There are five grades of locks listed in the CRB, ranging from Poor (level 0) to Superior (level 17). Picking a lock requires multiple attempts, 2 for a poor lock increasing to 6 for a superior lock.
I've been watching some YouTube playthroughs of various PF2E adventures, and I don't think I've ever seen the GM require more than one thievery check to pick a lock. Is this a common "house rule"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sure hope so. Expecially in modules where an athletics check will open the door with one roll at the same DC. Then there are the critical failures to worry about.
I'm not sure why the designers think five rolls are more fun than one. What role playing is the lock doing to make this interesting?
|
A house rule like this would certainly reduce the efficacy of the Quick Unlock feat.
Though, I think there's some merit in it. Namely, if nothing else exciting is coinciding with the unlocking.
But if unlocking is being done on a tight timetable, most notably combat but others instances could certainly exist, I'd much rather run with the prescribed number of successful checks for unlocking. Better for dramatic tension.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's still incredible to me that the "multiple successes to pick a lock" thing survived to the official version of the game after it was such a laughingstock in the playtest. It is difficult to come up with a less interesting game mechanic than having one person need to make multiples of the same check to achieve a single result.
Outside of combat, it makes no sense to require multiple rolls (in my opinion) and simply wastes time.
I can somewhat understand that if there is time pressure, keeping track of success and failures but only if it makes the game more interesting.
I think most of us don't consider "forcing one person to repeat the same action multiple times" during combat to be interesting, especially if anyone in the party can spend a single action to break down the door (successfully).
With 2nd edition supposed to have been streamlined, making multiple checks to accomplish something irks me.
A house rule like this would certainly reduce the efficacy of the Quick Unlock feat.
Though, I think there's some merit in it. Namely, if nothing else exciting is coinciding with the unlocking.
But if unlocking is being done on a tight timetable, most notably combat but others instances could certainly exist, I'd much rather run with the prescribed number of successful checks for unlocking. Better for dramatic tension.
The houserule at my games is that the locks have their success count turned into actions; where each success is equal to 2 actions of investment.
From there, I changed pick lock to be a variable action activity (2 or 3) with the following degrees of success:
Crit. Success: As Success, but every action reduces the required actions to unlock by twices as much as the usual amount
Success: You reduce the amount of successes required to open the lock by the amount of actions you spent on the Open Lock activity. As long as you continue to take Open Lock actions on subsequent turns, treat any failed or critically failed rolls as successes. Once the lock is reduced to 0 required actions, it opens; if you reduce the lock to less than zero successes, you may Interact as a free action to open the locked item. If you stop Picking the Lock, the required amount of successes for the lock resets to it's starting value.
Failure: You make no progress, but can attempt to pick the lock again. If you spent three actions, you lower the required amount of actions to open the lock by 1, but you cannot reduced the required actions below 1 in this way
Crit fail: the lock is jammed
Quick Unlock retains the reducing Pick Lock to 1 action, but also makes it so that every action spent reduced the required actions to open by 2
Also worth noting that my game occasionally features magitech security systems and stuff that can be hacked, and breaking through the "firewalls" and such uses Pick Lock, followed by a Disable Device to crack the system, so QU is nice if you want to like steal the turrets and shoot enemies with them
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole multiple success model only makes sense in encounter mode where there is time pressure. In exploration, it is a waste of time. If you want consequences in exploration I'd suggest you let a single success open the lock and the single crit failure jam it so it can't be picked, forcing the party to break it down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a mini-game, and as such it probably should've been presented as optional, even if the default in published adventures. But since it is tied to purchasable items, that likely made "optional" a bit tougher to implement, partly because we're still in the CRB here.
There is one problem that the multiple-success model addresses, that crit successes, given enough time and a mediocre thief, can overcome many locks not meant to be picked. Other than proficiency gating or "just because, so you have to chase macguffin keys", I'm not sure there are other answers.
And if a lock takes multiple tries in encounter mode (where I agree it makes for much better drama & group involvement), why wouldn't it take multiple in exploration mode? The simple answer of boosting DC outside of combat has some repercussions on probability for non-maxed out PCs, and is a bit counterintuitive given the pressures of combat, even if it represents multiple tries.
Admittedly, this is a bit of a non-issue for me since it's such a minor facet of PF2, and because I've seen far worse in earlier RPGs.
Honestly I don't know why they didn't just use proficiency gating. I've seen people argue that no lock will stop a sufficiently motivated thief with enough time... But I'm relatively sure there's a difference in ability between a basic lock picker and a safe cracker that is hard to overcome.
Honestly I don't know why they didn't just use proficiency gating. I've seen people argue that no lock will stop a sufficiently motivated thief with enough time... But I'm relatively sure there's a difference in ability between a basic lock picker and a safe cracker that is hard to overcome.
That works at many tables, especially with a dedicated infiltrator, but proficiency gating has the handicap of making advancement in Thievery obligatory rather than special. Of course that's a problem already if the adventure doesn't include alternative solutions.
There was absolutely no scenario where I was going to keep the solo-lockpicking-minigame intact, especially with the "break your tools" crit failure outcome. Literally no one is having fun with that. If time pressure is important, that essentially requires picking locks in combat, and that scenario is rare enough you could just as easily add multiple locks, or sub-in a victory points minigame for those times.
In my house rules I use proficiency gating on locks that matter, and I've removed the tool-breaking outcome. I am wholly uninterested in nickel and diming a rogue on mundane tools.
Honestly I don't know why they didn't just use proficiency gating. I've seen people argue that no lock will stop a sufficiently motivated thief with enough time... But I'm relatively sure there's a difference in ability between a basic lock picker and a safe cracker that is hard to overcome.That works at many tables, especially with a dedicated infiltrator, but proficiency gating has the handicap of making advancement in Thievery obligatory rather than special. Of course that's a problem already if the adventure doesn't include alternative solutions.
Alternative solutions are pretty easy though-- most doors can be broken down and you can also leave keys elsewhere in the dungeon. Breaking into rooms has the disadvantage of being noisy, and breaking into safes might break some loot. But those strike me as as acceptable prices for parties without a dedicated lockpicker who can't wait to see if a key turns up.
Unless that lock is part of a more complex puzzle where you can keep other players engaged, I don't see any reason to do more than 1 check. Specially when in most cases you can just bust the door. It is just wasting everybody's time.
Honestly I don't know why they didn't just use proficiency gating. I've seen people argue that no lock will stop a sufficiently motivated thief with enough time... But I'm relatively sure there's a difference in ability between a basic lock picker and a safe cracker that is hard to overcome.That works at many tables, especially with a dedicated infiltrator, but proficiency gating has the handicap of making advancement in Thievery obligatory rather than special. Of course that's a problem already if the adventure doesn't include alternative solutions.
With how traps work, it is almost mandatory as it is RN if you are dungeon-delving. Not in the same realm as Medicine, but a comfy second place.
I have my players roll, typically describing them as bypassing one or more tumblers or similarmechanisms.
We've had no issues in our group, especially during encounters where it can be quite exciting.
You guys do a roll once to repair items too?
Our group sure doesn't. Not unless they restore it to full hit points on the first check or decide they don't want to waste additional time on repairs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Repairing items is more comparable to Treating Wounds than picking locks. Once it takes 10 minutes to do an activity tracking its efficacy feels a little more meaningful. By comparison when it takes you rounds to do something and you're not in combat... It doesn't really matter.
More importantly, Repair is an activity that probably happens while the other party members are also doing things like Treating Wounds or Searching the room. But TBH I like taking Assurance and Quick Repair so we don't have to bother with rolling repeated checks there either.