This is both brainstorm & opinion poll.
Let's start with the baseline that a simple lock can be opened by a PC trained in lockpicking (or Thievery as it appears to be for PF2) in X amount of time, given they have regular tools.
I'd say they should have little or no chance of critical failure (perhaps ruining the lock), but somebody untrained or using crude tools might ruin the lock. So a trained 18 Dex PC w/ +0 tools at 1st would have a +5 I presume? The the DC might be 15 so they can't fail by 10.
A 1st level PC with decent Dex of 14, no training (-2), & crude tools (-2) would then have -1 net, so can expect to succeed eventually (25%), except for the >10< mechanic makes them more likely to fail first (30%).
This seems acceptable and represents a +6 difference in skills (though that could easily change to +4 w/ a simple purchase.)
(I'd also add that taking 2X time to pick the lock would be a good option for a simple bonus.)
Coming from the other end of the spectrum, 20th level, what skill difference would we expect there?
18 Dex Base, +8 stat bumps for 26 Dex/+8 modifier, +3 Legendary Proficiency w/ +3 Legendary Tools, +20 level. So +34 total.
This vs. a 22 Dex/+6 modifier, let's say +1 proficiency & +2 tools (since buying downward shouldn't tax one's wealth). +29 total.
Reading forum posts, one might think this is a small difference while others argue it's enormous. Well, that depends, right?
In PF1, either you took 20 & made it or didn't. It was sort of bland that way. There's no such mechanic in PF2, and with the >10< mechanic, critical failures should be in range, right?
So +29 vs. +34...
There's a whole range of locks they'll be equivalent facing, some quite superior. It takes a DC 40 (!) lock for the +29 PC to even have a chance of critical failure, so until then they are just as proficient.
Is that acceptable? (Not a rhetorical question. I can see arguments supporting both sides depending on gaming style & relevance of locks.)
So let's bump the lock up to a LOKI 5000, complete with aura scan, metallurgical composition detectors (for the key), and autonomous inner mechanisms. What would be an appropriate DC? Do we want the +29 guy to have a chance? How many chances? How much do we want to challenge the +34 gal and what does that mean when it's one roll? It seems nice to have critical failures be a risk for the +34 gal, but does that make the obstacle too risky for parties w/o a maxed out lockpicker?
Idly speculating, I'm thinking the Legendary gal w/ +34 will have extra mechanics supporting her. So for example, she might be able to turn a critical failure into just a failure, roll twice each time, or not count a failure against her string of successes (if such is needed). In that vein, I'd really like a majestic lock like the LOKI to require multiple skill checks to bypass (w/ critical successes counting as two successes). Since that should likely be balanced with lower DCs, does that make critical failures too rare? Then again, the party does need to bypass the lock, right? How much of a chance can a +29 have against a lock that challenges a +34? Or should no lock really challenge such a godlike thief? Do we ever want such a point?
At 10th, the examples would have a similar difference in skills, around +5. Is 14 Dex just too low for a casual lockpicker? Should that be?
And at +15th, where presumably a legendary Rogue could get legendary gear, they'll be about +28 (+15/+7/+3/+3). What proficiency mechanic lurks in the background to presumably favor the legendary Rogue over the casual +29 guy?
Insert "trap" for "lock" as needed, and now what?
We might not want locks to get ruined, but I'd think most of us want traps to have a chance of going off with a flubbed roll.
Is every party going to need a maxed out Rogue to tackle these genre-norm obstacles?
Is every party going to need a maxed out Rogue to tackle these genre-norm obstacles?
I want Thievery (gag) or Mechanical (better) to be able to handle locks just fine if you're not a Rogue. If no one in the group wants to be a Rogue but someone wants to be a gnome Artificer or a trap-building Ranger, or even an elven Wizard or a Psychic who takes the skill and flavors it as using magical low-level telekinesis to manipulate the workings of devices, that should all be viable and get the party through challenges.
I'd like for traps to be revisited into a series of events that involve potentially multiple skills from multiple PCs. The issue with "just rogues" is solo adventuring.
Thievery is still useful and would have its edge in cases, but why not something like military expertise coming into play for overcoming specific obstacles?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The DC doesn't matter so much since a nat 20 picks any lock your skill allows. I think a better way to gate locks is behind proficiency levels, so a normal lock requires Trained, an Expert lock requires Expert, and so forth. The actual DC barely matters after that.
|
The DC doesn't matter so much since a nat 20 picks any lock your skill allows. I think a better way to gate locks is behind proficiency levels, so a normal lock requires Trained, an Expert lock requires Expert, and so forth. The actual DC barely matters after that.
This is only true if a Natural 20 succeeds at anything and there are no consequences for failure or critical failure.
The second is, I believe, already provably untrue (critical failures damage the lock picks). So...trying for a DC 40 with a +10 bonus and assuming 3 dents to destroy lock picks, you may well go through something like 7 sets of lock picks before the door budges. That's...not necessarily a flat forbiddance, but it sure matters.
And that assumes a Natural 20 will even succeeds if it would be a critical failure (which may well not be the case).
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
The DC doesn't matter so much since a nat 20 picks any lock your skill allows. I think a better way to gate locks is behind proficiency levels, so a normal lock requires Trained, an Expert lock requires Expert, and so forth. The actual DC barely matters after that.This is only true if a Natural 20 succeeds at anything and there are no consequences for failure or critical failure.
The second is, I believe, already provably untrue (critical failures damage the lock picks). So...trying for a DC 40 with a +10 bonus and assuming 3 dents to destroy lock picks, you may well go through something like 7 sets of lock picks before the door budges. That's...not necessarily a flat forbiddance, but it sure matters.
And that assumes a Natural 20 will even succeeds if it would be a critical failure (which may well not be the case).
True enough. If the DCs are anything like PF1e, which nearly mandated taking 20 to pick locks unless you were pretty high level, I can see thiefy types carrying around lots of extra lockpicks a la Skyrim/Fallout. I can also see "indestructible lockpicks" being a popular magic item if available.