|
5 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 6:21PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2007
|
In the older versions I'd always use knock to get in to places unnoticed or when we didn't have enough skill to open them conventionally (notice I'm talking about 3.5 since Next is obviously going back alot farther than 4e which was just wierd). The changes to the spell are a bit much.
- New spell does 1 lock or impediment , old did 2.
- New spell cancels Arcane lock or hold for 1 minute, old did 10 minutes.
- New spell makes an noise audible over 300ft, old spell had only verbal component to hear.
- New spell has somatic components, old spell didn't. This isn't listed explicitly for the new spell, just the flavor text.
- New spell has range of 50ft, old had 100+10/lvl.
- New spell can only open locks up to DC 20, Old spell didn't have a DC limit, nor did it have a check.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 01, 2013 - 11:12PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2012
|
There seems to be a lot of resentment towards knock on the basis of it marginalizing rogues. Personally, I suspect said resentment stems from theorycrafting. Who knows for sure, though? Maybe there have been rogue-players that actually played with a Wizard that spent all of their memorizations on knock.
(Edit: I'm sure someone's eager to pounce on this with 3.x's wands; that's a problem with magical items and not a class issue. 3.x wands were, to be blunt, a stupid way of handling it.)
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 12:03AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
What do you know. It seems that in this edition wizards won't be able to invalidate other classes at the very areas where they are supposed to shine brightest. Seems to me that is a feature, not a bug. Changes of the sort made to knock are the reason why I am still on this edition's bandwagon despite its return to older paradigms in multiple areas of the game. If I can get a balanced version that looks more like 2e than 4e did, great! But the changes to this spell are not too much; they are just right…
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 12:26AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2012
|
Being able to do automatically something a few times a day invalidates the Rogue's infinite ability to pick locks with a high chance of success?
I'd say rather the opposite: weakening Knock necessitates having a Rogue in the party, invalidating the Wizard's ability to fill any roll when necessary.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 12:45AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2012
|
Being able to do automatically something a few times a day invalidates the Rogue's infinite ability to pick locks with a high chance of success?
I'd say rather the opposite: weakening Knock necessitates having a Rogue in the party, invalidating the Wizard's ability to fill any roll when necessary.
If this were 2nd edition, I would agree.
However, given that knock is on the ritual spell list, I think most of those measures are acceptable. If it were still operating under the older Vancian model, I would argue that a memorized-and-cast Knock should still auto-succeed as it had in the past. I would also argue that, assuming auto-success is the case, being able to stick such a spell in a wand (or anything else) is outright stupid.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 12:46AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Being able to do automatically something a few times a day invalidates the Rogue's infinite ability to pick locks with a high chance of success?
I'd say rather the opposite: weakening Knock necessitates having a Rogue in the party, invalidating the Wizard's ability to fill any roll when necessary.
Yes. Being able to pick any lock, quietly enough that you are virtually as silent as the rogue, from a great distance away, enough times per day that you can do so whenever it is actually required, invalidates the rogue.
No class should be able to fill any role (not roll) whenever necessary, The wizard should have more utility than any other class. But it should never be better at a particular type of activity than the class which specializes in that activity.
Thankfully, the new knock grants the wizard great utility without actually invalidating the rogue. The wizard can open the door without any chance of failure, but he cannot do so quietly, he can only do so a limited number of times per day unless he casts the spell slowly as a ritual with a component cost, and he cannot open doors of the highest DCs. Meanwhile, the rogue can try and quickly pick locks an unlimited number of times per day (without having to pay a component cost), can do so quietly, and can open doors of the highest DCs, but there is always a chance that the rogue will fail—unless he also invests heavily in feats, in which case he can be sure of success on DC 15 or lower locks; the rogue can never be certain of success on DC 20 locks. That is fair.
Wizards of level 1-6 are underpowered right now, and do need to be fixed. But, their utility spells are fine. And between levels 7-20 wizards are quite potent.
So as I said, thank god WotC is taking the course they are taking, as that is what is keeping people like me on this bandwagon. The second I start to see spells such as knock, rope trick, fly, and the like taking a turn for the 3e days I am out.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 1:04AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2012
|
No class should be able to fill any role (not roll) whenever necessary, The wizard should have more utility than any other class. But it should never be better at a particular type of activity than the class which specializes in that activity.
I'm not sure that's exactly what he was getting at. There is a huge gulf between filling a role on command and filling a role occasionally at the expense of spellcasting potential for the remainder of the day.
Let me put it this way... which would you value more while exploring the depths of a dungeon? The guy who is guaranteed to unlock one door out of ten, or the guy who stands a good chance of unlocking all ten while spotting/disarming the traps along the way? Regardless, given the current spellcasting method in the playtest, I think you're right - knock may marginalize the rogue a bit too much. Granted, that would be ten fewer spell slots to burn during said dungeon delve, hah.
I think what happened more often than not (even in past editions, excepting the wand abuses) is that Wizards wouldn't waste their slots to accommodate those situations when they have a rogue on hand. That is fine, though. Ideally, the Rogue would make it look like a cakewalk and the Wizard could do just enough to get by.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 1:58AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Two different games
Old knock couldn't be a ritual in Next. Old Knock was based around having a hefty cost (which was marginalized by high levels and crafting). There were too many ways to use Old Knock to invalidate rogues and discourage bringing a rogue instead of another wizard.
Next has one of thosee mays by default, rituals.
Maybe a silent, long ranged, nonritual version of knock could be released but it would need the a bunch of restrictions again.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 2:00AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2010
|
No class should be able to fill any role (not roll) whenever necessary, The wizard should have more utility than any other class. But it should never be better at a particular type of activity than the class which specializes in that activity.
I'm not sure that's exactly what he was getting at. There is a huge gulf between filling a role on command and filling a role occasionally at the expense of spellcasting potential for the remainder of the day.
Let me put it this way... which would you value more while exploring the depths of a dungeon? The guy who is guaranteed to unlock one door out of ten, or the guy who stands a good chance of unlocking all ten while spotting/disarming the traps along the way? Regardless, given the current spellcasting method in the playtest, I think you're right - knock may marginalize the rogue a bit too much. Granted, that would be ten fewer spell slots to burn during said dungeon delve, hah.
I think what happened more often than not (even in past editions, excepting the wand abuses) is that Wizards wouldn't waste their slots to accommodate those situations when they have a rogue on hand. That is fine, though. Ideally, the Rogue would make it look like a cakewalk and the Wizard could do just enough to get by.
Its a ritual, it can be used on all ten out of ten, its not utility that uses up a limited spell slot. Besides I cant remember ever having run/played a session with more than 1 or 2 locked doors, but that could be me.
Last nights session I used a locked door, I went for what it says under dex "a typcial lock" of DC20. The 11th level rogue had to try 4 times before he got it opened, granted he was unlucky with the dice and rolled two 19s but it can happen. So I think the limit on the knocks autosucceeding locks being 20 is fair for a second level spell. I would like to see the ability to cast it as a higher level spell that can open higher DC locks.
I would like to call attention to the spells name: Knock
Thematically this sounds to me like a battering ram spell, not a silent-ninja-sneak. I think its fair and right to have it make a huge sound to distinguish it from conventional lock picking. This is how my groups have always houseruled it anyway to make the lockpicking opening method unique. But if you dont like this you could throw in a houserule: "Cast as a 4th level spell to open silently"
One casting of this spell opens one lock, just like 1 action of lockpicking opens one lock.
Range: Should be touch! Why does it have range? A lockpicker doesn't have range, a battering ram doesn't have range, the key to said lock doesn't have range...why does this have to have range? So I dont agree with their change to range, its far too conservative.
Seeing as Arcane Lock doesn't exist yet, I don't think anyone can comment if this is fair or not.
A note on rogues. These do NOT have monopoly on Disable Device, and neither should they! There's nothing stopping me from making any class (EG Wizard who wants to be good at opening locks....) and choosing Guild Thief as a background.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Feb 02, 2013 - 2:37AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2012
|
Its a ritual, it can be used on all ten out of ten, its not utility that uses up a limited spell slot. Besides I cant remember ever having run/played a session with more than 1 or 2 locked doors, but that could be me.
To be fair, I was referring to knock as it existed in previous editions. That's what I meant when I said "Regardless, given the current spellcasting method in the playtest..." As to locked objects frequency, that just boils down to the DM and adventure. Published adventures including dungeon delves typically present them more often than a homebrew sandbox, for example.
Range: Should be touch! Why does it have range? A lockpicker doesn't have range, a battering ram doesn't have range, the key to said lock doesn't have range...why does this have to have range? So I dont agree with their change to range, its far too conservative.
I'll avoid dropping the usual "because magic" argument here. I think it would have more to do with tactics; the Wizard going in first or exposing themselves is typically a terrible tactic to employ.
A note on rogues. These do NOT have monopoly on Disable Device, and neither should they! There's nothing stopping me from making any class (EG Wizard who wants to be good at opening locks....) and choosing Guild Thief as a background.
I agree to an extent. I think a Rogue who wants to focus on that sort of thing should be unrivaled, although I do agree that any one should be able to make a character capable of performing that action if they elect to.
|
|
|
