Well, Mike Mearls got promoted. Any hope for 5e?

[Kaelik]

I was lamenting with one of my friends not too long ago about this same issue. It's the difference between 1e and 3e. Having begun gaming on 1e, we'd gotten use to the detail-oriented style of play. 3e mostly did away with that. As someone else said, the 'new generation' of gamers want the 'easy way out'. That's a simplistic viewpoint, but generally true. It's not so much what they 'want' as what they've been taught. The world for them moves at a faster pace, so they expect their games to do the same. In the Old Days, the journey was just as important (sometimes more so) than the destination. So you made camp, set watch, etc. Nowadays, it's "you ride 50 miles to the old mine. What are you going to do next?"

It's all about getting to the objective and slice-and-dicing the monsters into Julian fries, getting the treasure, kicking a level, now let's kick some more monster butt! Rinse, repeat. No one stops to smell the roses any more.

So, while I understand the new ways, I don't happen to enjoy them, but that's me. I've always been rather detail oriented.

I love it when whiny people complain about how people who played 1e, and 2e, and 3e just don't like X aspect of 2e because they've never known any better, and are just victims or their lack of experience.

Because of course it's impossible that people have actually played the games and don't like aspect X because it was fucking terrible. No one who had started on 1e could possibly not like some stupid piece of shit mechanic that you like.

It is nothing about detailed play, it is about the fact that Rogues with high search can find traps even when I the player am bad at it, just like how Fighters that have high Ride skills can ride horses even though I am bad at it.

It is. Because it defeats the whole purpose.

When you're always searching you either find the trap or you don't, with no input from the player. That's boring and not much of a game. The most interesting decision regarding traps is the decision to look for them. If you're always searching everything, there's no decision making. It's just a matter of if your DM decided to make the trap unfindable or not. That's lame.

Making player decisions matter more is good for the game. So having potential situations where you punish people for searching for traps, and others where you punish them for not searching for traps leads to more thinking play, because they have to decide if the tradeoff is worth it.

After you get hit by a trap, you shouldn't be thinking about how the DM fucked you because you had zero chance of spotting the trap. You should be thinking about how you fucked yourself by not searching.

If you can always be searching without penalty, then you will and there's zero actual decision making. Unless your table is filled with non-thinking derp gamers, I don't know why you'd ever want that.

You are an idiot. Fighters with high Ride successfully Ride horses. They don't have to demonstrate that they are super cool horseriding players to do it, or make choices about when to trot and when to canter. They just do it.

Rogues with high search find traps. They don't have to roll for it, they just find it, and then people move on with the game. Just like Fighters on horses.

The most interesting decision about traps is to decide at character generation whether you are good at finding them or not. The idea that it's in any way interesting to choose between paying attention to things that kill you without warning if you aren't looking, or paying attention to things that kill you without warning if you aren't looking is fucking stupid.

If your PC is not fucking retarded, he should be looking for all the things that could kill him at the same time. If I'm walking down a hallway, I am looking for "things that could kill me" and the idea that somehow looking for a loose brick that will fall on your head and kill you is somehow totally different from looking for a Darkmantle that will fall on your head and kill you is incredibly fucking stupid.

[Star*Master]

The biggest problem is understanding that the line between player and character is always a big blur. Some players can immerse themselves into the character a lot more deeply than others. Neither way is wrong, just different.

The routine of not stating that your character takes off his armor to sleep doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't. For a lot of players, it falls into the same area of taking a pee. Just because you don't have your character stopping to go pee behind a tree doesn't mean that the character never has to go the bathroom. If the DM lets the player lump an action (or non-action) under the mundane umbrella, there's nothing wrong with that. Those players who aren't happy with that can always role-play around it.

More often than not, it involves both the DM and his style of play as well as the nature, attitude, experience, personality and mood of the players. And it can vary from game session to game session and from campaign to campaign.

So, yes, shadzar, you are partly correct that anyone with dice can play a character. But given individuality, no two players will play the same character in exactly the same way.

[DSMatticus]

so you bring nothing to the game and ANYONE with a set of dice can play your character the same as you do?

Deciding whether you go through the pit of eternal despair or the hole of everlasting sorrow is a meaningful choice that enhances the story. Deciding whether you try to bluff the stupid ogre guard into letting you pass or shoot him in the face with a crossbow bolt is a meaningful choice that enhances the story. Deciding whether you take the safe route around the pit of spikes, but cost time and potentially let the big bad escape, or balls up and leap it with the potential of severe damage is a meaningful choice.

Your DM explicitly waiting for you to say, "I search it, I search it, I search it! I take off my armor so I'm not fatigued, I go to the bathroom so I don't piss myself in my sleep, and how long has it been since I said I drank something? Oh well, I drink something, incase I'm dehydrated. I let the horse drink too" is a bunch of stupid bullshit and if that's the sort of stuff that goes on at your table you can shove it right up your ass, you're terrible. It doesn't make playing any more fun. It isn't meaningful player input. It isn't anything but your DM being a dick, maniacal, sociopathic glint in his eye, waiting to think of something obvious you didn't ("you didn't say you put your crossbow down when you laid down, so it goes off and shoots you in the thigh!").

So these polar opposites, where either players tell you when their characters take a piss, or they don't say anything at all and are replaced by robots? That's bullshit. There's a middle ground, and that's where you should be if you are infact sane at all.

[Star*Master]

GatFromKI--

I disagree that traps are lame, but as this post has pointed out, the mechanics for dealing with them can be. The specific game rules don't make everyone happy, and perhaps that's an impossibility. In the end, it boils down to what rule you want to use. As Gary Gygax once stated, these are only guidelines. If you don't like a rule, don't use it. Or change it. That's how house rules came into existence, and this whole site is about house rules.

DMs come in all shapes and sizes and styles. A lot of it depends on how he was taught the game. If he's a tad OCD, then maybe he expects fine detail. Remember, he's got his own rationale for why he does things the way he does. If you don't like it, you either put up with it, try to teach him a better way, or you don't game with him any more.


Kaelik--

The whole point of ranks and skill checks is supposed to be about a character's ability to perform actions that might be hazardous. So, yes, riding a horse isn't normally something that has to be qualified or rolled for, but if the DM decides that the horse gets spooked, then a skill check could be required to keep from getting thrown off the horse or to keep the horse from running off.

It's kind of simple in that scenario; it's not really quite so cut and dried with traps. And that is really what the gist of this discussion was about. Is there a better way to deal with searching/finding traps? Is there a way to balance skill ranks and checks with normal prudent actions of a character?

In a dungeon, you really expect all characters to be looking out for traps at every step. How then do you deal with the situation when a trap is there? With the horse example, there's an obvious change in the situation: the horse is spooked. You don't have that same obviousness when a trap is present.

So how do you deal with that situation, both the actual one and the perceived one? You don't want players to be making endless search checks, especially when one isn't there, but how then do you deal with it when there is one?

Perhaps a broader passive search will give the character the idea that "this is a perfect place for a trap. I'm going to do a detailed search now."

Anyway, as you said, there's a middle ground between never stating a character's action and stating every minor miniscule action. This is predicated by both the situation and the DM's style.

[shadzar]

So these polar opposites, where either players tell you when their characters take a piss, or they don't say anything at all and are replaced by robots? That's bullshit. There's a middle ground, and that's where you should be if you are infact sane at all.

EVERYTHING is a meaningful choice tot he shared story. you must follow the idea that tracking rations is NEVER fun or needed. i dont.

you run out of food, then you hear the DM say: Blue Warrior needs food badly...Red Elf has died of starvation.

its the level of detail you wish to add to bring the game to life. if all you have is dice rolling, then might as well play Yahtzee.

[echoVanguard]

Honestly, I think Swordslinger and K both make good points with regard to traps, but I think Swordslinger's stance is more correct - the decision whether to search for traps is more important and more interesting if it costs you something meaningful, so that you have to make a choice about whether or not you search - the problem is that usually all it costs you is time, which isn't important at all in most games. It's also true that making a decision at character creation is meaningful regarding what you want your character to be good at, but there's a difference between being good at something and always automatically succeeding at it.

Ideally, all characters should have some way to notice and deal with traps, just as all characters should have some way to notice and deal with monsters - the difference should be in how great your chance is to succeed at each of these things, and you should be able to influence those chances both at character creation and on the fly to various degrees.

echo

[Kaelik]

The whole point of ranks and skill checks is supposed to be about a character's ability to perform actions that might be hazardous. So, yes, riding a horse isn't normally something that has to be qualified or rolled for, but if the DM decides that the horse gets spooked, then a skill check could be required to keep from getting thrown off the horse or to keep the horse from running off.

Fighters past level 5 automatically succeed on all Ride checks. Oh noes, the Horse is spooked, the Fighter does not roll, because he succeeds on a 1. Hence, the point of my analogy.

In a dungeon, you really expect all characters to be looking out for traps at every step. How then do you deal with the situation when a trap is there? With the horse example, there's an obvious change in the situation: the horse is spooked. You don't have that same obviousness when a trap is present.

So how do you deal with that situation, both the actual one and the perceived one? You don't want players to be making endless search checks, especially when one isn't there, but how then do you deal with it when there is one?

If only someone had posted the Search houserules I invented, and put into my largest product to date. That sort of thing might indicate how I deal with search. Nah, fucking crazy talk.

[Star*Master]

So these polar opposites, where either players tell you when their characters take a piss, or they don't say anything at all and are replaced by robots? That's bullshit. There's a middle ground, and that's where you should be if you are infact sane at all.

EVERYTHING is a meaningful choice tot he shared story. you must follow the idea that tracking rations is NEVER fun or needed. i dont.

you run out of food, then you hear the DM say: Blue Warrior needs food badly...Red Elf has died of starvation.

its the level of detail you wish to add to bring the game to life. if all you have is dice rolling, then might as well play Yahtzee.

Haha, yes, it sometimes feels like that, doesn't it? On the other hand, there's apparently something visceral about rolling a handful of dice!

The point really is WHEN to roll dice. Again, it's a middle ground. We used to have our characters actually search for traps and secret passages by describing their actions: "tap on the wall looking for a different sound, try turning the torch holder to the left, right, pull it out, push it back." In the beginning, you see, that was interesting and entertaining, but after years of gaming, it got old fast.

One example I used to use is that in a modern setting. Characters try to start a car. If one of the players is an automechanic, then he can actually talk his way through the whole procedure... even if his character doesn't have the skill! The rest of the players couldn't find the ashtray, but one of the characters has the skill. So while one player (whose character doesn't have the skill) can role-play the encounter, the other player (whose character DOES have the skill) can't role-play it (at least not very well or accurately) and so makes a skill check to represent that 'role-playing'.

Both extremes are valid, but neither is exclusive. The player without any skill but whose character has it can role-play it, too--"pop the hood, cross connect the framistat with the thingamajig, and short out the doohickey." One DM may let that succeed, while another may still require a dice roll (with possibly a positive modifier for the 'effort').

Circumstances have to dictate the way the DM handles it.

[K]

In retrospect, I find that amusing. I recall a convention where one table (in a room full of tables and over a hundred people) was running a scenario with several bards. The DM tried to insist that the player who was playing a bard actually stand up and sing when his character was using a bardic ability.

I think that just highlights the stupidity of bards in general. Can you really picture some close battle in Lord of the Rings where instead of fighting, Aragorn whips out a lute and starts playing a song while orcs are trying to behead him and his friends?

Bards are just dumb.

A bard ability should look like the scene in Army of Darkness where Ash's now-undead girlfriend suddenly causes his car to crash by fascinating him.

Failing that, it should look like the rock show in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World where sound waves blow shit up.

The whole thing where you'd sing to give everyone a +2 needs to die a bloody death.

[Josh_Kablack]

Forums are in an uproar over the magical item stuff from Mordenkainen's Compendium. I no longer have a subscription so someone else will have to tell me what's what.

I no longer even know of anyone with a subscription, so no clue here.

But it looks like this is getting drowned out by discussion of whether to use rules or not.

[Hieronymous Rex]

For people that still want the "weak buffs" aspect of Bards, you could throw in the Syncopate ability to let them add cantrip-type (and maybe higher levels later) effects as a swift action when casting. So, you could be using a fascination spell, but also throw a Resistance effect on your party.

[sake]

The main three things they're losing their shit over:

Elven Chain Shirt - Level 9/19/29 Uncommon
Wonderous Item
Property: You gain +1/+2/+3 item bonus to AC while wearing this shirt with light or no armor.

Potion of Invulnerability - Level 10/20/30 Common
Utility Power * Consumable (Minor Action)
Effect: You drink the potion and gain resist 25/35/45 to all damage until the end of your next turn.

Flail Expertise- *that same damn attack bonus math fix* plus when you hit with a melee weapon attack using a flail that slides the target, you may knock the target prone instead of sliding them.

Granted, it's mostly the feat combined with the hot new cheese paragon path Kulkor Arms Master that they're flipping out about.


But yeah... those three things following some of the most weak fail ass shit they've ever made (the Binder, Vampire, Bladesinger, and the weapon/implement expertise article) shows what a state 4E is in.

[fectin]

I started in 2E, 1991, and I still loathe the "I play myself, my wits against the evil DM" crap they tried to force on us there.

I play a character, not myself.

so you bring nothing to the game and ANYONE with a set of dice can play your character the same as you do?

you have to bring a part of yourself ot the character. the character doesnt decide to wear armor to sleep, you choose by inactivity to not take it off for your character to sleep.

So in your games, do players usually announce that their character's heart is beating, or do their characters keel over after thirty seconds of play?
Anything else requires you to acknowledge characters taking action which is not explicitly described by the players.

[tussock]

Could people please not be stupid when arguing with Shadzar? It's not adding to the signal.

Here's the thing, he's clearly describing where players have to say what the character is doing when they roll dice: and also that if they're not saying what they're doing, then they can't roll dice yet. No to the automated dice rolling.

So "I go through the door" happens without all the obvious precaution, likely because his group finds it all more immersive to call that shit out all the time. But if they're used to it, they'll be calling it all quicker than they can roll it anyway, so no time loss.

[Psychic Robot]

Could people please not be stupid when arguing with Shadzar? It's not adding to the signal.

could everyone please not argue with shadzar

[Lago PARANOIA]

But yeah... those three things following some of the most weak fail ass shit they've ever made (the Binder, Vampire, Bladesinger, and the weapon/implement expertise article) shows what a state 4E is in.

Well, several things come to mind over all of those other things.

1) The Elven Chain Shirt thing was done very inelegantly. Light Armors kind of suck for various reasons I don't want to go into and there's really no easy fix for it. It'd probably be better to release magical items that provide a certain bonus to AC in conjunction with your armor/stat up to a limit. For example, Swarm Druids and STR/CHA barbarians get an AC bump, Rogues don't get donkey dick.

2) Whoever wrote up all of those potions is a moron. Thanks for waving how fucking broken the magical item system is in our faces again, jackasses. The 'fix' for those (and I mean it in the sense of neutering) is dead easy as well, I just don't know why they did it.

3) The flail expertise feat is actually pretty in line with the 'better' expertise feats like staff and light blade. There are some handy-dandy exploits with it that don't involve Kulkor Arms Master (which is probably the all-around 'best' melee damage class, but not by a country mile or anything) but really not something that would have a tangible effect on even most games.

But still, all of that stuff coming together is sloppy. If you want power creep you can't do it in one or two items. You have to do it in a huge batch. If 4E is just in a holding pattern until Mike Mearls gets fired then they shouldn't even bother. Apparently it's just down to the diehards and diehards eat holding pattern filler shit right up. As long as it's not obviously terrible like the binder. But then again the game devs can't even get obvious stuff like that right so who knows.

[shadzar]

One example I used to use is that in a modern setting. Characters try to start a car. If one of the players is an automechanic, then he can actually talk his way through the whole procedure... even if his character doesn't have the skill! The rest of the players couldn't find the ashtray, but one of the characters has the skill. So while one player (whose character doesn't have the skill) can role-play the encounter, the other player (whose character DOES have the skill) can't role-play it (at least not very well or accurately) and so makes a skill check to represent that 'role-playing'.

Both extremes are valid, but neither is exclusive. The player without any skill but whose character has it can role-play it, too--"pop the hood, cross connect the framistat with the thingamajig, and short out the doohickey." One DM may let that succeed, while another may still require a dice roll (with possibly a positive modifier for the 'effort').

Circumstances have to dictate the way the DM handles it.

dont care for modern, but good example... the one knowing it in real life would be metagaming and violating player knowledge for the character to try.

the one that doesnt REALLY know how to do it, doesnt have to, nor are dice needed.

if the character should know how, then it is like fire-building, then player need only state that the character knows how and the reason, and unless extreme circumstances or rushed to do the task, it should succeed within the proper time it would take.

the player knowing SOMETHING must be done and attempting to do something without having expert knowledge has brought something to the game, wherein a player knowing nothing and jsut saying "i want to roll a mechanics check to hotwire it" is bringing nothing to the game and empty hand with some dice couldnt do.

so this 3rd person is the one you forgot.

1. player knowledgeable, but character not; shouldnt use player knowledge the character doesnt have

2. character knowledgeable, but player not entirely; player attempts something as though the character would and succeeds since the character would know how to do the task.

3. character knowledgeable, player not; just wants to roll dice.

player 3 is the problem and only one where dice are really needed. player 3 breaks immersion into the world for all, as well a really adds nothing to the game but another set of dice to roll.

player 1 isnt the problem unles he starts metagaming beyond the character abilities.

player 2 has done it right, as with D&D would be; most people have no clue about medieval traps, early mechanics, magic, etc, so use common sense and feasibility to come up with some sort of resolution and try something with their wits, rather than just rely on the dice and WATCH the character go through the world the dice depicts for them adding dub-text to it as some MST3K episode.

why dice MIGHT be needed in extremes? again i use fire-building...while most people would need to be able to cook their own meat, not everyone can start a fire with wet wood, but a character having lived by a river with only driftwood or in a rainforest where wood was always wet, has a grater chance in those adverse conditions.

the fire-building NWP was created for this type of thing (same as the thief's climb walls was for extremes), and you just need a simple ability score check INT or WIS to recall that info for the character, and given enough materials/tools around to do the task they are accustomed to doing, they should succeed in the extreme conditions where others would not.

[Star*Master]

The metagaming is another gray area. It's a little more objective in a modern (realist) setting, such as spies and such because knowledge is fairly accessible. This sort of thing always reminds me of the TV show The Fall Guy where nephew Howie kept doing new things and explaining it by saying he spent a semester studying computers at MIT or whatever.

So the automechanic player is role-playing his character as if the character has some knowledge about the subject even if he doesn't have a 'recorded' skill. Essentially, it means that not every skill is on the character's sheet.

In the case of the fire-builder, the character could easily justify knowledge of that if he worked on a farm, whether he bothered taking Profession (farmer) or not.

So there's always going to be some metagaming because it's really unrealistic to expect a player to 'dumb down' his playing. It's fantasy, after all.

It's also about degree of skill, which is why checks are required. In an extensive skill set, you may not have learned just the right technique yet. Or you are having a bad day, you have a headache and can't focus, etc. In any case, it's all an abstract representation of an overall skill set. I have yet to run into the problems everyone else has been citing about skills.

Kaelik--

You lost me on your reference to a Figther automatically succeeding on a Handle Animal check at 5th level. Is that based on standard 3.5 rules? Because wouldn't it depend on whether he put his skill points into the skill? And it would also depend on the DC, wouldn't it? I'd put the DC at 20 or possibly 25 for success.

K--

As for Bards and their music, it is an odd concept from one perspective, but it also reflects a bit of popular culture if not actual historical/myth (Orpheus maybe?). I'm referencing the song "Do You Believe In Magic?" with the line in it "the magic's in the music and the music's in me".

I'd also reference the "mood" music put into TV shows and movies. All fantasy is doing is emphasizing that "mood swing". While the singing bard is supposed to be the representative bard, writers, poets, orators and such have overthrown kingdoms. The 'system' for D&D 3.5 bards was just a way of trying to incorporate that into something playable in the game.

As I've said, if it doesn't suit you, then you don't include Bards as a class in your games.

[Kaelik]

You lost me on your reference to a Figther automatically succeeding on a Handle Animal check at 5th level. Is that based on standard 3.5 rules? Because wouldn't it depend on whether he put his skill points into the skill? And it would also depend on the DC, wouldn't it? I'd put the DC at 20 or possibly 25 for success.

\

First of all, it's Ride, not Handle Animal. Secondly, the DC is 5 to stay in the saddle, DC 10 to fight with a warhorse. You get a +2 for having a saddle. You also get Dex, and then, you put ranks in ride. Yes, you have to put ranks in Ride in order to autosucceed on all mount fighting checks.

Just like the Rogue has to put ranks in Search to detect traps. That's the point. When you commit character resources to being able to do things, then you can do those things. So a Rogue at level 10 has a search modifier of 13+Int+associated bonuses (Stone Cunning, Racial Bonuses, ect) which means that by taking 10 they can automatically detect all traps using level 1-3 spells. And if for any reason they bought a +10 competence bonus item, then they can automatically detect all traps in the game.

Just like a Fighter that bought a trained Warhorse and a Saddle, and put 4 ranks in Ride, can auto succeed on all checks relating to staying in his saddle in combat at level 1, and all checks to get his horse to attack by level 2 or 3.

[Chamomile]

So you swing the tide of battle back in your favor by cuing up some heroic Howard Shore music?

[Star*Master]

Doh! Yes, Ride skill to stay in saddle. Don't know what I was thinking, unless it was about keeping the horse under control.

None of the groups I've gamed with in the past ten years has ever needed the Ride skill, so I'd pretty much forgotten what you could do with it.

Buying a +10 enhancer was never an option in my games; it could be found as treasure, but it invariably wound up in the hands of a character that didn't need it. (Sure, the fighter has it, but it's the wizard on the horse that doesn't really know how to ride that gets spooked. The encounter isn't specifically designed that way, but that's usually how it turns out.)

Definitely swing the tide of battle with a rousing John Souza march or a hair-curling wail from a squad of bagpipers or even John Williams' JAWS!

[Swordslinger]

The most interesting decision about traps is to decide at character generation whether you are good at finding them or not.

Wow. Just wow dude... So trap finding in your games is just a skill tax that one PC has to pay? And after that you autofind traps in true derp gamer fashion without ever having to make a meaningful decision? And you think that's a good idea? Really dude?

Never get into game design, because you suck at it.

The idea that it's in any way interesting to choose between paying attention to things that kill you without warning if you aren't looking, or paying attention to things that kill you without warning if you aren't looking is fucking stupid.

God forbid PCs have to make important decisions that determines their fate. The game is better for everyone when nobody has to think at all and the traps just find themselves, right?
:roll:

If your PC is not fucking retarded, he should be looking for all the things that could kill him at the same time. If I'm walking down a hallway, I am looking for "things that could kill me" and the idea that somehow looking for a loose brick that will fall on your head and kill you is somehow totally different from looking for a Darkmantle that will fall on your head and kill you is incredibly fucking stupid.

Dude, the real question is... are you retarded? What you say really makes me think so, because you seem to think that while studying the ground looking for pit traps you can also be looking up for monsters and ambushes at the same time. I suppose you think modern day soldiers can look for land mines and snipers at the same time too.

I get that you want to play a thoughtless game of D&D because you can't stand the idea that you may make a wrong decision. But if you're arguing on the basis of realism, you sir, are a fool.

If you're looking down, you're not looking up. It ain't a hard principle dude... or at least, it isn't for me, but YMMV.

[Kaelik]

Doh! Yes, Ride skill to stay in saddle. Don't know what I was thinking, unless it was about keeping the horse under control.

None of the groups I've gamed with in the past ten years has ever needed the Ride skill, so I'd pretty much forgotten what you could do with it.

Buying a +10 enhancer was never an option in my games; it could be found as treasure, but it invariably wound up in the hands of a character that didn't need it. (Sure, the fighter has it, but it's the wizard on the horse that doesn't really know how to ride that gets spooked. The encounter isn't specifically designed that way, but that's usually how it turns out.)

Definitely swing the tide of battle with a rousing John Souza march or a hair-curling wail from a squad of bagpipers or even John Williams' JAWS!

No one in the history of D&D has ever needed a ride booster. It's the +10 search that's important, and that goes to the person who can detect magic traps, because if it doesn't, I will kill the people who claimed it and give it to the rogue.

And after that you autofind traps in true derp gamer fashion without ever having to make a meaningful decision? And you think that's a good idea? Really dude?

In my games finding traps does not constitute defeating them, because traps are used for a purpose, not put in a line of Lightning Bolt traps to serve as an HP tax.

God forbid PCs have to make important decisions that determines their fate.

If the only thing it determines is whether the Black Slaad gets a surprise round Finger of Death killing the Rogue or the Finger of Death trap gets to kill the Rogue without him getting to find it, then yes, God forbid that be the Rogues choice. Instead, I would expect to find that they can look for both of them, and find both of them, and then the placement of the Finger of Death Trap can get in the way of the Rogue full attacking the Slaad without him getting zero actions prior to his death.

you seem to think that while studying the ground looking for pit traps you can also be looking up for monsters and ambushes at the same time.

I understand that you have now realized you are full of shit, and have fallen back on being as insulting and disingenous as you can, but at least if you are going to attempt to lie about what I said, don't actually quote the part that contradicts you above your lie.

Darkmantles come from above. Demons come from ahead or behind, Chokers come from either side, and Blue Dragons come from below.

Pit traps come from below, falling rocks come from above, Smashing Walls come from either side, and Fireballs can come from fucking anywhere.

Looking for traps happens at the same time as looking for monsters, because monsters and traps can come from all sorts of places.

If you're looking down, you're not looking up. It ain't a hard principle dude... or at least, it isn't for me, but YMMV.

So do people looking for falling rocks just miss the Darkmantles because they are too busy looking up to look up? Do people looking for the Pit traps not notice the mimic in the form of a carpet because they were too busy looking down to see down?

[K]

And after that you autofind traps in true derp gamer fashion without ever having to make a meaningful decision? And you think that's a good idea? Really dude?

In my games finding traps does not constitute defeating them, because traps are used for a purpose, not put in a line of Lightning Bolt traps to serve as an HP tax.

God forbid PCs have to make important decisions that determines their fate.

If the only thing it determines is whether the Black Slaad gets a surprise round Finger of Death killing the Rogue or the Finger of Death trap gets to kill the Rogue without him getting to find it, then yes, God forbid that be the Rogues choice. Instead, I would expect to find that they can look for both of them, and find both of them, and then the placement of the Finger of Death Trap can get in the way of the Rogue full attacking the Slaad without him getting zero actions prior to his death.

Finding traps should just be a fucking save, much like how most people use Spot and Listen checks as "save vs being surprised by monsters."

You are supposed to be adventurers who know their job and are better than average at it and making people auto-fail some challenges because they didn't remind the DM that they are fucking skilled adventurers every few minutes is extremely lame.

I mean, in movies people find traps while doing other things that range from having fights to having blissfully unaware conversations. Rarely is anyone even searching for traps (though I seem to remember Indiana Jones and a few other heroes looking for traps a few times by the brilliant method of throwing rocks where they thought traps might be).

I mean, I don't understand why people think every little thing needs to be a skill that you need ranks in when the game is assuming you are a skilled adventurer. It's pretty clear that a ton of things were shoehorned into the skill system because there isn't a need for a skill system.

I mean, riding a horse is literally something you can pick up in 3-4 minutes and searching for traps is something people in DnD used to just do with a 10' pole and detect magic and no one questioned it because we know the traps are not terribly complicated.

[shadzar]

In the case of the fire-builder, the character could easily justify knowledge of that if he worked on a farm, whether he bothered taking Profession (farmer) or not.

wel if wasnt professions then, but a better system that was with NWPs to pick one or the other. Where NWPds became the skills and feats later, the profession "skills" were "secondary skills" in AD&D.

pretty much said, dont worry about detailed skill lists, but assume this character knows what a "farmer" would know and be able to do those common things, or blacksmith, cooper, etc.

so if the case was the character new, and NOBODY at the table new, something was wrong for the DM to allow a cooper secondary skill choice. but anyone knowing could step up and offer suggestions of things a cooper could do that might be helpful, and and the player that choose cooper learned more about the traits of that profession, then they could wield more information to add to their character abilities.

it gave more reason to know about the things your character has as a choice ont he sheet, so your COULD contribute from your personal knowledge FOR the character.

with the game being so much played in the mind, without having player knowledge of ANYTHING the character knows of real world things, then their is much lost from the original form of the game that spawned from Blackmoor and Greyhawk to become D&D.

just rolling for things without knowing anything about what you are trying to do, easily makes people lose their presence inside the game, and brings everyone back to the table to see the character sheets.

it is something from the younger generation that never had the wealth of experience form the older ones, or the older ones that maybe got lazy and wanted a quick fix cause they were jonesing for D&D.

the damage was done by 3rd and cannot be undone as Mearls looks back.

as i watched people play 3rd, all i saw was excitement from dice rolls, with no ingenuity.

a girl that started with 3rd one time asked me in a little one-shot i filled in for, and she joined later as it was running late, but a few of the paying players wanted to finish it; asked me why i destroyed a swinging axe trap, as a fighter, after it had been disabled. this fighter was your average brawns and little brains..but he (i) decided a trap that couldnt be reset was better. while she tried berated me, not the character as if i didnt know how to play.

i had to explain to her that in the mind of my character his decision was not having to deal with the trap later, that if someone noticed it was tripped we were found out anyway, so removing the giant ax wasnt that big of a problem as either way the alarm would be sounded, AND we had a more powerful and expendable weapon to use as we progressed into white plume mountain. the pros greatly outweighed the cons to the character, but she was up in arms about it cause she had never heard of such a thing and claimed i used my knowledge to metagame.

well ANYONE should know a sprung trap will sound the alarm, and that unless destroyed could be reset, so why leave a weapon behind that CAN be taken with you to be used against you later. while at the same time a huge swinging ax trap broken shows that there was strength to remove the weapon portion and instill fear into any pursuers.

but she could not accept that a character would know anything of this sort. not jsut a character, but an adventurer.

so 3rd edition took thought from the game in many areas where the dice should be used to allow the character to do things, when in fact a player can come up with MUCH better things that there is nothing described about how to use the dice.

for modern it might work well because it deals with modern day things...but many people have no idea what people in a medieval setting with magic could know, and dont wish to explore them and prefer to let the dice handle it all, rather than think for themselves do to having so many things the dice can be used as crutches for.