Artificer trap disabling

[SableShadow]

But it's even more difficult for a Mech because Subtle Backstabbing doesn't work on ranged. So that three round burst full of sneak attack isn't getting any threat reduction. Unless the meat shield crit on his first attack, you'll pull aggro from him anyway.

So your choices are:
1> wait until the mob is half dead before attacking
2> pull aggro and lose sneak attack

Either way, your (a Mech's) DPS is gimped compared to any TWF rogue who can attack sooner and doesn't pull aggro by doing so, while also getting many many more attacks in which generate more sneak attack opportunities.

Gotcha. I guess one could try and work a "stealth strike" item in there to pick up a little reduction (15%) to help mitigate that ... they're rare, unless they put that into the Cannith crafting?

[varusso]

Posting a myddo link proves nothing (besides that indeed your equip sucks). Post a build somewhere with numbers if you want people to believe you can "get any trap in the game" and "assassinate anything".

Without even looking at the link, you already have enough info to know that his claims of "assassinate anything" are accurate enough -- assuming you bothered to read the part where he said that the DC on his assassinate is 43 (also assuming you have any idea how high DCs need to be). That is adequate to kill the majority of things that CAN be assassinated.

And as anyone SHOULD know, what you see on the MyDDO pages does not tell you what gear a player is running with in combat; it only tells you what they logged out with (again assuming the page isnt bugged). I dont know about you, but I dont bother running around with all my trapping gear on unless I am actively trapping at the time. The gear I log out with on my toons (IE: standing around in town) is significantly different than the gear I put on to trap (or to kill, for that matter).

I have actually made an assassin trapper as well, after seeing so many people claiming that assassins cant do traps -- or more to the point, using that as an excuse to explain why they CHOOSE not to do traps. My rogue can disable any trap I have ever run across, can assassinate anything that CAN be assassinated, and only ever fails an evasion check on a 1. This in addition to having over 500 HP without any raid loot or GS -- just basic AH junk and the epic spyglass from cove, as well as some mediocre DT robes. Also high enough UMD to use any scroll/wand I care to pick up. She is STR-based, not a finesse, and can chew through just about any mob I put her up against.

This is all on a first life, without any serious farming or gearing put into her. Next life, she will go dex + finesse, just to see hwo the other half lives.

So yes, his claims are well within the realm of possibilities, whether or not he has personally done it.


On topic: Artificer not having inherent evasion is fine They are more of a jack of all trades, one that is good at many things, but not the BEST at any of the roles it imitates. They will do as a trapper for the vast majority of content, but for the specific tough ones, you need the "expert" on traps -- the rogue. This is perfectly fine -- it ensures that rogues keep their viability as the trap kings, rather than just hoping for a "+1 slot" in a group because so many players view them as squishy non-DPS tag-along moochers. If an arti could do all the things a rogue can do: traps, healing via scrolls and wands, ranged DPS that from all reports seems to rival the ranger (and in some cases surpass them), as well as having a pet that can apparently do tricks -- why WOULD you bring a rogue?

There has to be some give and take in order to keep things in some semblance of balance. Just think how upset pure rogues get when a wiz/rog steps in and does their job, able to evade most traps as well (or better), do all the disabling, AND bring versatility of buffs, nukes, and death spells. The downside is lower Spell Pen and SP for the wizzie side, as well as giving up the capstone, therefore lower DCs. Give and Take. Balance.

Of course to a non-trapper rogue, all that is relatively unimportant -- they are already treated as the +1. But if an arti could fill even that role better, why bother with the rogue at all?

[Adrenas]

As someone who has played several builds that have trap skills, but don't get evasion until level 19, I assure you that evasion isn't needed except for... um, for... hmmm. I can't think of a trap that "needs" it. I'm sure I'm forgetting one, hopefully someone will remind me.

Is it handy? You betcha. Needed? Not by a long shot.



In that case, you're good to go.

I was actually thinking the trap in the new house cannith quests with the big electrified floor you have to go accross before you can get to the control box. I watched it knockdown a capped rogue and nearly kill them on 1 failed save. You really didn't have trouble w/o evasion until 19? Not with clusters of spinning blade traps or flame traps or anything? I guess i'll see how it pans out trying to do them without evasion before deciding on the splash.

I think it was excellent design actually.

You can't have everything... Capstone or splash for evasion... you decide.

I didn't say it wasn't an excellent design, I said it has a flaw. I never suggested having everything, just full use of what it has already. The way the class was pitched and designed suggests that it would be able to handle the role of a trap monkey. I guess i'll find out exactly how far it can get in that role before deciding on the capstone.

[dkyle]

I didn't say it wasn't an excellent design, I said it has a flaw. I never suggested having everything, just full use of what it has already. The way the class was pitched and designed suggests that it would be able to handle the role of a trap monkey.

personally I find this to be a gargantuan design flaw to the point where it was almost silly to even give artificers disable traps

A "gargantuan design flaw" seems rather contrary to "excellent design".

If you want to say that Evasion is a serious drawback, a "flaw", I'd agree. But I don't think it's a "design flaw". Giving classes flaws is often a great way to make the game interesting, and I think this discussion is proof that this is an interesting flaw.

[Adrenas]

On topic: Artificer not having inherent evasion is fine They are more of a jack of all trades, one that is good at many things, but not the BEST at any of the roles it imitates. They will do as a trapper for the vast majority of content, but for the specific tough ones, you need the "expert" on traps -- the rogue. This is perfectly fine -- it ensures that rogues keep their viability as the trap kings, rather than just hoping for a "+1 slot" in a group because so many players view them as squishy non-DPS tag-along moochers. If an arti could do all the things a rogue can do: traps, healing via scrolls and wands, ranged DPS that from all reports seems to rival the ranger (and in some cases surpass them), as well as having a pet that can apparently do tricks -- why WOULD you bring a rogue?

There has to be some give and take in order to keep things in some semblance of balance. Just think how upset pure rogues get when a wiz/rog steps in and does their job, able to evade most traps as well (or better), do all the disabling, AND bring versatility of buffs, nukes, and death spells. The downside is lower Spell Pen and SP for the wizzie side, as well as giving up the capstone, therefore lower DCs. Give and Take. Balance.

Of course to a non-trapper rogue, all that is relatively unimportant -- they are already treated as the +1. But if an arti could fill even that role better, why bother with the rogue at all?

Fair enough. You make good points. I wouldn't want the artificer to be as good as a rogue at traps, but I kinda wanted the ability to at least be able to have a good shot at them through effort. I personally bring rogues for assassinations as well as for the traps, because well.. they're kinda sick if you actually pay attention to what the rogue in your party is doing. I was looking at it from a point of view of "how does this make the artificer different from anyone else splashing 2 lvls of rogue" in terms of the artificer class having access to the skills but having to do something that would've given them the skills anyway. I probably wouldn't take a mech rogue over an artificer if the artificer could do all the traps i needed, to be honest. The assassinate rogue on the other hand I would still consider. In the end i'll just see how it works out and decide if i need the splash or the capstone. It just isn't one of the trade offs I expected to be making, if you get what I mean.

[Phidius]

I was actually thinking the trap in the new house cannith quests with the big electrified floor you have to go accross before you can get to the control box. I watched it knockdown a capped rogue and nearly kill them on 1 failed save. You really didn't have trouble w/o evasion until 19? Not with clusters of spinning blade traps or flame traps or anything? I guess i'll see how it pans out trying to do them without evasion before deciding on the splash.
...

Ah, I'm a premie and haven't gone into the new quests yet.

For the other quests, though, I struggled more with a low Spot than I did without evasion. As long as I knew a trap was there, I was able to navigate/time it to get to the box.

One of the benefits of having a poor memory for trap locations is that every quest plays like new each time

[Adrenas]

A "gargantuan design flaw" seems rather contrary to "excellent design".

If you want to say that Evasion is a serious drawback, a "flaw", I'd agree. But I don't think it's a "design flaw". Giving classes flaws is often a great way to make the game interesting, and I think this discussion is proof that this is an interesting flaw.

I suppose it seems so, but it isn't. Some of the best designed things in history had major flaws. One of the goals of the classes design appeared to be the ability to fully handle the traps role. If there was something preventing it from doing so then that would be a flaw. A flaw in an excellently designed class. I don't consider it a drawback even still, it just might change what I have to do with the toon.

[dkyle]

I suppose it seems so, but it isn't. Some of the best designed things in history had major flaws. One of the goals of the classes design appeared to be the ability to fully handle the traps role. If there was something preventing it from doing so then that would be a flaw. A flaw in an excellently designed class. I don't consider it a drawback even still, it just might change what I have to do with the toon.

I guess I'm not entirely clear on what you are or are not arguing.

If you think it's a gargantuan design flaw, that seems to be predicated solely on the expectation that Artificers are somehow "supposed" to fully handle traps. Flavor-wise, they're good with machines, and understand them well enough to construct and disable mechanical traps, but that doesn't mean they're especially good at dodging damage from them. They're the geeks that set up the traps, not the sneaks that know how to get past them. And in terms of game mechanics, i don't see a good reason why they need to fully handle traps, inherently. Trading capstone for a splash is an interesting game decision.

Since I don't see the expectation that they should fully handle traps as founded in anything, I don't see a good justification for calling it a "gargantuan design flaw". Flawed if you have a certain expectation, perhaps, but I don't see a good reason to have that expectation.

Or are you just saying that Artificers aren't what you expected? Can't really argue with that, but if you do want to argue that they should change to fit your expectations, I think a stronger argument for why your expectations should be met, why it would make for a better game, is needed.

[Adrenas]

I guess I'm not entirely clear on what you are or are not arguing.

If you think it's a gargantuan design flaw, that seems to be predicated solely on the expectation that Artificers are somehow "supposed" to fully handle traps. Flavor-wise, they're good with machines, and understand them well enough to construct and disable mechanical traps, but that doesn't mean they're especially good at dodging damage from them. They're the geeks that set up the traps, not the sneaks that know how to get past them. And in terms of game mechanics, i don't see a good reason why they need to fully handle traps, inherently. Trading capstone for a splash is an interesting game decision.

Since I don't see the expectation that they should fully handle traps as founded in anything, I don't see a good justification for calling it a "gargantuan design flaw". Flawed if you have a certain expectation, perhaps, but I don't see a good reason to have that expectation.

Or are you just saying that Artificers aren't what you expected? Can't really argue with that, but if you do want to argue that they should change to fit your expectations, I think a stronger argument for why your expectations should be met, why it would make for a better game, is needed.

I think i've lined out my argument clearly enough to be understood by anyone that wants to with my other posts. I'm not going to repeat the entirety of my other posts. We don't agree on this and I don't really care for the way you frame your statements, it's borderline fallacious. So I won't continue arguing with you. Have a nice day and best of luck to you.

[Calebro]

Since I don't see the expectation that they should fully handle traps as founded in anything, I don't see a good justification for calling it a "gargantuan design flaw". Flawed if you have a certain expectation, perhaps, but I don't see a good reason to have that expectation..

You don't see the fact that Search and Disable are class skills as an expectation that Artificers should be able to fully handle traps?
Sorry Cor, but you're talking out of your *** now.

Don't get me wrong. I do feel that Artificers can fully handle traps. Some of them will just need to be handled with a little more care and quite a bit more risk, but they can handle them.
But for you to say that there's no reason to expect a class with Search and Disable as class skills to be able to handle traps is ridiculous. At this point it just looks like you're arguing for the sake of argument.

I also think it's fair to say that Adrenas' apparent perception has changed since his OP, and it looks like he now views this less and a "gargantuan design flaw" after this discussion. I'm sure he still considers it a flaw, because it certainly is. But the severity of that flaw seems to be reduced for him now.

[varusso]

Fair enough. You make good points. I wouldn't want the artificer to be as good as a rogue at traps, but I kinda wanted the ability to at least be able to have a good shot at them through effort. I personally bring rogues for assassinations as well as for the traps, because well.. they're kinda sick if you actually pay attention to what the rogue in your party is doing. I was looking at it from a point of view of "how does this make the artificer different from anyone else splashing 2 lvls of rogue" in terms of the artificer class having access to the skills but having to do something that would've given them the skills anyway. I probably wouldn't take a mech rogue over an artificer if the artificer could do all the traps i needed, to be honest. The assassinate rogue on the other hand I would still consider. In the end i'll just see how it works out and decide if i need the splash or the capstone. It just isn't one of the trade offs I expected to be making, if you get what I mean.

It makes them different because they have it as a class skill and can get their base skills higher without having to splash. They can be a pure class and get their capstone instead. If you want evasion, you have to splash something else and give up the capstone, as well as any other lvl 19/20 arti-specific enhancements you might be interested in. You also give up 2 lvls of spellcaster (as with a wiz/rog). And for all that, you wont have evasion (specifically evasion vs traps) as good as a rogue anyway.

So the arti can do all the traps while leveling that dont require them to stand in them to disarm them. Which is fine for the vast majority of the content, since in all probability you are just there for the bonus anyway, while the rest of the party zergs through the quest (and the traps). But the arti can also bring heals and buffs to the group, including some arti-unique buffs. So they have their niche just like any other toon, and they can be the trap alternate -- instead of waiting for one specific class to join, there are now 2 classes that can handle the job in most quests.

Of course I wouldnt recommend sending him in to do an epic trap that requires going THROUGH the trap first >:-)

[varusso]

You don't see the fact that Search and Disable are class skills as an expectation that Artificers should be able to fully handle traps?
Sorry Cor, but you're talking out of your *** now.

Don't get me wrong. I do feel that Artificers can fully handle traps. Some of them will just need to be handled with a little more care and quite a bit more risk, but they can handle them.
But for you to say that there's no reason to expect a class with Search and Disable as class skills to be able to handle traps is ridiculous. At this point it just looks like you're arguing for the sake of argument.

I also think it's fair to say that Adrenas' apparent perception has changed since his OP, and it looks like he now views this less and a "gargantuan design flaw" after this discussion. I'm sure he still considers it a flaw, because it certainly is. But the severity of that flaw seems to be reduced for him now.

I think you are misinterpreting it. He isnt saying arti shouldnt be expected to be able to handle traps. he is saying arti shouldnt be expected to be able to handle ALL traps. They are not intended to, or they WOULD have evasion. They are intended as an alternate only, and not in every situation. If they DID have evasion too, slap on Insightful Reflexes (since INT is their casting stat) and they would have reflex + evasion good enough that you could just ignore the rogue class form now on (for traps), especially with the other things an arti brings to the table. Now, granted as a premium class, they SHOULD be cool and have advantages over standard classes, but they should not be hands down better in every aspect. Rogue would become nothing more than a novelty class, the way AC-tanks have in the majority of content.

[Calebro]

It makes them different because they have it as a class skill and can get their base skills higher without having to splash. They can be a pure class and get their capstone instead. If you want evasion, you have to splash something else and give up the capstone, as well as any other lvl 19/20 arti-specific enhancements you might be interested in. You also give up 2 lvls of spellcaster (as with a wiz/rog). And for all that, you wont have evasion (specifically evasion vs traps) as good as a rogue anyway.

I think the most important detriment to an Arty taking a splash is the fact that their only mana efficient high DPS spell would get pushed back to level 17.
The x-bows are amazing damage at low levels. That damage does not scale well enough for high level content. It doesn't even scale very well in the mid levels, but Flame Turret helps a lot during that period.
But during the mid-high levels, where BB will be needed, it will be missing. Run through GH on elite and see how long it takes you with a x-bow, a puppy, and a Flame Turret. Or Vale on normal, for that matter.

Artys solo well, but splashing one will change how they play dramatically.

[varusso]

I think the most important detriment to an Arty taking a splash is the fact that their only mana efficient high DPS spell would get pushed back to level 17.
The x-bows are amazing damage at low levels. That damage does not scale well enough for high level content. It doesn't even scale very well in the mid levels, but Flame Turret helps a lot during that period.
But during the mid-high levels, where BB will be needed, it will be missing. Run through GH on elite and see how long it takes you with a x-bow, a puppy, and a Flame Turret. Or Vale on normal, for that matter.

Artys solo well, but splashing one will change how they play dramatically.

*chuckle*
I ran through GH and vale on all difs (at level), with a frankenstein toon that was Wiz/Pal/Rog -- Rage/Haste/Zombie form for self-healing, no nukes, CCs, or death spells; just a big honking sword. No special loot of any kind, other than a few goodies I crafted (such as the sword). No raid gear or GS, just AH-equivalent items. And no one in any group every complained that I wasnt doing my part.

If I can do it with that god-awful monstrosity, I think an arti could pull it off

EDIT: That toon is now capped, 14 wiz (wraith)/4 pal/2 rog, still primarily melee, with ice-spec for the ice DOTs to add a little extra DPS on tougher critters (since DOTs cant be saved or resisted). He has been able to do every trap at-lvl as well; not a single fail. Its actually a very funny toon to play -- though I doubt I would be taking him into epic quests without another life or 2 under his belt and ALOT of gear farming.

[dkyle]

You don't see the fact that Search and Disable are class skills as an expectation that Artificers should be able to fully handle traps?
Sorry Cor, but you're talking out of your *** now.

Rogues get intimidate. Doesn't mean I expect a pure Rogue to fully handle intimitanking Raid bosses. I'm sure some can, and are built for that, just as Artificers can be built for evasion to more fully handle traps, but it takes a lot of additional effort in both cases.

Getting something as a class skill is just another tool of the class. Search and disable have specific uses, and Artificers are simply granted the ability to put full ranks in them. As long as they can safely access the box, they can disable just as well as a Rogue.

But of course, in handling traps, getting sufficient bonuses to Search and Disable them is often only part of the battle. The class skills may produce a reasonable expectation that the class gets other useful tools for handling traps (Evasion in particular), but it doesn't produce a requirement. I simply don't think there's an inherent design requirement that all classes with the Search and Disable class skills be equally good at using them in all situations. An Artificer, without splashing, is a perfectly good trap-disabler, for at least some traps. I don't feel the class skill promises anything more.

My point was that I didn't think the statement that the lack of evasion was a gargantuan design flaw. It appears that debating that further is a moot point, anyway.

[Falryn]

Ok, I think Artificers are not really that great for epic play. None of their abilities scale for that level. Now I am not saying this is a bad thing. Its just that you really need to be a specialist at that level of play. That is just not a an arty's forte. They're great for levelling and soloing to 20, which is great for a player like I am. Epic is just a totally different play-style. Actually, I should probably say end game, rather than epic. They may have problems in high end raids as well.

[altrocks]

Posting a myddo link proves nothing (besides that indeed your equip sucks). Post a build somewhere with numbers if you want people to believe you can "get any trap in the game" and "assassinate anything".

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, but I'm not on the forums all day or even every day.

The point wasn't to show how awesome my build is. Far from it. My point was that even a sub-optimal build with **** gear can do well with Assassin PrE straight through epic content. A little work in splitting up the stats correctly, some basic gear, a little skill and you're good to go.

I was actually using my rogue as an example of a poorly build assassin, not an "OMG BEST DPS BUILD EVAR" thing to post on the forums. He's half flavor build, being a halfling.

[Havok.cry]

wouldn't a monk active past life allow an arti to get evasion long enough to handle any trap that requires it?

[Angelus_dead]

You've seen epic traps right?

Yeah, I've seen epic traps.

You know what happens to an Artificer with Evasion when he stands in an epic trap? The same thing that happens to an Artificer without Evasion.

[Adrenas]

Rogues get intimidate. Doesn't mean I expect a pure Rogue to fully handle intimitanking Raid bosses. I'm sure some can, and are built for that, just as Artificers can be built for evasion to more fully handle traps, but it takes a lot of additional effort in both cases.

Getting something as a class skill is just another tool of the class. Search and disable have specific uses, and Artificers are simply granted the ability to put full ranks in them. As long as they can safely access the box, they can disable just as well as a Rogue.

But of course, in handling traps, getting sufficient bonuses to Search and Disable them is often only part of the battle. The class skills may produce a reasonable expectation that the class gets other useful tools for handling traps (Evasion in particular), but it doesn't produce a requirement. I simply don't think there's an inherent design requirement that all classes with the Search and Disable class skills be equally good at using them in all situations. An Artificer, without splashing, is a perfectly good trap-disabler, for at least some traps. I don't feel the class skill promises anything more.

My point was that I didn't think the statement that the lack of evasion was a gargantuan design flaw. It appears that debating that further is a moot point, anyway.

I still disagree with your entire argument completely. I thought we covered that? The only class to ever be given those skills besides a rogue is the artificer. It was not accessible to anyone other than a rogue at all. You couldn't put a single point in it without a rogue level. Name a class that can't put a point into intimidate and it might offer the tiniest bit of substance to the argument you're presenting. I find myself agreeing with the other guy who said it looks like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. And if you have to add "for at least some traps" then the "perfectly good trap-disabler" part goes out the window in my opinion.