The Traps Beginners should be warned of

[wotmaniac]

Arguably, it really depends on die roll method -vs- how many points.

[Halinn]

There's not a singular best answer to that. The most commonly used system (6x 4d6 drop lowest, rearrange as desired) will produce results on average being roughly a 28 point buy, but of course with the "problem" that it is likely not split as the player would prefer, given the same point buy.

[TSS]

@dman (aka Pythagorias man)

Personally I would rather have the more reliable thing then the thing that doesn't work 3/4 of the time.  Call me what you will but 80-90% chance of failing is a bit to high for my liking.

He turned around and called an 80-90% chance of failure an 80-90% chance of success. It doesn't get anywhere near that after you use up all your wealth, feats, and other resources just getting the things you need to try at all and that's before accounting for non automatic failures and failures caused for any reason other than base creature type.

And even if you have something like an Unseen Seer what you have is a caster that ruined their casting ability and still will not be able to scout successfully and will still die if he tries because he's alone for at least a round or two and that's all they need.

Don't split the party.

Grappling is definitely a trap. It's shut down automatically by at least as many things as sneak attack, albeit for different reasons. Those reasons are more straightforward though - either high Str and big, or immune, or have some effective immunity (grappling is beat by a cheap magic item that also does many other things).

The only way you'll ever grab anything is if it lets you. It won't let you unless it wants you to grab it.

Random stats are also a trap. Though I'm not sure if they really qualify as such as traps are choices the player makes that seem good but aren't. Usually character generation is a DM decision.

[dman11235]

Okay, one counterexample that absolutely proves you wrong: a Rogue 20 with a +50 to Hide, goes up against a series of encounters composed of level 1 characters, all mundane, no tricks or anything, just pure CR 1 characters.  Monks, Fighters, etc., and no creature types immune to SA, no spells/items/anything that makes you immune.  Nothing with any detection abilities other than Spot, and the highest one gets a +10.  Is this an 80-90% failure rate for the Rogue?  No?  Then it's not always an 80-90% failure rate.  I'm not saying that the rogue requires this to be viable, but you claim that the Rogue is NEVER viable in the stealth/SA department.  Single counterexample proves that wrong.  Now, if you'll actually read my words and intent rather than just the parts that you can take out of context to prove you right, you'll notice that I'm always qualifying my statements with the phrase "in an appropriate campaign."  That's what this all boils down to.  The only true traps are things that don't work in their appropriate campaigns.  An stealth/precision damage character is in an inappropriate campaign if he can't reliably deal damage because of creature design (Truedeath crystal and a couple other things banned in an undead campaign, for instance, or the DM hates stealth characters and gives everyone a custom spell for +100 spot and blindsight or something).  A tier 1 Batman wizard is in an inappropriate campaign if it's a low-magic world.  A charger is in an inappropriate campaign where engagement distance is an average of 200' (and kept there).  If the stealth character is in an appropriate campaign, they are going to succeed on stealth checks more than 90% of the time.  That's what I'm saying.  Don't twist my words.

[TSS]

Does anyone have a serious post to make?

Serious posts meaning:

Not claiming level 20s fighting level 1s matter, as they get 0 XP for that among other reasons.
Not covering things that have already been addressed many times.
Not claiming traps are based on any particular campaign.
Not claiming that when something is stopped easily and frequently that the DM hates it when it is stopped easily and frequently.
Covering one or more trap options.

PS: I can think of many creatures that would give the Rogue 0 XP if he somehow won but still win 100% of the time. Most of them would win in a single round. If you're being beaten by things 8 or more levels lower because they've managed to become immune to you more than once without even trying...

[dman11235]

See, it's this "one true way" philosophy that really irks me about you.  I was providing a single counterexample that proved your premise false.  Now, if you want to go ahead and start using logic like a competent person, then by all means, prove me wrong.  But do it with logic, and not fallacies.

I will address your points now.  If they can be called points.  Your "complainfest".

1: see above.  A single counterexample was enough to prove your absolute premise false.  It doesn't matter how extreme.  I could have gone with a level 10 rogue fighting level 10 enemies, but then I'd have to go through and make an entire freaking campaign to generalize.  And yes, it's possible for this sort of thing to happen.  I've seen it.  You won't believe me that I've played in a campaign where a stealth character mattered, but it happened.  It was actually one of my gestalt ideas that I played, a Pixie monk//rogue.  Hit like a truck, fun as anything else I've played (except Doctor Ooze, that was my favorite character ever).  Mattered to the campaign, never seen by an enemy when I didn't want to be.  Even the BBEG, who was a high-level demon/caster.  I think Balor, but I can't remember, it was a long time ago.

2: you keep saying the same things over and over again, never proving anything you say.  You say a Rogue can't beat a caster.  We ask "why?" and you say "angel summoner vs BMX bandit!" or whatever.

3: I have no idea what you're even talking about.  I'm going to assume right here that you're claiming that a trap is universal (not good in any campaign).  In which case you're right.  Now will you understand that just about everything you're calling a trap is not in fact a trap?  It's only a trap if it's viable in NO campaigns.  This means even campaigns designed to handle them.  I've shown that a stealth character is viable in at least two campaigns (there's actually a whole range of them), so I've proved that it is not a trap.

4: If a campaign is supposedly designed to support a specific character concept (i.e. stealth), and the character concept cannot succeed because of encounter design, then it is indeed the DM's fault that the concept is failing.  If the DM is not doing such things (for the stealth example, if the DM is restricting access to sensory-defeating options while throwing only opponents with extra-sensory methods of perfect detection, including but not limited to insane perception checks, blindsight, and touchsight) and the concept is STILL failing, then you look at the player, and if that's not the problem, then, and only then, can you begin to claim that something is a trap.

So basically, I'm saying that this thread continues to be worthless.  Here's a guide that might actually be worthwhile: a list and discussion of options that fail in campaigns designed to support them.  The list would be incredibly small, actually.  I'm thinking Truenamer, and.....actually, that's about all I can think of.  This supports an incredibly wide range of campaign power levels and styles.  You absolutely HAVE to take this into account, because the styles of campaigns vary so incredibly wildly.

[Amechra]

TSS...

If I were building a stealth character, I would totally dip a level in Ghost Savage Progression (hello, +Infinity to Move Silently checks), and find a mundane way to become invisible (not for the invisibility itself, understand, just for the juicy +40 to Hide checks.)

Throw in some fun stuff like Darkhidden and 7 levels of Assassin for God-Blooded of Vecna (Immunity to all Divinations. Including that CoP that everyone loves so much.), and you are practically undetectable by, well, everyone.

Now that combo will hold out against pretty much everything but someone insanely optimized in the other direction. There are, like, 3 ways to detect you IN THE ENTIRE SYSTEM if you go this route.

And there are ways to share this stealth. That don't cost you anything at all.

Remind me again why stealth is always useless?

[RetroGamer24]

This thread is not worthless.  While some moved away from the whole issues of the rogue, me for example, and brought about other things.  I am not going to drag back to a topic that is gone.  No need for counter arguements because as you said a campaign designed for a specific trick or build.  If a DM wants to say mess with clerics he can have a campaign where people play clerics but the building they enter is dsigned to give all undead inside +2-4 turning resistance.  Well so much for a main class ability, yet person playing a rogue can not only sneak attack a skeleton but can also confirm a critical hit.

As the game is designed some things are not optimal just due to design flaws.  Don't get upset if people who notice this, teach others about it, and point it out.  Now please drop it as we all have moved on.

[Kajhera]

TSS...

If I were building a stealth character, I would totally dip a level in Ghost Savage Progression (hello, +Infinity to Move Silently checks), and find a mundane way to become invisible (not for the invisibility itself, understand, just for the juicy +40 to Hide checks.)

Throw in some fun stuff like Darkhidden and 7 levels of Assassin for God-Blooded of Vecna (Immunity to all Divinations. Including that CoP that everyone loves so much.), and you are practically undetectable by, well, everyone.

Now that combo will hold out against pretty much everything but someone insanely optimized in the other direction. There are, like, 3 ways to detect you IN THE ENTIRE SYSTEM if you go this route.

And there are ways to share this stealth. That don't cost you anything at all.

Remind me again why stealth is always useless?

Yay ghosts! Just make sure you don't accidentally walk through a turning attempt.

[RetroGamer24]

Something a little bit specific.  Is the spell Fireball a trap compared to other damaging spells?  I have heard debate that, I think, Searing Flame is all around better then the iconic Fireball.  Is this true?

EDIT:  The above post made me smile.  Ty. 

[Zionpopsickle]

See, it's this "one true way" philosophy that really irks me about you.  I was providing a single counterexample that proved your premise false.  Now, if you want to go ahead and start using logic like a competent person, then by all means, prove me wrong.  But do it with logic, and not fallacies.

I will address your points now.  If they can be called points.  Your "complainfest".

1: see above.  A single counterexample was enough to prove your absolute premise false.  It doesn't matter how extreme.  I could have gone with a level 10 rogue fighting level 10 enemies, but then I'd have to go through and make an entire freaking campaign to generalize.  And yes, it's possible for this sort of thing to happen.  I've seen it.  You won't believe me that I've played in a campaign where a stealth character mattered, but it happened.  It was actually one of my gestalt ideas that I played, a Pixie monk//rogue.  Hit like a truck, fun as anything else I've played (except Doctor Ooze, that was my favorite character ever).  Mattered to the campaign, never seen by an enemy when I didn't want to be.  Even the BBEG, who was a high-level demon/caster.  I think Balor, but I can't remember, it was a long time ago.

2: you keep saying the same things over and over again, never proving anything you say.  You say a Rogue can't beat a caster.  We ask "why?" and you say "angel summoner vs BMX bandit!" or whatever.

3: I have no idea what you're even talking about.  I'm going to assume right here that you're claiming that a trap is universal (not good in any campaign).  In which case you're right.  Now will you understand that just about everything you're calling a trap is not in fact a trap?  It's only a trap if it's viable in NO campaigns.  This means even campaigns designed to handle them.  I've shown that a stealth character is viable in at least two campaigns (there's actually a whole range of them), so I've proved that it is not a trap.

4: If a campaign is supposedly designed to support a specific character concept (i.e. stealth), and the character concept cannot succeed because of encounter design, then it is indeed the DM's fault that the concept is failing.  If the DM is not doing such things (for the stealth example, if the DM is restricting access to sensory-defeating options while throwing only opponents with extra-sensory methods of perfect detection, including but not limited to insane perception checks, blindsight, and touchsight) and the concept is STILL failing, then you look at the player, and if that's not the problem, then, and only then, can you begin to claim that something is a trap.

So basically, I'm saying that this thread continues to be worthless.  Here's a guide that might actually be worthwhile: a list and discussion of options that fail in campaigns designed to support them.  The list would be incredibly small, actually.  I'm thinking Truenamer, and.....actually, that's about all I can think of.  This supports an incredibly wide range of campaign power levels and styles.  You absolutely HAVE to take this into account, because the styles of campaigns vary so incredibly wildly.

I gave you some yummy kudos cookies for this because it says something I have been trying to say about TSS and his cohorts (who like D&D cohorts lack the level and skills of their leader) for a while.  I am glad I am not the only person to appreciate the irony that those claiming objectivity seem incapable of using basic logical argumentation, which anyone who has had an introductory level logic, critical reasoning or philosophy class would know is the basis of objectivity.

As for things that are traps regardless of campaign, I would say that truenamer definitely is one because of mechanical flaws in its design.  I would also say that Sword and Board is a trap in campaigns that extend to middle levels (5-7ish and up) based upon the mathematics of AC scaling versus monster AB.  To put it simply, it begins to cost more to pump the shields AC via enhancement bonuses bought through WBL than monsters naturally gain by their default hit dice increases.  An important caveat is that this does not make a shield useless, as ghost-touch and a few other enhancements combined with magic vestment provide appreciable defenses against various monster abilities, but the iconic 'warrior' with sword and shield becomes non-viable since the survivability added by the shield is less than the survivability added by using that off-hand for some other function.

Additionally, there are a number of feats which will always be traps because their mechanical benefits are outweighed by the fact that feats are relatively rare (even for fighters and their ilk) and thus feats have a very high innate cost which requires every feat to accomplish something significant in character construction.  Examples are toughness, +2/+2 skill feats, and the like.

There are other traps but I cannot think of some of them at the moment and others I can think of are to niche to be relevant to general discussion.

Something a little bit specific.  Is the spell Fireball a trap compared to other damaging spells?  I have heard debate that, I think, Searing Flame is all around better then the iconic Fireball.  Is this true?

I am going to state a rather heretical opinion, but I feel that fireball is underrated on these boards.  I think that fireball is actually quite good at its function, which is blowing up a bunch of dumb mooks.  The problem is that this function is extremely weak.  Mooks tend to die to nearly any functional offensive option and thus an option specifically designed to deal with them will be quite weak because any other offensive option (say slow for a comparable level spell) will also deal with them and has other functionings beyond mook removal.

[ImperatorK]

I would also say that Sword and Board is a trap in campaigns that extend to middle levels (5-7ish and up) based upon the mathematics of AC scaling versus monster AB.  To put it simply, it begins to cost more to pump the shields AC via enhancement bonuses bought through WBL than monsters naturally gain by their default hit dice increases.  An important caveat is that this does not make a shield useless, as ghost-touch and a few other enhancements combined with magic vestment provide appreciable defenses against various monster abilities, but the iconic 'warrior' with sword and shield becomes non-viable since the survivability added by the shield is less than the survivability added by using that off-hand for some other function.

Swoard'n'Board doesn't have to be only about AC. I remember that JaronK did a nifty SnB build that was able to stun lock enemies, charge them for decent damage and stuff.

How would the Retraining variant option from PHB2 affect "trapness" of some of the feats or class features? There are feats that are good at low levels, but get useless wastes of feat slots later on.

Mooks tend to die to nearly any functional offensive option and thus an option specifically designed to deal with them will be quite weak because any other offensive option (say slow for a comparable level spell) will also deal with them and has other functionings beyond mook removal.

But what other option will deal with them in one round, instantaneously? By which I mean: you cast the spell and all the mooks are dead.

[Solo]

IIRC, you invest rather heavily in the shield part, so you end up becoming a board fighter who also happens to wield a sword.

[ImperatorK]

IIRC, you invest rather heavily in the shield part, so you end up becoming a board fighter who also happens to wield a sword.

But the weapon can be a Defending weapon and give him some additional AC.

[Halinn]

And the shield can be animated, so that you can whip out a two-handed reach weapon when appropriate

[Kajhera]

Defending Dancing sword and Animated Bashing shield and 2H Reach weapon...

This sounds like my kind of sword and board 'fighter'. More unneccessary weapons the better. (Fleshraker is my spirit animal. Octopus a close second!)

[RetroGamer24]

Is this fighter also thri keen or powerful build.  That is some baggage to be carring around.

[Zionpopsickle]

I would also say that Sword and Board is a trap in campaigns that extend to middle levels (5-7ish and up) based upon the mathematics of AC scaling versus monster AB.  To put it simply, it begins to cost more to pump the shields AC via enhancement bonuses bought through WBL than monsters naturally gain by their default hit dice increases.  An important caveat is that this does not make a shield useless, as ghost-touch and a few other enhancements combined with magic vestment provide appreciable defenses against various monster abilities, but the iconic 'warrior' with sword and shield becomes non-viable since the survivability added by the shield is less than the survivability added by using that off-hand for some other function.

Swoard'n'Board doesn't have to be only about AC. I remember that JaronK did a nifty SnB build that was able to stun lock enemies, charge them for decent damage and stuff.

How would the Retraining variant option from PHB2 affect "trapness" of some of the feats or class features? There are feats that are good at low levels, but get useless wastes of feat slots later on.

Mooks tend to die to nearly any functional offensive option and thus an option specifically designed to deal with them will be quite weak because any other offensive option (say slow for a comparable level spell) will also deal with them and has other functionings beyond mook removal.

But what other option will deal with them in one round, instantaneously? By which I mean: you cast the spell and all the mooks are dead.

As Solo said, in such a build the shield is actually the functional offense of the character.  Which is why I added the caveat that shields in and of themselves are not useless.  The trap is the rather narrowly defined "Sword and Board Fighter" who uses a one-handed weapon for his offense and the shield for defense.  In such cases there are simple mathematical deficiencies that arise from more complex and fundamental mechanical considerations.  In some ways this is why beginners often do have to fall for traps in order to understand them because the reasons they are traps are hinged on very sensitive interactions at very obtuse mechanical levels and are not readily apparent unless someone has sufficient skill mastery in general game theory or very good mathematical and logical intuition.

As for the later, this is again a point that is hinged on a very complex aspect of game theory, in that the optimality of a play can be highly time dependent.  Fireball does indeed deal with mooks in a single round and from a single round viewpoint is far more optimal than something like slow or bilious blast.  The problem is that when one extends the timeframe beyond that single round to say a single turn or a single encounter then fireball becomes more and more suboptimal as any mook that survives the fireball (random success of save for instance) is only minorly hindered because of the generally binary nature of HP damage.  So in effect, anything that survives the fireball has limited lasting consequences which is the same for anything that succeeds against a debilitation effect, however anything that does not succeed against the debilitation effect is basically dead since slow and nausea nearly completely disable the enemy.  The added benefit of slow and its like is that it effects enemies that are outside the mook category as well and additionally target saves that use mettle instead of evasion and evasion is a more common effect.  Sure mettle does nothing since such spells are save or loses, but fireballs targeting of HP means anything outside of a certain HP range (anything with greater than CL*D6 hit dice) has a statistically very low chance of being threatened.

But I think that you pointing this out is a very good point because this is a very unintuitive and difficult hump in beginners gaining skill mastery because it requires a look at many different mechanical aspects of the game in a way that is very removed from the present game state itself and deals with possible game states which are not readily apparent.

[dman11235]

On bad feats: I don't think that just because something's bad it's a trap.  This is more of a definition issue, but I don't think that something should be considered a trap just because they are very bad.  It should be something that, in a campaign designed for that power level, do not work well.

Same thing with spells.  Fireball, not a trap, just bad.

[lans]

Is this fighter also thri keen or powerful build.  That is some baggage to be carring around.

Anthropomorphic squid