Gunslinger: Failing "Blast Lock" to jam it?

[SnowHeart]

Blast Lock deed:

Spoiler:

Blast Lock: The gunslinger makes an attack roll against a lock within the first range increment of her firearm. A Diminutive lock usually has AC 7, and larger locks have a lower AC. The lock gains a bonus to its AC against this attack based on its quality. A simple lock has a +10 bonus to AC, an average lock has a +15 bonus to AC, a good lock has a +20 bonus to AC, and a superior lock has a +30 bonus to AC. Arcane lock grants a +10 bonus to the AC of a lock against this attack. On a hit, the lock is destroyed, and the object can be opened as if it were unlocked. On a miss, the lock is destroyed, but the object is jammed and still considered locked. It can still be unlocked by successfully performing this deed, by using the Disable Device skill, or with the break DC, though the DC for either break or Disable Device or the AC increases by 10. A key, combination, or similar mechanical method of unlocking the lock no longer works, though knock can still be employed to bypass the lock, and the creator of an arcane lock can still bypass the wards of that spell.

A player has reached (or will soon reach) 3rd level in the gunslinger class. He is reviewing the new deeds available to him as part of "Utility Shot", and is asking a number of good questions. One of which is, if hitting the lock destroys it and it opens, but a miss means the lock is destroyed but jammed, can you intentionally "miss" and cause the lock to be jammed?

The obvious benefit to this is the players are running from a mob, someone closes the door behind them, and the gunslinger shoots the lock to jam it. Not a bad idea. I'm not against it. But I'm just wondering what y'all think. I don't feel it should be automatic, but I'm not sure how to adjudicate it.

[wraithstrike]

The rules assume you are going to try to be successful, and don't really account for out of the box thinking since not every clever idea will be covered.
With all that said I think it is a good idea, and I would let him do it.

[Cheapy]

I am pretty sure you can choose to fail a check.

[yukongil]

this has become a running joke in our group, as the gunslinger wants to shoot every lock they find to jam up the party.

Personally I'd still have him make the check since he is looking for a specific outcome, failure indicates some minor cosmetic damage to the lock but otherwise no effect. That way you can't "accidentally" mess up a Jam Lock check and the lock pops open or something equally silly.

[nerdorking]

I would pretty much follow yukongils advice. If the intent is to jam the lock simply reverse the system. A hit jams it and a miss disables it.

SnowHeart wrote:

Blast Lock deed: ** spoiler omitted **

A player has reached (or will soon reach) 3rd level in the gunslinger class. He is reviewing the new deeds available to him as part of "Utility Shot", and is asking a number of good questions. One of which is, if hitting the lock destroys it and it opens, but a miss means the lock is destroyed but jammed, can you intentionally "miss" and cause the lock to be jammed?

The obvious benefit to this is the players are running from a mob, someone closes the door behind them, and the gunslinger shoots the lock to jam it. Not a bad idea. I'm not against it. But I'm just wondering what y'all think. I don't feel it should be automatic, but I'm not sure how to adjudicate it.

[NorthJedi]

nerdorking wrote:

I would pretty much follow yukongils advice. If the intent is to jam the lock simply reverse the system. A hit jams it and a miss disables it.

This I Approve :)

[SnowHeart]

Thanks all; the advice is much appreciated!

[Purple Dragon Knight]

NorthJedi wrote:

nerdorking wrote:

I would pretty much follow yukongils advice. If the intent is to jam the lock simply reverse the system. A hit jams it and a miss disables it.

This I Approve :)

Make sense... IRL it's probably easier to pop open a padlock with a gunshot than to keep it locked and jam it... the padlock probably flies into pieces 99% of the time a bullet hits it squarely...