Community

Apr 30, 2012 -- 7:23PM, JMCampbell wrote:

Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:13PM, Ux-Vorastrix wrote:

How is the mage eclipsing the rogue... even if the wizard took 4 knock spells, at the fifth lock he's done. The rogue meanwhile can pick his way through every lock in the castle and still be just as good in a fight as he was before picking all the locks?

Meanwhile, the mage has to deal with having 4 of his spells being knock (that's 4 less fireballs, etc) meaning he's less effective in the final fight because he's out of spells.>

The mage never prepared 4 knock spells for the day. He spent the week of downtime to make a knock scroll every day or just one wand.

Which was just a stupid as taking 4 knock spells.  The wizard had 20 other good 2nd level spells to use his limited resources and time on.

The problem was the wizards summoned whatever with bull's strength invalidates the fighter.

This never occured.  The fighter was never invalidated.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 7:27PM, Mablok wrote:

I know it was a sidenote.  I wasn't defending the spell knock as it is.  I agree with EnglishLanguage that wands are a big problem.  I'd get rid of those as they are defined in 3e.

What I was criticizing (and that's why it was a sidenote) was the notion that locks are put on doors to be picked by Rogues.  I realize that is probably a narrativist way of thinking and I was giving the simulationist response.   Locks are put on doors to keep people out.  

 

And keys are not always available to be found, even though they exist somewhere.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 7:21PM, Maxperson wrote:

Because some of us feel that a world without locks is just plain silly and would never stoop to making an adventuring world were there were no locked doors.

So there are no keys in your world? The only way to get anywhere is to have a Rogue or a Wizard?

The wizard doesn't.  If there is a rogue, the player of the wizard is playing the wizard wrong if he prepares for locks, since he has limited spell slots and resources and there are a bazillion other utility spells and possible scenerios to prepare for.

The Wizard doesn't need to have the spell at all. As stated, keys exist and are often employed to unlock doors and containers. Throwing in an obstacle you know the party can't get around seems like more of an issue on the DM side.

Unless you play in a game that actually makes sense and you encounter locks even if there is no rogue in the group.  The spell exists for those situations. 

Keys exist for those situations. As the DM I control where these keys are located. If you're in an area where locks are employed, then the chances are very high that someone you just killed had the key to open that door or container. Unless the people who locked everything to begin with destroyed the necessary keys and only picks or knocks their way through the given location.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 7:24PM, Maxperson wrote:

This is a shining example of what is wrong with the entitlement era.  You are not entitled to doors with no locks if you don't have a rogue.  You are not entitled to a key to every locked door.  When you encounter a locked door and have no rogue or key, you either go around it, leave it, or get through it another way.  Knock and physically bashing/breaking the door are options at that point.

As a DM I craft adventures for the PCs to use their abilities to go through. If I know that there isn't a Rogue in the party then I don't make a challenge for that Rogue.

Besides that, didn't I mention that if I didn't put anything behind that lock that the party needs to continue the adventure then it doesn't matter if they open it or not? My PCs don't get into every locked container, but if I'm going to put something important in it then I'm going to give them a method to access it, with or without a Rogue/Wizard in the party.