Pathfinder Q&A Rules as Intended

[Xtomjames]

To avoid further arguments I've created this thread for further discussion of RAW rules and their intent.

I'll start here with the Trapfinder rules and disable device. The RAW is a bit illogical here and as a house rule I suggest changing it so that any person with the Disable Device skill who can detect through other means magical traps be allowed to attempt a successful disarm of the magical trap via Disable Device.

Second: Because of ambiguity on the summon monster and summon nature's ally list and it's absolution, a good house rule and sort of unmet unwritten rule is that the list isn't absolute but a guideline.

I'll refer to further discussion in the Pathfinder RAW thread when the RAW seem obtuse or vague and post here with further details and discussion on the matter.

[Greenish]

Wouldn't RAMS (Rules As Make Sense) be a better topic name? I mean, aside from actually asking the designers, we can only guess what they actually intended.

[Xtomjames]

I suppose so, but intention can be inferred to as what is logically intended.

The logical intent of the trapfinding ability of the Rogue lead to an illogical (probably unintended) rule that forces characters to need a rogue when encountering traps (or any class that might have trapfinding~ there are only a handful).

I'll actually post to the FAQ about it to see what they say.

[Big Fau]

Wouldn't RAMS (Rules As Make Sense) be a better topic name? I mean, aside from actually asking the designers, we can only guess what they actually intended.

Considering the people in charge of it like contradicting themselves just as much as WotC (several sections uploaded to the PFSRD have been altered by the person who uploaded them, solely because he didn't agree with the rest of the team), I'd say asking them is about as good of an idea of asking WotC's CustServ.

[Zherog]

The logical intent of the trapfinding ability of the Rogue lead to an illogical (probably unintended) rule that forces characters to need a rogue when encountering traps (or any class that might have trapfinding~ there are only a handful).

I'm quite sure it's exactly as intended. Despite changing Trapfinding to grant a bonus on Perception checks, the whole "only a rogue can do this" thing is a direct port from 3.5. Since they rewrote the ability, I'm certain that leaving that was fully intended.

And as pointed out in the RAW thread, there are options beyond having a character with trapfinding. Dispel magic (and its kin), summon monster (and similar). Heck, just setting it off and dealing with the consequences is sometimes a viable option.

[Xtomjames]

And I don't disagree with you, except on the matter of in game logic. This is a simple fact that the logic doesn't fly. In fact, I'd argue even further, to say that trapfinding logically should be a skill that any character can take (all be it a crossclass skill) rather than an affixed ability given to one or two classes.

Further still the act of finding a trap and disarming a trap should be separate.

But this logic isn't what exists in the game.

[subject42]

(several sections uploaded to the PFSRD have been altered by the person who uploaded them, solely because he didn't agree with the rest of the team)

Do you have any examples of that? As much as I like Pathfinder, it really seems like Paizo is making an effort to screw things up with each successive book.

[Zherog]

Further still the act of finding a trap and disarming a trap should be separate.

They are separate.

Finding a trap requires a Perception check. Anybody can make that check, though characters with trapfinding get a bonus. But you don't need trapfinding to actually find the trap.

Disabling the trap, however, requires the Disable Device skill and the trapfinding ability.

Want trapfinding on your character? Multiclass into rogue. You'll get a bunch of cool stuff on top of trapfinding (sneak attack, lots of skill points, +3 class skill bonus to some things you've already taken but weren't class skills, etc.)

Disabling magic traps is the niche of the rogue. Why the desire to take that away, especially when there's other ways in the rules to deal with the trap other than disabling it? I mean, don't get me wrong. If you want to change it in your game and everybody is happy with the change and having fun playing the game, then go for it! You're Doing It Right (tm). I just don't see the need for the change, nor do I see the logical inconsistency you're claiming is in the rules. *shrug*

[Big Fau]

Do you have any examples of that? As much as I like Pathfinder, it really seems like Paizo is making an effort to screw things up with each successive book.

I've seen three different examples of the Dodge feat, none of which match up with the initial print release of PF.


The local version of the Noble Scion feat, of which there is a second version in the PFSRD. Quoted from BG:


Whatever happened to the local Noble Scion feat? No, not the general feat still listed on d20pfsrd.org. There used to be a second feat by the same name in the local feats section. From a Cheliax book, iirc. Gave several cool options much different than the ones that other Noble Scion feat gives. But at some point it just...vanished from the site. Why?

Then the original version of Heirloom Weapon trait.

[Zherog]

I've seen three different examples of the Dodge feat, none of which match up with the initial print release of PF.

Are you talking about the official PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/), or one of the third party sites out there? If it's the official one, I know the site incorporates errata. Based on later parts of your post, it appears you're talking about a 3rd party site. But I wanted to verify for sure.

[Big Fau]

Are you talking about the official PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/), or one of the third party sites out there? If it's the official one, I know the site incorporates errata. Based on later parts of your post, it appears you're talking about a 3rd party site. But I wanted to verify for sure.

The site I've been visiting is this one (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/), so maybe. But I've also seen people on this very forum quoting different versions of the Dodge feat, so there's either more out there or there's an even bigger problem with Paizo's errata habits.

[Jeraa]

The site I've been visiting is this one (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/), so maybe. But I've also seen people on this very forum quoting different versions of the Dodge feat, so there's either more out there or there's an even bigger problem with Paizo's errata habits.

Yeah, that Pathfinder SRD site is a third party site. This (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/) is the official site.

[Zherog]

I have a first-print copy of the Core Rulebook at home. I'll compare the Dodge feat in the book to both the official PRD and that site this evening.

This page on Paizo's site (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88yj&source=search) has links to errata files for the Core Rulebook. I haven't downloaded them yet to check if the Dodge feat has any official changes.

edit: The Dodge feat has not been the subject of errata, so anything anywhere that purports to post the official Pathfinder rules should match what's in the book and on the official site.

[MeeposFire]

I think this thread is proving why trying to figure out intent even "logically" does not work. What one person thinks is logical makes no sense to another. This is also why RAW is discussed much more often since at least they don't have to guess intent so much.

[WildPyre]

Holy crap they changed my Heirloom Weapon Trait! >_< It kinda sucks now.

[navar100]

It seems clear to me that anyone can disable non-magical traps. Rogues get a class bonus to the ability and can disable magic traps. I don't see that as a bad thing that only Rogues can do it. If just anyone could disable a magic trap then magic traps spells would be useless. Someone needs to be able to do it so that such spells don't become invincible. Whether people want to multiclass just one level of Rogue for the ability is a matter of personal taste. Considering all the disincentives Pathfinder made for multiclassing, I find it a good thing that there is something positive in the concept.

[Xtomjames]

If disabling a magic trap specifically requires both the disable device skill and the trapfinding special ability then the two are in fact conjoined for this purpose, which isn't right.

Trapfindng in this case should be an explicit bonus for rogues to be more adept at disabling such traps, it shouldn't be the bases of skill discrimination in the game.


***

This thread isn't just about rules as intended but logical discussion about uses of rules where the RAW is vague or overly specific. Just because we might have varying logical trappings doesn't mean that it's a pointless thread.

[navar100]

I don't care if it's arbitrary as opposed to logical. It's part legacy as something rogues do as well as keep the rogue uniquely relevant in trap disabling because in Pathfinder everyone can do the non-magical ones.

[Xtomjames]

The Rogue is relevant as is, or without the added dependency. Logic dictates otherwise, regardless of the current RAW that any player should be capable of disabling any trap. Trapfinding only gives bonuses to the rogue in finding them.

[Psyren]

Several places in the rules spell out that you need Trapfinding to disable, not just detect, magical traps.
(Note that all of my quotes will come from the official paizo PRD so as to avoid any sort of version-control issues.)

First, we have the Rogue (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/rogue.html) class itself:

Trapfinding: A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.

Then we look at Disable Device: (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/skills/disableDevice.html)

Restriction: Characters with the trapfinding ability (like rogues) can disarm magic traps. A magic trap generally has a DC of 25 + the level of the spell used to create it.

Most importantly of all, from the Environment (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/environment.html) section:

Magic traps may be disarmed by a character with the trapfinding class feature with a successful Disable Device skill check (DC 25 + spell level). Other characters have no chance to disarm a magic trap with a Disable Device check.

You can't get it any clearer than that.

For completeness of intent, they even repeat it in some of the traps themselves.
Explosive Runes: (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/explosiveRunes.html)

Magic traps such as explosive runes are hard to detect and disable. A character with the trapfinding class feature (only) can use Disable Device to thwart explosive runes.

Teleportation Circle: (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/teleportationCircle.html)

Magic traps such as teleportation circle are hard to detect and disable. A character with the trapfinding class feature can use the Disable Device to disarm magic traps.

Glyph of Warding: (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/glyphOfWarding.html)

Magic traps such as glyph of warding are hard to detect and disable. A rogue (only) can use the Perception skill to find the glyph and Disable Device to thwart it.

You're free to houserule that Trapfinding only relates to detection, but that is plainly neither RAW nor RAI given the sheer number of places the rule is repeated and restated in the CRB.

[ThiefInTheNight]

The whole point of the "Simple Q&A by RAW" is to give a definitive answer. There is absolutely no way to give a "definitive" answer on the intent of the rules, unless someone from Paizo decides to start posting here. Which means... what is the point of this thread?

[Psyren]

I'm not sure, but I think this thread is just for the OP to collect houserules for the RAW he doesn't like?

I was merely pointing out that his interpretation of trapfinding can't possibly be RAI either, given how many places in the book it's repeated. I honestly can't think of any other rule restated that many times in so many different ways and locations.

[ThiefInTheNight]

Yeah, rereading the OP, there's no way that either of those are intended. The Trapfinding class feature depends on the first rule to serve any purpose, and there's absolutely no ambiguity about the SNA and SM lists.

[Larpus]

I wouldn't go as far as say "anyone with Disable Device", but if I were DMing, my houserule would be as such: if you are a caster or half-caster and has the Disable Device as a class skill (can be via trait) you can use it to disarm magical traps, since you'd have the knowledge either via class or background to disarm traps and the magical knowledge so you can mix both.

A Rogue or the trap Ranger are better since they have a hefty bonus to notice and disarm them, in the same vein that anyone can grab Craft (Alchemy) and do everything the skill allows you to, but only an Alchemist has a bonus to it.