The Lost Star (Session 1) Lock Picking Feedback [Mild Spoilers]


Doomsday Dawn Player Feedback


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I wanted to share the experience of lock picking from Lost Star.

I built the goblin alchemist with the suggested background. For ability scores, I only invested enough in DEX to gain a +3 ability modifier, as I wasn't sure what to expect and really wanted more Resonance for bomb-making (INT). Trained in thievery gave my goblin a total of +4 to thievery checks. I had purchased a set of thieves tools during character creation merely for thematic purposes, to match the background, but hadn't really anticipated being "the party rogue."

The first locked item we encountered was a door, just after the fountain encounter (Quasits).

Pros:

- In an RP sense, I enjoyed lock picking. Our GM added flavor to the situation. When I made a successful check against the lock, the GM said, "You feel a tumbler move within the lock."
Backstory, I have done some apprentice locksmithing in real life, and can actually use real lock picks. This flavor was an excellent bonus to the game, but that was only added by our awesome GM in her interpretation of the mechanics.

- Lock picking was hard, but when I finally got the lock opened, it felt VERY rewarding. I even got a hero point for my diligence.

Cons:

- I broke all of my lockpicks, but our GM allowed a retcon that I had purchased more (paying out of some loot, as I was already poor) in our last visit to town -- so we continued trying. I broke 3/5 of that second set before getting the lock open. With only a +4 to thievery rolls, this was extremely difficult.

- In addition to my +4, our Bard was giving Assistance, and our Druid was casting Guidance. I got Guidance on every roll, because the "bolstered" condition is not at all clear in the book and no one realized it until a week later (hi) that it could only be used once per character per day. I got assistance on about 3/4 of the rolls, as our bard at least made most of the assistance checks with their +1 to thievery.

- So, for that particular lock, a DC 20 "Standard Lock" I had to still personally roll at least a 16, unaided, to pass a single phase of the lock. With perpetual (oops) Guidance that roll had to be at least a 15. With Assistance, a 13.

This doesn't *seem* so bad mathematically, until you factor in roll failures.

- As stated previously, I broke 8 picks (which cost 60 silver to a PC that had already spent his 150s on starting gear). After 15 rolls I stopped counting the attempts. That's very expensive for your tools to break on critical failures.

- With the DC at 20 that means anything rolled less than a 10 was a Critical Failure. With only a +4(+5/w Guidance, +7 when Assist worked and also didn't critically fail), Critical Failures were extremely common. As I had to roll (with bonuses) at least a 15, +/-2, most of the time I failed the check, and a string of low rolls meant I critically failed and broke several lockpicks.

Thoughts:

This was a "Standard" lock, encountered by 1st level PCs. It seems like only Thieves Tools will break on a critfail, which seems unfair when compared when other 'crafting' tools don't break. Alchemist tools, crafting tools, etc don't seem to have a breakable/replaceable element.

While I thoroughly enjoyed the flavor added by our GM ("you feel a tumbler move within the lock") and the euphoria of finally getting through the thing, the sheer difficulty of a Standard Lock at level 1 was enormously frustrating and excessively expensive.

When we found the locked chest later, I failed the check for traps, got poisoned, tried a couple of times to pick it (and failed miserably, as that one had a higher DC) and our barbarian smashed the trunk open while I writhed in pain.

Overall, I like the idea behind lock picking, but I feel like either low-level locks should have a lower DC, or lockpicks shouldn't break quite so easily (AND... perhaps not be so astronomically expensive to replace).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Disclaimer: OP and I are in the same playtest group. I was the Bard (badly) providing assistance.

I just wanted to agree that the way our GM presented the flavor-text surrounding the new lock-picking mechanics was really great (props to: Requielle). OP has let me play with their professional lockpicks and practice locks, and the fundamental idea of lockpicking as a potentially dangerous but rewarding process has a lot of potential. It succeeded in evoking the feel of the real thing.

That said, watching the actual written mechanics play out? Frustrating. Expensive. It seemed much more time-consuming and difficult than it should have been. I can completely understand why so many parties have defaulted to smashing things rather than letting the rogue (or whatever) handle it.


I agree with most things here. One point is that you can still keep picking with broken lock picks though at a -2 penalty which might make it unrealistic. On the other hand from the lock owners perspective the rules work great :)


That lock was extremely challenging for a level one group and from my reading of the scenario; not intended to by opened.

Regarding a different lock in the Lost Star:
The secret tunnel lock only has a 15 DC and was a much better introduction into lock picking.

The problem with this lock was that the character sink their teeth into the challenge instead of realizing that the lock is ready freaking hard and taking the other door...

I think this is a system master issue right now. After a couple rolls a PC can calculate DC and figure out if they have a chance. There is a question is should we keep that kind of math problem in the game?

Silver Crusade

My rogue broke his lockpicks on the first attempt, and I hadn't realized I needed to spend a good deal of my starting gold on backups.

The fighter then smashed the door with his maul.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

According to the 10.2 table, the lower level lock SHOULD have lower DC, more like 10-14. I guess developers intentionally put a tougher (yet non-deadly) challenge at this place to see what happens whe PCs encounter something not optimized for their capabilities.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately, not everybody working on the rulebook seems to have looked at that chart, because the Equipment chapter says that a standard lock is DC 20 (beyond extreme difficulty at Level 1, and still severe at Level 4) at pretty much exactly the point at 1st Level where you're as likely to critical fail as to succeed, making it dangerous and unwise to even try.

The Lock DCs appear to have been ported straight over from PF1E without accounting for the fact that skill bonuses are lower and you can't Take 20 anymore.


If I remember correctly from an earlier thread, a developer mentioned the DC20 door was put intentionally there to see how players reacted to am out-of-level challenge. It's been weeks though so don't quote me on this.


In PF1, you made a check, and after some time passes (usually a full round, or even a minute on more complex locks), you unlock the door, easy peasy, and the GM can still throw in the whole "you feel the tumblers move into place, unlocking the door" descriptive text. Bad rolls happened (and there were still rules for breaking lockpicks), and in PF1 there wasn't really anything you could do short of just busting down the door. But if it's some crazy Mithril or Adamantine door (which is probably worth a lot of money, by the way!), good luck with that option.

In PF2, this goes from 1 check to a minimum of 3, to a maximum of 5. That means you are 3 to 5 times more likely to fail at least once than in PF1, where it just checked once for a success or failure. Numerous times means numerous errors which means numerous possibilities to not go the way you can or want to go, and the GM having to make the descriptive text more tedious (and potentially more repetitive) kills immersion that way too.

Lock Picking is much more of a hassle then it was in PF1 with that comparison, and that's because Paizo didn't take into consideration one of the fundamental laws of Math, most specifically probability: The more experiments you make, the more likely the number of a specific result reaches 1.

In short, the more checks you have to make, the more likely a failure occurs, and you break your Thief's Tools. (Yes, I call it Thief's Tools. Not Thieves' Tools. Unless those Tools belong to numerous Thieves at once, they are not the Thieves' Tools, they are the Thief's Tools. /endtangentialrant) Broken Thief's Tools = Party can't progress = no plot to continue with = unhappy players, and all the new Lock Picking rules do is increase the likelihood for the sequential equation above to occur, which only promotes players being unhappy.

I'll also point out that the point of this game was supposed to streamline rules to make them more intuitive and fun. Making numerous checks at significantly difficult DCs (while having other hidden opportunities at lower DCs that aren't as likely to be encountered) does nothing to achieve that goal whatsoever.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
O. N. wrote:
If I remember correctly from an earlier thread, a developer mentioned the DC20 door was put intentionally there to see how players reacted to am out-of-level challenge. It's been weeks though so don't quote me on this.

The problem with that idea is that the core book's equipment chapter says that simple locks normally start at DC 20. So apparently 1st level characters with maxed-out Thievery are supposed to find it nearly impossible to open even the most simple of locks.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Bad rolls happened (and there were still rules for breaking lockpicks), and in PF1 there wasn't really anything you could do short of just busting down the door.

Um... no? Disarming a trap had negative consequences if you failed by 5 or more, but picking a lock didn't. Picking a lock in PF1 allowed retries and you could Take 20. That was why the lowest lock DC was 20 and the really good ones could be as high as 40: because if all else failed you could spend two minutes working at it until you got through.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Narration wrote:


Picking a lock in PF1 allowed retries and you could Take 20. That was why the lowest lock DC was 20 and the really good ones could be as high as 40: because if all else failed you could spend two minutes working at it until you got through.

My sentiment exactly.

In PF1e, you could take a 10 or 20 on any lock, providing you were trained in Disable Device. As long as you didn't have any negatives, you would 100% be able to open any Simple lock (DC20).

PF1e lock qualities: Simple (DC20), Average (DC25), Good (DC30), Amazing/Superior (DC40).

PF2e lock qualities: Standard (3x DC20), Expert (4x DC25), Master (5x DC30).

Furthermore, pg 336 of PF2e describes Pick a Lock as a proficiency gated task.

Quote:
PG 336, Proficiency-Gated Tasks: Locks and traps often require a certain proficiency rank to successfully use the Pick a Lock or Disable a Device tasks of Thievery; a character whose proficiency rank is lower than what’s listed can attempt the check, but can’t succeed.

As there are locks with Proficiency words listed in the Adventuring Gear table (pg 185, PF2e), my interpretation is that someone without the associated proficiency can never succeed at a lock pick attempt if they don't meet the proficiency, regardless of what roll they might make.

The table on pg 185 lists: Lock, Expert Lock (level 2) and Master lock (level 7).

So, in my opinion, none of this adds up. At level one, you can't take a 20 to open a standard lock. You roll, but run a very high risk of breaking tools in the process, which are expensive. If for whatever reason you ever encounter a lock of proficiency higher than your skill proficiency, you can't succeed the lock pick attempt even if you succeed the DC check.

As written, even if a deity bad-touched you and gave you a +100 circumstance bonus to a lock pick attempt, but you didn't meet the proficiency rank requirement, you're still not getting through that lock. And you'll probably just break that pick, too, because reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can't edit, but for clarification, any mention of PF2e in my post should actually read as PF2ePlayTest


Requiring three checks before completion really changes the probability of success and critical failure.

The DC for the door in question is 15. So a character optimized for lock picking (trained and with 18 (+4) in DEX) would have a +5 modifier (assuming my math is correct).

So critical failure shouldn't happen. Even rolling a 1 is a success by the numbers, so would be a regular failure overall.

Success on any single check would need a roll of 10. So 0.55 percent chance of success (again I think my math is right, but feel free to correct).

But requiring three successes would mean only a 0.166 probability of success without any failures. But since there is no possibility of critical failure, the character should eventually be able to get through. Taking 20 manually.

Now, if the player did not optimize completely for lock picking, then things go downhill quite a bit.

Dark Archive

TheBlueFairy wrote:
OP has let me play with their professional lockpicks and practice locks, and the fundamental idea of lockpicking as a potentially dangerous but rewarding process has a lot of potential. It succeeded in evoking the feel of the real thing.

While playing around with lockpicks and practice locks, did you ever break the picks while trying to open the locks?

Even when completely new to it? (untrained)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

Requiring three checks before completion really changes the probability of success and critical failure.

The DC for the door in question is 15. So a character optimized for lock picking (trained and with 18 (+4) in DEX) would have a +5 modifier (assuming my math is correct).

So critical failure shouldn't happen. Even rolling a 1 is a success by the numbers, so would be a regular failure overall.

Success on any single check would need a roll of 10. So 0.55 percent chance of success (again I think my math is right, but feel free to correct).

But requiring three successes would mean only a 0.166 probability of success without any failures. But since there is no possibility of critical failure, the character should eventually be able to get through. Taking 20 manually.

Now, if the player did not optimize completely for lock picking, then things go downhill quite a bit.

According to the PF2eplaytest rule book there are no DC 15 locks, they start at DC20 for "Standard" locks. We were picking a DC20 lock.

Anything 10 or less is a critical failure.

Even rolling with an optimized stat (a +4 with +1 guidance that was accidentally cast perpetually because no one knew that "bolstered" meant something special) I had to roll at least a 5 to not critically fail. There were several fours in my rolls early on. Many more rolls were between 5 and 15, making no progress. There were just enough high rolls in a row to finally succeed the lock.

You are correct in that I did not optimize for thievery. I had a +3 to DEX, giving me a trained +4 to thievery. The +1 guidance that made the success possible shouldn't have actually even happened, hence my addition frustration.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ecidon wrote:
TheBlueFairy wrote:
OP has let me play with their professional lockpicks and practice locks, and the fundamental idea of lockpicking as a potentially dangerous but rewarding process has a lot of potential. It succeeded in evoking the feel of the real thing.

While playing around with lockpicks and practice locks, did you ever break the picks while trying to open the locks?

Even when completely new to it? (untrained)

That's a great question!

No.

I haven't ever broken one while practicing. Nor has anyone I've let play with my practice set ever broken or even bent one. Lock picks are typically made from spring steel.

When picking a lock, you need knowledge of the lock mechanics and patience. Applying strong force does not help with picking a lock. It's a calm finesse with a light but purposeful touch.

More difficult locks, such as pick-proof locks, aren't pick-proof -- they're just very, very difficult. What makes many of those types of locks difficult is the pins used to secure the barrel (the turning part) have ridges or odd shapes that fool you with false-positives, making you think you've made progress when you haven't. There are pin shapes of all sorts, some designed to bind very frustratingly in the lock and make progress even more difficult.

Still, those extremely difficult locks don't require force, they require patience, skill, and a little luck.

On the job, I've broken one pick. It was a hotel room door for which there was only one key, and the key had become bent. We (staff) didn't want to break the door just to replace the lock, so I set to picking it. The pick I broke honestly only broke because I had become frustrated after 30 minutes of picking and applied far too much force to it. I eventually got it open with a different shaped pick and more patient effort.

But to summarize an answer to your question, no, neither myself nor the 8 other people who I've let try out my practice lock and picks have ever broken a pick while practicing, or "untrained." It was just me, the trained guy getting frustrated in a professional-use situation that broke one.

Two people in my playtest party have tried the practice set with great success.

So unless the standard Thieves Tools are made of overpriced wooden sticks, they really shouldn't be breaking as often as the mechanics cause them to.

Fun bonus fact: You can get yourself a set of picks and a clear padlock for about $10 on Amazon. My practice set has held up for over three years now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A friend playing a rogue had lots of luck on the rolls, and picked that lock in 2 rounds (6 actions) without breaking anything. Thievery skill was +5 (+4 Dex, +1 level).

Later, he came up with a method to pick locks effectively. You need 2 lock pick sets - one broken and one normal. You begin with the broken set. As soon as you get a single success, you change to the working set - you can always trade off a success to save your tools. If you get back to zero successes, you change back to the broken set.

He ran some simulations using this method. The average time to open the lock was 12 actions (or possibly rounds, I am not quite sure I remember correctly), but the variation is HUGE - it can take from 3 to 50 tries. Since there is no appreciable danger and the only result of a fumble is lost successes/time, this can get VERY tedious for the rest of the group. Kind of a netrunner moment (from Shadowrun, netrunning (computer hacking) was a solo activity that could easily eat up half an evening's game time.)

BardicWander wrote:
While playing around with lockpicks and practice locks, did you ever break the picks while trying to open the locks?

That's a great question!

No.

This migth work very differently with lower-tech lockpicks, who are not made out of steel but out of iron or brass.


Starfox wrote:

A friend playing a rogue had lots of luck on the rolls, and picked that lock in 2 rounds (6 actions) without breaking anything. Thievery skill was +5 (+4 Dex, +1 level).

Later, he came up with a method to pick locks effectively. You need 2 lock pick sets - one broken and one normal. You begin with the broken set. As soon as you get a single success, you change to the working set - you can always trade off a success to save your tools. If you get back to zero successes, you change back to the broken set.

He ran some simulations using this method. The average time to open the lock was 12 actions (or possibly rounds, I am not quite sure I remember correctly), but the variation is HUGE - it can take from 3 to 50 tries. Since there is no appreciable danger and the only result of a fumble is lost successes/time, this can get VERY tedious for the rest of the group. Kind of a netrunner moment (from Shadowrun, netrunning (computer hacking) was a solo activity that could easily eat up half an evening's game time.)

BardicWander wrote:
While playing around with lockpicks and practice locks, did you ever break the picks while trying to open the locks?

That's a great question!

No.

This migth work very differently with lower-tech lockpicks, who are not made out of steel but out of iron or brass.

The thing that seems off about that is breaking an object with the broken condition should destroy it right? Logically that seems to be correct but I think the only place its spelled out is when objects take dents but crit failing a lock never mentions the tools taking a dent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Making it a single check that requires 3 actions, rather than 3 -checks-, I feel would both reduce the comedy value of watching the rogue break pick after pick, and reduce the amount of table-time bypassing a lock would take.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Playtest Feedback / Doomsday Dawn Player Feedback / The Lost Star (Session 1) Lock Picking Feedback [Mild Spoilers] All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Doomsday Dawn Player Feedback