I'm pretty sure it is intended that you have to start over from scratch when your tools break. So a low level thief would need the roll several consecutive Nat 20s, which while statistically possible is fairly unlikely, and they'd likely bankrupt themselves in that many attempts. It isn't clear by RAW but I think about it like picking locks in Skyrim.
I'm not sure how to avoid repeated rolls from getting tedious though.
Yeah I noticed and reported this to the original errata/FAQ thread, I am hoping they catch it in the next major errata that is coming.
Generally I am fine with things failing forward, but when it comes to picking locks it is obvious that a low level rogue isn't meant to be able to auto pick level 9 locks out of combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A boring series of repeated rolls against level-inappropriate locks can be prevented altogether by gating the ability to pick them behind higher Thievery proficiency levels (Expert, Master, etc).
A boring series of repeated rolls against level-inappropriate locks can be prevented altogether by gating the ability to pick them behind higher Thievery proficiency levels (Expert, Master, etc).
How about breaking stuff? A well made wooden cupboard (expert atlethics) will certainly stop you if you are in a rush, however it will not stop you for very long when you have some extra time and even tools.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A boring series of repeated rolls against level-inappropriate locks can be prevented altogether by gating the ability to pick them behind higher Thievery proficiency levels (Expert, Master, etc).
Yes but that is more a house rule than anything else when dealing with existing locks and trying to decode how they actually intended the multiple attempt locks, since they specifically state it is to thwart low skill pickers just picking repeatedly.
The biggest issue I have with proficiency gating locks as the primary restriction is that it means locks outside of combat (where most lock picking is done) are then no longer rolls at all, and that can be felt as a GM telling a player "yes I wanted you to be able to enter this building, no I don't want you to enter this building".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A boring series of repeated rolls against level-inappropriate locks can be prevented altogether by gating the ability to pick them behind higher Thievery proficiency levels (Expert, Master, etc).Yes but that is more a house rule than anything else when dealing with existing locks and trying to decode how they actually intended the multiple attempt locks, since they specifically state it is to thwart low skill pickers just picking repeatedly.
The biggest issue I have with proficiency gating locks as the primary restriction is that it means locks outside of combat (where most lock picking is done) are then no longer rolls at all, and that can be felt as a GM telling a player "yes I wanted you to be able to enter this building, no I don't want you to enter this building".
Yeah, I am strongly against proficiency gates my self.
Something also to consider, time. How much time is spent attempting the lock pick? Are they trying to pick a lock that is on a public street and quickly found a moment where no one was passing by? How long till someone passes by? Is it a highly patrolled area? Roll a d20 and determine if a patrol is coming, say on a 20 or 19. On a 18 or 16 it's a passerby who may would roll perception to see if they even noticed (assuming they're being sneaky), etc, etc.
Time is a resource. Exposure is a risk. If every lock they attempt to pick exists inside a pocket plane where no one could observe them and time stands still, then I get the concern. Otherwise, imo, the above addresses it. Merely takes the GM to act on it. File under, "making failure interesting"
You're right that you can make scenarios where the time it takes to pick a lock matters, but if there's a locked door in a dungeon crawl or a lockbox in a loot haul, it probably doesn't matter. That's sort of the rub. To be fair, this was a problem in PF1 too, especially with take 10/20.
|
A boring series of repeated rolls against level-inappropriate locks can be prevented altogether by gating the ability to pick them behind higher Thievery proficiency levels (Expert, Master, etc).Yes but that is more a house rule than anything else when dealing with existing locks and trying to decode how they actually intended the multiple attempt locks, since they specifically state it is to thwart low skill pickers just picking repeatedly.
The biggest issue I have with proficiency gating locks as the primary restriction is that it means locks outside of combat (where most lock picking is done) are then no longer rolls at all, and that can be felt as a GM telling a player "yes I wanted you to be able to enter this building, no I don't want you to enter this building".
I don’t think it’s a house rule, looking at page 504 under minimum proficiency as well as rogue’s first level feat trap finder.
I don’t think it’s a house rule, looking at page 504 under minimum proficiency as well as rogue’s first level feat trap finder.A boring series of repeated rolls against level-inappropriate locks can be prevented altogether by gating the ability to pick them behind higher Thievery proficiency levels (Expert, Master, etc).Yes but that is more a house rule than anything else when dealing with existing locks and trying to decode how they actually intended the multiple attempt locks, since they specifically state it is to thwart low skill pickers just picking repeatedly.
The biggest issue I have with proficiency gating locks as the primary restriction is that it means locks outside of combat (where most lock picking is done) are then no longer rolls at all, and that can be felt as a GM telling a player "yes I wanted you to be able to enter this building, no I don't want you to enter this building".
It is a house rule to apply it to existing locks where it doesn't apply is what I mean.
It is also ignoring the RAI of the complex locks, which again is what is being asked about in this thread.Unfortunately time gating is just not a reliable way to go about things and the default proficiency gates required for high level locks are relatively low.
Seems to make sense as written. With enough time and effort, most any lock becomes little more than a speed bump. The trick is to (1) make the risk of getting past it so high that it's not worth it for people to attempt it, or (2) make it so difficult and time consuming for most, that they will likely get caught in the attempt.
This is how locks function in real life. This is how they seem to function in the game. I wouldn't change a thing.
Now, as to the greater issue of skill retries in general...I'd allow them, provided there was enough time to do so, and there was no penalty for failure that might inherently interfere with retries.
Seems to make sense as written. With enough time and effort, most any lock becomes little more than a speed bump. The trick is to (1) make the risk of getting past it so high that it's not worth it for people to attempt it, or (2) make it so difficult and time consuming for most, that they will likely get caught in the attempt.
This is how locks function in real life. This is how they seem to function in the game. I wouldn't change a thing.
Now, as to the greater issue of skill retries in general...I'd allow them, provided there was enough time to do so, and there was no penalty for failure that might inherently interfere with retries.
See the issue is this.
Locks of higher qualities might require multiple successes to unlock, since otherwise even an unskilled burglar could easily crack the lock by attempting the check until they rolled a natural 20.
The intent of the rule is quite clear, but as written it doesn't do what it is stated to be there for.
So going over to the equipment section by default a level 9 lock worth 200gp is no challenge for anyone trained even at level 1. Legendary locks barely any better despite being worth thousands.
Also 100% not how locks function in real life. Just spending time on a lock won't let you through every lock:). It is usually a mixture of having the right tools and how easy knowledge is to come by these days that makes it just require time, and even then making something pick resistant is always an option.
Also 100% not how locks function in real life. Just spending time on a lock won't let you through every lock:). It is usually a mixture of having the right tools and how easy knowledge is to come by these days that makes it just require time, and even then making something pick resistant is always an option.
But how I described them absolutely is how they function in real life. I know a penetration tester (a security specialist who makes a living at testing the security of those who hire them to do so) and he's always said the same thing about locks. Also, getting the right tools is part of the time component. :P
The Search for the Perfect Door - Deviant Ollam
Anyone who wants in is going to get in. It's just a matter of time and difficulty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also 100% not how locks function in real life. Just spending time on a lock won't let you through every lock:). It is usually a mixture of having the right tools and how easy knowledge is to come by these days that makes it just require time, and even then making something pick resistant is always an option.But how I described them absolutely is how they function in real life. I know a penetration tester (a security specialist who makes a living at testing the security of those who hire them to do so) and he's always said the same thing about locks. Also, getting the right tools is part of the time component. :P
The Search for the Perfect Door - Deviant Ollam
Anyone who wants in is going to get in. It's just a matter of time and difficulty.
I know but the process is different in the modern day. And yeah I have seem deviant ollam before, was introduced via the lock picking lawyer.:)
If you have the skill, access or knowledge how to make the right tools... absolutely. But gaining that knowledge in the PF setting is your skill check modifier.
There are certain locks I could simply never pick regardless of the time spent because I haven't had practice with them or don't know their inner workings well enough yet.
There are certain locks I could simply never pick regardless of the time spent because I haven't had practice with them or don't know their inner workings well enough yet.
And that's when you break the door down, or tunnel through, or under, the wall.
All locks really do is delay (and hopefully deter) intruders. That's my whole point.
There are certain locks I could simply never pick regardless of the time spent because I haven't had practice with them or don't know their inner workings well enough yet.And that's when you break the door down, or tunnel through, or under, the wall.
All locks really do is delay (and hopefully deter) intruders. That's my whole point.
I get that, but that is making a lot of noise and requiring a different skill set than lock picking, which is what this discussion is talking about :)
I get that, but that is making a lot of noise and requiring a different skill set than lock picking, which is what this discussion is talking about :)There are certain locks I could simply never pick regardless of the time spent because I haven't had practice with them or don't know their inner workings well enough yet.And that's when you break the door down, or tunnel through, or under, the wall.
All locks really do is delay (and hopefully deter) intruders. That's my whole point.
And that (hopefully) would be the deterrence factor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that (hopefully) would be the deterrence factor.I get that, but that is making a lot of noise and requiring a different skill set than lock picking, which is what this discussion is talking about :)There are certain locks I could simply never pick regardless of the time spent because I haven't had practice with them or don't know their inner workings well enough yet.And that's when you break the door down, or tunnel through, or under, the wall.
All locks really do is delay (and hopefully deter) intruders. That's my whole point.
This works in real life, and in certain in game scenarios. It doesn't work as well in a dungeon without witnesses or a ticking clock. If you can take as long as you need to, you don't have much incentive to sacrifice a possible element of surprise. As long as a nat 20 isn't a critical failure, it is theoretically possible for someone to roll a bunch of nat 20s in a row and open a lock. This is true even if failures (critical or otherwise) reverse successes. But actually rolling all of those checks is incredibly boring, nor is there a rule of thumb for estimating how long it would take.
One of the bigger flaws of d20 systems (as I understand them) is that rolling a failure doesn't often change the state of play. Lock picking is one of the more egregious examples of this, but there are a lot of things where failing just means things are exactly the same as before. Even in combat, you might lose an action or a spell slot, which is losing a resource, but otherwise the game stays the same as if you never spent it at all. PF2 has made some progress on this with the tiers of success, and they are trying to encourage fail forward mechanics that will keep things moving, but the former only somewhat alleviates the issue and the latter is highly dependent on the creativity of whoever is writing your adventure.
Hopefully the GMG has some advice on how to make locked doors interesting. It could very well be that the answer is "don't bother with them unless there's something pressuring the PC to do it quickly." This wasn't the practice in PF1 adventures, which often gave you locks and all the time in the world to pick them, but it might be the attitude Paizo uses in the the future.
Yeah, the scenario of a lonely lock in the middle of a nowhere dungeon just seems like bad encounter design to me. Better to replace it with a trap or a guardian such as a construct or undead. A lonely lock makes little practical sense in such a situation.
Better yet, keep the lock, but add a time element, such as a crushing ceiling trap that takes several rounds to lower. Pick the lock, break down the door, do something, anything, before the ceiling comes down. :)
Yeah, the scenario of a lonely lock in the middle of a nowhere dungeon just seems like bad encounter design to me. Better to replace it with a trap or a guardian such as a construct or undead. A lonely lock makes little practical sense in such a situation.
Better yet, keep the lock, but add a time element, such as a crushing ceiling trap that takes several rounds to lower. Pick the lock, break down the door, do something, anything, before the ceiling comes down. :)
A non Pathfinder game I run is a big open city sandbox adventure. The players take all sorts of actions and trust in me to just develop the areas based on what the city would be like rather than tailored for them.
In PF2e it simply wouldn't work with a "you are level 1, you succeed against every non legendary lock with a bit of time". It would take away all of the excitement of players changing their plans when their picking attempt failed or needed to rethought. And the joy that they have when the dice favour them and they feel like they have managed to take the easy or safe way in.
Those decisions where they go "well, locks jammed... chest is too big to get out but we want the documents... Do we smash it and lead the watch on a chase, silence the folk of the house or search for the key quietly?"
None of this matters when it is a "well it isn't legendary so a level 1 can do it" or if the GM is proficiency gating "hey GM did you want me to pick this lock or is it a 'I am not allowed into this box' situation".
Turning it from a slightly random chance event influenced by the character to a simple yes no binary answer.
I expect it is intended to work like other contests (chases and so on) as well be outlined in the GMG.
Successes count once, critical successes count twice, failures reduce once, critical failures reduce twice.
But if you want how long it would take it relying on nat 20s as written.
- 40min average lock lvl3 (for a level 1 character with a bonus lower of +4 or lower)
- 50min good lock lvl9 (for a level 1 character)
- 60min superior lock lvl 17 (for a character with a +11 bonus, eg a level 3 rogue with expert in thievery)
(keep in mind these times are inflated to make it a 99.5% chance, knocking it down to a 98.5% chance drops the 60min to 48min.)
A house rule I have been playing around with for time based DC adjustments for smaller time units, but I haven't settled on anything I like yet.
None of this matters
Uh.. yes it does? Having a chance at picking a difficult lock doesn't magically remove the risk of being caught or change any of the other factors you mention.
All RD's version does is add another option to your list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll add that there's a difference between a personal GM making an obstacle for a specific party and one that doesn't.
For a published adventure, having a lock gated to "Expert" at level 5 is pretty much saying any party w/ somebody into Thievery can get by, but other parties have to find another route. Hopefully the writer provides another route, perhaps one that requires face-work or a difficult fight for parties that balance that direction or maybe a riddle.
Yet now I'm thinking, why not have gates for a house group?
Party has a dedicated lock person, put in a lock they can auto-succeed at because that's what they do. "Since you're an expert, the lock proves no difficulty for you though lesser lockpickers would utterly fail."
That's a reward, much like some spells auto-succeed vs. some obstacles.
"Water? Good thing I can get us all to breathe it!"
"Chasm? Got me a Fly handy so I can ferry us over."
Knowing your preparation gets rewarded is a good thing, I think, even when there's no roll involved.
I've sometimes had the opposite experience, where the party lacked the resources and made things extra difficult for themselves.
No face? Good luck w/ the peace mission.
None of this mattersUh.. yes it does? Having a chance at picking a difficult lock doesn't magically remove the risk of being caught or change any of the other factors you mention.
All RD's version does is add another option to your list.
It makes it a binary success, it was either always going to succeed or it was never going to succeed is what I am saying. The moment I set the proficiency tier of the lock I have determined whether the party can unlock it.
The time spent is minimal in the scheme of things. There are times when it will make a difference but many times where it won't.
I suppose for my example my issue is the breaking of the illusion of player choice in game mattering and I am uncomfortable with that.
Anyway this is moot and again off topic from the original point raised. The text describing how locks work states it is to stop low skill pickers from simply using time to defeat locks, as written it does not do that.
|
Busting out my House Rule chops:
Trained Lock - 3 Actions, DC 15 - Complexity 1
Expert Lock - 1 minute, DC 20 - Complexity 2
Master Lock - 10 minutes, DC 30 - Complexity 3
Legendary Lock - 1 hour, DC 40 - Complexity 4
Complexity is the number of consecutive successes needed to unlock the lock.
A lock that has it's difficulty shifted past Legendary may not be opened by that character.
Whenever a character gains a level, or another circumstance determined by the DM, a lock reverts to it's original difficulty for them.
For each level of training the character has over the lock, or the lock over the character, reduce or increase the time to make a check by one step.
Critical Success - Counts as two successes
Success - Counts as one success
Failure - The lock shifts it's difficulty for you by one step, and you must start over
Critical Failure - The lock shifts it's difficulty for you by two steps, and you must start over
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanically, what's to stop a bad burglar (Thievery +1) from just retrying over and over until the get natural 20's. For example, he's trying to pick a good lock (DC 30, 5 successes). If he rolls a "1", he spends 3 SP.
No, if he rolls a 19 or less he gets a critical failure because 19 + 1 = 20, which is 10 under the DC.
If he rolls a "20" (crit successes) he gets 2 successes towards the 5 needed.
No, If he rolls a natural 20 he gets one success because 20 + 1 = 21, which is a failure, upgraded to a success by the natural 20. It’s literally impossible for him to roll a critical success.
So, he can just keep retrying until he gets three "20's".
Make that five, rather than three, and you’re right, given enough time and enough lock picks he will eventually open that lock.
Assuming he got three "1's", the attempt cost him 6 SP.
No, he breaks a pick for every roll that isn’t a natural 20. He’s probably going to break close to 100 picks, and it would take about 10 minutes.
If he’s willing to really take his time, he can just repair the broken pick each time and at least save the 30 gp he’d otherwise waste.
Also, without an official "take 20" rule, isn't it tedious to have everyone at the table wait to see how many tries it takes a player to roll 3 successes?
Again, five natural 20s in the scenario you lay out, but yes, it is. I miss Take 10 and Take 20. In this case, as GM, if the burglar were willing to spend 30 gp in advance and carry 100 extra picks with him, and had ten minutes to work, I’d skip to “Ten minutes and 100 picks later, you open the lock.”
Am I missing something?
Remember that a natural 20 is not an automatic critical success, it simply upgrades the result by one level. If your natural 20 would have been a failure it upgrades to a success. If it would have been a critical failure, it upgrades to a failure.
|
|
There are certain locks I could simply never pick regardless of the time spent because I haven't had practice with them or don't know their inner workings well enough yet.
In Pathfinder that is abstracted to proficiency gating. If a given lock is gated to Trained proficiency, then characters with Trained proficiency do “know their inner workings well enough.”
But don’t dismiss raw DC. If the lock’s is high enough that the a natural 20 would still be a critical failure, then that natural 20 will only upgrade to a failure, and while that won’t break a pick, it also won’t make any progress toward opening the lock.
|
|
So going over to the equipment section by default a level 9 lock worth 200gp is no challenge for anyone trained even at level 1.
Assuming our burglar has Dex 18 and is trained in Thievery, that’s a +7 at level 1, which means he is successful only on a natural 20 (20 + 7 = 27, failure upgrades to success), and will break a pick on literally any other roll. Certainly a challenge, but given picks enough and time, one that our burglar will overcome.
Legendary locks barely any better despite being worth thousands.
At DC 40, it’s going to take a Thievery modifier of +20 to succeed on a natural 20. That’s likely an 8th level character with Master proficiency in Thievery and an 18 Dex (probably a 19, really, though that difference is academic). To call that lock “Legendary” is probably overselling it to justify that high price tag, but to suggest it’s “barely any better” is unfair.
|
|
Legendary locks barely any better despite being worth thousands.At DC 40, it’s going to take a Thievery modifier of +20 to succeed on a natural 20. That’s likely an 8th level character with Master proficiency in Thievery and an 18 Dex (probably a 19, really, though that difference is academic). To call that lock “Legendary” is probably overselling it to justify that high price tag, but to suggest it’s “barely any better” is unfair.
Wait, I’m pretty sure I messed that math up. An 8th level character with 19 Dex and Master in Thievery will have a +18 modifier, so still without some sort of boost still can’t possibly open the Legendary lock. A 10th level Master with 20 Dex will have +21, or with 18 Dex will have +20, and barring outside help, that’s the first time he can possibly open the lock barring some sort of circumstantial bonus. Infiltrator Thieves’ Tools give a +1 item bonus, but the cost of each critical failure increases to 3 gp.
Mechanically, what's to stop a bad burglar (Thievery +1) from just retrying over and over until the get natural 20's. For example, he's trying to pick a good lock (DC 30, 5 successes). If he rolls a "1", he spends 3 SP.
I missed this last night. What stops a bad burglar (Thievery +1) from rolling over and over hoping for a natural 20 is that Pick a Lock is a Trained use of Thievery. By default even at level 1, a +1 modifier to Thievery with Trained proficiency means your burglar either has a 7 Dex or is suffering from the Clumsy condition. Honestly, if a character is still willing to try to pick a lock under those circumstances, and success is still possible, why shouldn’t he?
|
|
Busting out my House Rule chops:
Trained Lock - 3 Actions, DC 15 - Complexity 1
Expert Lock - 1 minute, DC 20 - Complexity 2
Master Lock - 10 minutes, DC 30 - Complexity 3
Legendary Lock - 1 hour, DC 40 - Complexity 4Complexity is the number of consecutive successes needed to unlock the lock.
Requiring consecutive successes is going to make unlocking legendary locks almost impossible, even for a character who's a legendary thief.
Start at level 15 with legendary proficiency, that's +23. Add +5 for Dex 21, and an additional +2 for tools, so +30. That's a 55% chance of success... but then you need to succeed four times in a row. Ignoring crits, that's a chance on the order of 9%.
Thanks for the maths. This is a first draft. Will continue tinkering outside of this thread. Or!
Perhaps "Complexity" is something that scales from 1-4 with any of the training levels of locks.
Meaning, as long as such locks are employed around when PCs have access to the corresponding levels of training (3rd for Expert, 7th for Master, 15th for Legendary), you could think of "Complexity" as adding to the CR of the Hazard.
The primary purpose of splitting a check into multiple checks is normally to create exponential failure. If your original failure chance on a single check is 20% (success 0.8), on three checks it’ll be 50% (success 0.8^3).
Now, that can be a negative thing or a positive thing. Let’s say you want to keep failure constant, at 20%. Your individual success is 0.8 in the single check, but has to switch to 3rt^(0.8), which is about 0.92, meaning the DC needs to shift down by about 2 or 3. That’s on extremely low difficulty.
For higher difficulty locks, let’s say we’re talking about a 50% success/failure rate. To get that on a single check, you need a DC you’ll pass on a roll of 11+. What about on three checks? We know that already. We need a DC that’s passed on a 5+.
The final result of this is that a much lower DC can still present a meaningful challenge - or, if you will, that a lower modifier, or casual investment, can still be relevant.
|
|
The primary purpose of splitting a check into multiple checks is normally to create exponential failure.
I would argue that an equally primary purpose, from a meta-narrative perspective, is to nest a multiple checks situation inside of a parallel situation that draws from the same pool of resources, such as using up Actions in Encounter mode, or more generally, Hero Points.
This is my primary interest in it, on the DM side of the screen.
Having chatted out this with you, I think I'll refine my houserule:
Trained Lock - DC 15
Expert Lock - DC 20
Master Lock - DC 30
Legendary Lock - DC 40
Lock Complexity
Complexity 1 = 1 Actions to attempt a check, need 1 consecutive success, CR +0
Complexity 2 = 2 Actions to attempt a check, need 2 consecutive successes, CR +1
Complexity 3 = 3 Actions to attempt a check, need 3 consecutive successes, CR +2
Complexity X = X Actions to attempt a check, need X consecutive successes, CR +X less 1
*DM may decide that "Actions" above count as single Actions, 2 or 3 Action Activities, 1-minute or 10-minute Activities, hours, or some other unit of time*
Critical Success - Counts as two successes
Success - Counts as one success
Failure - The lock shifts it's difficulty for you by one step, and you must start over
Critical Failure - You break your tools, the lock shifts it's difficulty for you by one step, and you must start over
Difficulty is gated by proficiency.
A lock that has it's difficulty shifted past Legendary may not be opened by that character.
Whenever a character gains a level, or another circumstance determined by the DM, a lock reverts to it's original difficulty for them.
For each step of proficiency the character has over the lock's difficulty, or the lock's difficulty over the character's proficiency, reduce or increase the complexity of that lock by one step for that character.
I'm a big fan of "fail forward" and I think sitting there rolling dice over and over again is boring unless there is time pressure.
So for any "lonely locks", I use the very simple rule "as long as you meet the proficiency, any non-crit failure gets the lock open; a failure adds a tension die* in the process because you wasted time on the lock and a crit failure means the lock is now jammed and you need to find another solution (and probably also rolls the tension dice if there are monsters nearby because you made a lot of noise)".
The full on "you need three successes, start rolling" only gets brought out if there is a meaningful time constraint. And I've ruled that breaking your pick means you lose accumulated successes, yeah. For shoddy locks that only take one success, breaking your pick instead means you jammed the lock.
*Tension dice are a really cool subsystem and everyone should use them.