[Tweak] Disable Device / Open Locks - INT-based instead of DEX , p. 57

[Locworks]

Note
In 3.5, Disable Device was an Intelligence-based skill. The assumption was that a smarter character would have an easier time figuring out how a mechanism worked and disabling it without destroying it.

In Alpha 3, the skill is now Dexterity-based. I don't think the change is warranted.

In 3.5, Open Locks was a Dexterity-based skill. My assumption is that it was a very focused skill set (much more focused than dealing with the myriad of traps and devices) and at equal level of training a nimble character was possibly better at it than a smart character.

Now that Open Locks was merged into Disable Device (which has not changed), I would change the core ability to Intelligence to reflect the fact that a smarter character stands a better chance of studying complex mechanisms and bypassing or disabling them.

The tweak also eliminates the necessity to decide whether a skill which most of the time mobilises only the character's hands suffers from an armor check penalty.

Tweak
Disable Device
(Int; Trained Only)

[DracoDruid]

Actually I LIKE this skill as DEX based.

They are clearly a legerdemain dependent skill. Sure you must be smart to understand complex machines, but this can be made up with experience (= skill ranks) and the actuall main action is using your hands.

I think this is just another problem with fixed ability-skill relations and another vote for stating the ability used not after the actual skill name but at the actual use:

MECHANICS
requires tools
Analyse Device (INT): Make a check **blabla** get a bonus on your disable device check.
Disable Device (DEX): You can pick a lock, disable a trap or other devices of the DMs aproval **blabla**

[Pathos]

As disabling a device can take a certail level of finesse (a fine touch), why not move it over to Dex? We already do have the "Tactile Trapsmith" feat which allows it.

[Locworks]

DracoDruid wrote:

Actually I LIKE this skill as DEX based.

They are clearly a legerdemain dependent skill. Sure you must be smart to understand complex machines, but this can be made up with experience (= skill ranks) and the actuall main action is using your hands.

That's why I'm using the "at equal level of training" concept, i.e. same number of ranks.

DracoDruid wrote:

I think this is just another problem with fixed ability-skill relations and another vote for stating the ability used not after the actual skill name but at the actual use:

MECHANICS
requires tools
Analyse Device (INT): Make a check **blabla** get a bonus on your disable device check.
Disable Device (DEX): You can pick a lock, disable a trap or other devices of the DMs aproval **blabla**

Both activities (study and disable) are dealt with as a single roll under 3.5 Disable Device.

But your suggestion is implemented by the degrees of success/failure:
3.5
[..]If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you spring it. If you’re attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.
[...]
A rogue who beats a trap's DC by 10 or more can study the trap, figure out how it works, and bypass it (along with her companions) without disarming it."

[Locworks]

Pathos wrote:

As disabling a device can take a certail level of finesse (a fine touch), why not move it over to Dex? We already do have the "Tactile Trapsmith" feat which allows it.

Wouldn't Tactile Trapsmith confirm that the Disable Device is essentially INT-based and that additional special training is required to use DEX?

[Mosaic]

Re-posted from the other thread ...

Lockworks wrote:

New tweak:

Disable Device/Open Locks - INT-based instead of DEX

In that case I'd agree 100% that an armor check penalty would be inappropriate. I still like the armor check penalty to all Str and Dex skills though...

BTW, if Pathfinder doesn't go with Int for Disable Devices as you suggest, maybe there could be a feat that switches from it form Dex to Int (like the one that allows Intimidate to be Str rather than Cha), call it Problem Solver or Mechanical Wiz or something. I think key-ability switching feats have a lot of potential, although they might need a little something more to make them worthwhile, an additional +2 to skill checks maybe.

[Locworks]

Mosaic wrote:

BTW, if Pathfinder doesn't go with Int for Disable Devices as you suggest, maybe there could be a feat that switches from it form Dex to Int (like the one that allows Intimidate to be Str rather than Cha), call it Problem Solver or Mechanical Wiz or something. I think key-ability switching feats have a lot of potential, although they might need a little something more to make them worthwhile, an additional +2 to skill checks maybe.

Superb idea for a multiclassed rogue/wizard! I may actually need that when I convert the rules to Iron Kingdoms (if DD stays DEX-based). Plenty of clockwork devices and steam engines to sabotage. :-)

[OneWinged4ngel]

Personally, I've *always* used the house rule that open lock was part of the Disable Device skill. However, there was no issue of "should it be int based or should it be dex based?"

Why? Because *a skill does not have to be inherently linked to an attribute.* The PHB says it right there that they are just the "most common" associated ability scores. NOT the ability scores ALWAYS used with that ability for EVERY task. I always used dexterity for lockpicking and intelligence for cracking the workings of a complex mechanism or tricking up a magic trap, despite both of those things falling under Disable Device in my house rules. Never caused any problem. Another part of the houserule also included the ability to "scrub" locks at a penalty to the roll (something real, particularly skilled lockpicks do to open a lock almost instantly).

And just because old 3.5 kinda encouraged you not to pay attention to that line, I see no reason why Pathfinder should do the same. The key ability score should be whatever the DM feels is appropriate for the specific task.

Locworks wrote:

Mosaic wrote:

BTW, if Pathfinder doesn't go with Int for Disable Devices as you suggest, maybe there could be a feat that switches from it form Dex to Int (like the one that allows Intimidate to be Str rather than Cha), call it Problem Solver or Mechanical Wiz or something. I think key-ability switching feats have a lot of potential, although they might need a little something more to make them worthwhile, an additional +2 to skill checks maybe.

Superb idea for a multiclassed rogue/wizard! I may actually need that when I convert the rules to Iron Kingdoms (if DD stays DEX-based). Plenty of clockwork devices and steam engines to sabotage. :-)

See, I don't see why you even need to have a new feat or rule. You can already decide what's appropriate. Key ability scores and skills are not INHERENTLY linked. It's not a hard and fast rule. The actual rules change would be to say that "yes, they ARE inherently linked." And that's not a rule I'd like.

[Grimcleaver]

I really like this change. We've been playtesting the game and were really struggling with this last night. It seems as if Int and Dex come pretty equally to bear in both skills. I could see a really bright guy who knows exactly what he's dealing with be too much of a clutz to actually get the pins where they need to go. But just as easily I could see a really nimble guy mess around with a lock forever not knowing what he's doing.

The deciding factors for me, what really sells me, is that Int usually doesn't get much play compared to Dex, which is both AC and Ranged Attack. That and yeah, a guy in armor should be incumbered none at all when it comes to getting a lock open.

You've sold me at least. It's Int. I'll let my group know.

[Locworks]

Grimcleaver wrote:

You've sold me at least. It's Int. I'll let my group know.

Cheers, Grimcleaver. Smart rogues are fun to play. There is much to be learned from a Disable Device used as an Analyze Device.

[Locworks]

OneWinged4ngel wrote:

See, I don't see why you even need to have a new feat or rule. You can already decide what's appropriate. Key ability scores and skills are not INHERENTLY linked. It's not a hard and fast rule. The actual rules change would be to say that "yes, they ARE inherently linked." And that's not a rule I'd like.

If we were with a final, printed and bound PF ruleset, I would agree 100% and change the base ability score at my table. The thing is that we are playtesting the draft core rules and trying to come up with tweaks that will reduce the need to create houserules.

Saying that "key ability scores and skills are not INHERENTLY linked" does not imply that they can be arbitrarily linked or that we shouldn't look for more intuitive or thematic associations. I see rogues who dabble with locks and devices as medieval hackers and was taken aback when I was made to notice that DEX was the core ability for DD in Alpha 3.

[Matthew Morris]

Please put me in the intelligence catagory as well

[Tessarael]

Agreed. It should be intelligence-based, and no armor penalty.

[DracoDruid]

Well I thought about this for a while again, and I think it should be DEX, but without AC-penalty.

Reason:

First: Messing around with small/tiny clockworks etc. is heavily depending on your manual dexterity. If you don't have calm hands you screw more often than somebody with them.

Second: Messing around with complicated mechanisms is surely more about INT than DEX, but actually it's about KNOWLEDGE. And since this is a skill the knowledge aspect is solved via the skill RANKS and not the ability modifier.

Third: Why no AC-penalty. Well, a good part about disabling a device is about analysing it, so it makes no sense to penalize this through wearing armor, the second part is about calm fingers, so if you put off your gloves and aren't wearing some weird turtoise-steam-power-armor so that you can't even kneel the armor itself shouldn't affect your ability to pick a lock, etc.

So the best "mechanic" is one with calm and steady hands (high DEX) and a large amount of practical knowledge (high skill ranks), who doesn't wear gloves. ;)

[Mosaic]

DracoDruid wrote:

So the best "mechanic" is one with calm and steady hands (high DEX) and a large amount of practical knowledge (high skill ranks), who doesn't wear gloves. ;)

Steady Hands sounds like a feat to me, although a lot of people seem down on the +2/+2 feats.

[YULDM]

DracoDruid wrote:

So the best "mechanic" is one with calm and steady hands (high DEX) and a large amount of practical knowledge (high skill ranks), who doesn't wear gloves. ;)

When you put it this way, it's hard to find argument against it!

It seems totally logical now. The "INT" part of the skill is driven by ranks!

Nice!

[Brit O]

YULDM wrote:

It seems totally logical now. The "INT" part of the skill is driven by ranks!

Nice!

Exactly. Ranks don't represent intelligence as it does the raw practice put into an activity. Intelligence just reflects overall smartness, which the number of skill points you get reflects.

Let me put it this way:

Putting ranks into climb means you've learned how to climb better. You've LEARNED to be a better climber, and in some ways you're smarter for knowing how to climb better but that doesn't mean that without some good muscles you're going to get far.

Lockpicking requires Dexterity. I know this from practice and no matter how smart I get or am I still NEED a delicate touch to get the tumblers in place.

Disarming traps is not exactly in my field, but I've seen a lot of movies and read a lot of stuff about traps and it seems with all the sensors and do-dads (technical term) having a delicate touch would seem to help avoid setting something off.

Lets look at this comparison:

A person with perfect hand eye coordination but average intelligence. He doesn't do crossword puzzles but can juggle. He reads and commits Lockpicking and Trap Disarming for idiots to memory. He knows every word in the book.

A person with a perfect IQ but a nervous twitch and shaky hands. He reads User manuals on the bus for fun, but constantly drops stuff. He reads and commits Lockpicking and Trap Disarming for idiots to memory. He knows every word in the book.

Now they know the exact same amount of Lockpicking and Trap Disarming skills (reflected by the same amount of 'learning' that area). Now its person 1's steady hands vs person 2's cleverness. You're in a room with a bomb and both these men. who do you want disarming the bomb?

[Locworks]

Brit O wrote:

Now they know the exact same amount of Lockpicking and Trap Disarming skills (reflected by the same amount of 'learning' that area). Now its person 1's steady hands vs person 2's cleverness. You're in a room with a bomb and both these men. who do you want disarming the bomb?

The smart one. The best hackers are those who go beyond standard schemas and who can outthink the enemies and the traps they set.

[Locworks]

Brit O wrote:

Putting ranks into climb means you've learned how to climb better. You've LEARNED to be a better climber, and in some ways you're smarter for knowing how to climb better but that doesn't mean that without some good muscles you're going to get far.

Are you talking about DnD climbing or RL climbing?

[DracoDruid]

See! That's why setting only one ability per skill is not that good.

In my game there are two main uses for the "Mechanics" skill:

1) Analyse Device/Mechanism which goes for INT
2) Use/Disable Device which goes for DEX

If you have the time to study the device you get a nice bonus on your actual "tinkering" roll.