably
> well concealed.
>
> DougL
>
> On Oct 30, 11:05 pm, Werebat <ranpoir....DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
>> We have currently got six players, none of whom is playing a rogue. A
>> seventh player made a rogue, played one night, and has not shown in four
>> sessions (still claims he wants to play but we are pretty much writing
>> him off until he starts showing regularly). Other players decided to
>> ditch his character, then got to talking about how to deal with the
>> problem of having no rogue around to search for traps.
>>
>> We had cohorts at one time, but chose to get rid of them because enough
>> players joined us that the party was just too huge with cohorts (and it
>> caused a problem when people missed a session as well).
>>
>> The way I see it there are a few options:
>>
>> 1. One player drops his current character and plays a rogue.
>>
>> 2. We reinstate cohorts, maybe only for one player.
>>
>> 3. I allow the effigy master (machine mage) to create a "trapfinding"
>> effigy. I don't see how to allow this by the book, but it was brought
>> up as a possibility.
>>
>> 4. We keep playing the rouge PC with his player in absentia indefinitely.
>>
>> 5. ???
>>
>> I guess I want to know if there is a conceiveable way to get a non-rogue
>> to be good at trapfinding without forcing him to take rogue levels
>> (which I don't think anyone wants to do). The machine mage can already
>> disarm things pretty well, though he might not want to be at ground zero
>> if he fails. Party consists of a dwarven wizard, a human
>> wizard/humanparagon/machinemage, a human fighter/cleric of Boccob (heavy
>> on the cleric), a permanently Enlarged lizardman
>> paladin/discipleofbahamut with uberstats, a human
>> ranger/animallord(wolf), and a (slightly mutated) human bard.
>>
>> - Ron ^*^
>
 >> Stay informed about: Big party, no rogue 

In article <YfB1h.727$Hc2.604@newsfe11.phx>,
Some Guy <noemailformethanks.TakeThisOut@anyplace.invalid> wrote:
>Werebat wrote:
>>
>> We have currently got six players, none of whom is playing a rogue. A
>> seventh player made a rogue, played one night, and has not shown in four
>> sessions (still claims he wants to play but we are pretty much writing
>> him off until he starts showing regularly). Other players decided to
>> ditch his character, then got to talking about how to deal with the
>> problem of having no rogue around to search for traps.
>
>Trapfinding is easy, but how will you disable them?

By use of the "Shove Fighter Forward" cantrip.

Unfortunately, this spell uses up its material component.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: Big party, no rogue 

In article <1162304537.538808.170190.TakeThisOut@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
DougL <lampert.doug.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>Topposting.
>
>Maybe it's just me, but when I place traps it's almost unheard of for
>anyone to search where they are. You can't search everywhere, and traps
>should be placed where people (other than the inhabitants) are likely
>to trigger them, not in special locations that might as well have a
>billboard saying "search hear for traps". This assums the trap setter
>doesn't just do the obvious and have an undead minion tasked to
>manually activate the trap at an appropriate time or put the traps
>where your active defenders cover them.

This raises an interesting point regarding what I have
heard refered to as "ecologically unsound" dungeons.

Basically, in old school "white box" D&D or AD&D, a
dungeon was very often an unexplained phenomenon: a
hole in the ground with lots of corridors that go
nowhere useful, lots of big rooms featuring a mishmash
of architectural styles, and populated by assorted
hostile monsters with no visible leadership, no reason
for cohabitation, and no apparent means of support.
Often it seem that each clan of them lives in a room in
the middle of a very dangerous complex, with no egress
through which they could obtain food or other supplies,
surrounded by other hostile entities, and apaprently
content to sit in their 20x20 bare room with their box
of treasure, waiting for some armed thugs to come and
try to take it from them.

Traps are often similarly incongruous. 10x10 trapdoors
with pits of spikes in them, underneath a corridor that
the entities inhabiting the complex must use on a
regular basis. Doors that are necessary for getting
from one part of the complex to another, which spray
liquid fire over anyone who opens them.

So I wonder, how many of you design "dungeons" (using
the word in its broadest possible D&D sense here, to
include almost any kind of indoors adventure) that are
either:
(A) an active complex, with creatures living in it who
have some kind of organized social relationship to one
another, regardless of whether it's cooperative or
contentious. This can be either something inhabited by
the beings who designed and built it, and still used
for its original purpose, or an old decayed structure,
which has become inhabited by different entities, but
which still exhibit some kind recognizable social
organization amongst the groups. This implies that
traps would only be set in places where either defense
or alarm capabilities are needed, and where the
inhabitants don't need to frequently pass through.
(B) a "classic" dungeon, with elaborate mechanized
traps set to hit anyone who walks down the corridors or
opens the doors, or steps on the wrong floor tile, and
with monsters limited to their assigned zones, or
entirely absent.

If you develop dungeon type "B", do you create a
rationale for why such a place exists in the campaign?
"A mad wizard created the Maze of Death to protect the
fabled Jewal of Ammar from thieves." Or do you have
them because dungeons don't need a reason to be under
the "Zen of D&D" - dungeons just "are". This is not an
attack on that paradigm, btw. It's a classic part of
RPG history, and I think that its completely unabashed
denial of causality is part of its charm. I'm
just curious as to people's motives, styles of play,
and what they look to get out of the game.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: Big party, no rogue