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.
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
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.)
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
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…
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
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.
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 Wi
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.
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 sho
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.
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 f
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.
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 yo
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.
Two different gamesOld 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 r
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.
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 yo
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.
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 adven
Very valid points, I tend to run sandbox and play in modules. The rogue has the advantage on skill die and tends toward high dex so will of course be the best
I jusr noticed that the ritual version lowers the max DC to 15. I highly disagree with that because of their preset DCs present 20 as a typical lock and as such should be the most common lock. By making the max 15 you deem the spell to lower than average. The cost ofthe ritual is time and making a cost of effeciency on top is a bit... well over the top.
Dont forget that knock can shove bars off as well so can be used in siege situations. I would probably even allow knock to push away a piece of furniture propped up to block as well.
Very valid points, I tend to run sandbox and play in modules. The rogue has the advantage on skill die and tends toward high dex so will of course be the best :)I jusr noticed that the ritual version lowers the max DC to 15. I highly disagree with th
My personal feel on Knock as a spell is that it should NOT have a die roll in order to have it work. It should work automatically on non-magical locks. This does NOT make the Rogue less usefull or marginalize him/her! After all, the Rogue can attempt to pick locks as many times as he/she wishes and a Wizard only has a very limited number of times per day he can use it (I discount ritual usage). A 20th level Wizard can only do it 3 times a day whiile a rogue might end up openning locks 10, 15, 20 times in that same day..
My personal feel on Knock as a spell is that it should NOT have a die roll in order to have it work. It should work automatically on non-magical locks. This does NOT make the Rogue less usefull or marginalize him/her! After all, the Rogue can attem
A rogue can not do it at all (I discount skill rolls) is an equally valid point to make. Why would you discount a part of the magic rules? Further more you have more than 3 slots of level 2 and higher. Knock does not have a die roll, where did you get that from?
A rogue can not do it at all (I discount skill rolls) is an equally valid point to make. Why would you discount a part of the magic rules? Further more you have more than 3 slots of level 2 and higher.Knock does not have a die roll, where did you get
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?
The fact a Rogue can pick infinite locks only matters if they're actually picking infinite locks.
Yes, a Wizard can auto-unlock a door from a distance only a certain amount of times a day, but the real question for this is:How many times a day do you really end up picking a lock?
The fact a Rogue can pick infinite locks only matters if they're actually picking infinite locks.Yes, a Wizard can auto-unlock a door from a distance only a certain amount of times a day, but the real question for this is:How many times a day do you
My personal feel on Knock as a spell is that it should NOT have a die roll in order to have it work. It should work automatically on non-magical locks. This does NOT make the Rogue less usefull or marginalize him/her! After all, the Rogue can attempt to pick locks as many times as he/she wishes and a Wizard only has a very limited number of times per day he can use it (I discount ritual usage). A 20th level Wizard can only do it 3 times a day whiile a rogue might end up openning locks 10, 15, 20 times in that same day..
But how often are you rinning into 10 locked doors in a single day? How often are you running into more than 3?
But how often are you rinning into 10 locked doors in a single day? How often are you running into more than 3?
I always thought of knock as the type of spell the wizard would cast only when the rogue had terrible rolls or if you had to quickly get through a locked door. I never thought of it as invalidating the rogue. I'd also think of it as something the wizard could use if there was no rogue in a party. I don't see a problem with the spell. If a player is invalidating another player's key abilities then there is a problem that is more than just what the game has available....
I always thought of knock as the type of spell the wizard would cast only when the rogue had terrible rolls or if you had to quickly get through a locked door. I never thought of it as invalidating the rogue. I'd also think of it as something the wiz
I always thought of knock as the type of spell the wizard would cast only when the rogue had terrible rolls or if you had to quickly get through a locked door. I never thought of it as invalidating the rogue. I'd also think of it as something the wizard could use if there was no rogue in a party. I don't see a problem with the spell. If a player is invalidating another player's key abilities then there is a problem that is more than just what the game has available....
I agree with this. If the party has both a Wizard and a Rogue and the Wizard is going around Knocking all the locks open before the Rogue can get to them, that's a player problem, not a system problem. Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the ritual version takes a minute to cast, requires components and is weaker than the normal spell. The Rogue can make ten attempts at Disable Device in this time without consuming any resources. The Rogue can also do it silently in most cases. No matter how good they make the spell, a party with a choice of either way should let the Rogue attempt it first because it's much more efficient.
I agree with this. If the party has both a Wizard and a Rogue and the Wizard is going around Knocking all the locks open before the Rogue can get to them, that's a player problem, not a system problem. Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the
I always thought of knock as the type of spell the wizard would cast only when the rogue had terrible rolls or if you had to quickly get through a locked door. I never thought of it as invalidating the rogue. I'd also think of it as something the wizard could use if there was no rogue in a party. I don't see a problem with the spell. If a player is invalidating another player's key abilities then there is a problem that is more than just what the game has available....
Sorry, but I don't agree. The problem is with the spell, not the player. It is unreasonable to expect people not to use what they have at their disposal. What the wizard has at their disposal could, in 3e, invalidate the rogue. Thankfully, the changes they have made to DDN's version of the spell make it a useful utility spell without invalidating the rogue; that is how it should stay.
Sorry, but I don't agree. The problem is with the spell, not the player. It is unreasonable to expect people not to use what they have at their disposal. What the wizard has at their disposal could, in 3e, invalidate the rogue. Thankfully, the change
I agree with this. If the party has both a Wizard and a Rogue and the Wizard is going around Knocking all the locks open before the Rogue can get to them, that's a player problem, not a system problem.
No, it is a system problem. The wizard should not be able to go around knocking all the locks open before a rogue can get to them. The thing that validates the rogue should not be the decision, on the part of the wizard, not to use their abilities to their full potential.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the ritual version takes a minute to cast, requires components and is weaker than the normal spell. The Rogue can make ten attempts at Disable Device in this time without consuming any resources. The Rogue can also do it silently in most cases. No matter how good they make the spell, a party with a choice of either way should let the Rogue attempt it first because it's much more efficient.
We are not ignoring it. We think those facts all help keep this game balanced. A wizard can either spend one minute, some gold, and automatically unlock a DC 15 or lower lock as many times per day as they want. Or, the wizard can instantly unlock a DC 20 lock by using up one of its 2nd level (or higher) level spell slots. Again, let’s remember, the spell slot will only get used for knock ifa situation makes it useful to use that slot for knock, as spells do not need to be memorized in specific slots anymore. Spells only need to be memorized. Then you use up whatever slot you have to cast a spell you have memorized (and lose the slot, not the memorized spell). No matter what, a wizard will make a fair amount of noise when it magically unlocks a door. It can, however, still unlock that door from a fair distance away (though not the obscene distance of 3e). The rogue, meanwhile, can use an action to unlock a door an infinite number of times per day, and it can theoretically try to open a lock of any DC, but it is (almost) never able to do so with 100% success rate.
That is fair. That is how it should be. NOTHING should be changed. That particular set of mechanics is currently working perfectly.
No, it is a system problem. The wizard should not be able to go around knocking all the locks open before a rogue can get to them. The thing that validates the rogue should not be the decision, on the part of the wizard, not to use their abilities to
I always thought of knock as the type of spell the wizard would cast only when the rogue had terrible rolls or if you had to quickly get through a locked door. I never thought of it as invalidating the rogue. I'd also think of it as something the wizard could use if there was no rogue in a party. I don't see a problem with the spell. If a player is invalidating another player's key abilities then there is a problem that is more than just what the game has available....
I agree with this. If the party has both a Wizard and a Rogue and the Wizard is going around Knocking all the locks open before the Rogue can get to them, that's a player problem, not a system problem. Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the ritual version takes a minute to cast, requires components and is weaker than the normal spell. The Rogue can make ten attempts at Disable Device in this time without consuming any resources. The Rogue can also do it silently in most cases. No matter how good they make the spell, a party with a choice of either way should let the Rogue attempt it first because it's much more efficient.
You should be able to get by in a party effectively but obviously not as good without a rogue. People don't seem to understand that that is what knock is for. Taking knock away would mean you HAVE to have a rogue pretty much. What do they want us to take away from the wizard? Invisibility? Its apparently unfair for the wizard to have that because the rogue should be only one to do it.
I agree with this. If the party has both a Wizard and a Rogue and the Wizard is going around Knocking all the locks open before the Rogue can get to them, that's a player problem, not a system problem. Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the
I agree with this. If the party has both a Wizard and a Rogue and the Wizard is going around Knocking all the locks open before the Rogue can get to them, that's a player problem, not a system problem.
No, it is a system problem. The wizard should not be able to go around knocking all the locks open before a rogue can get to them. The thing that validates the rogue should not be the decision, on the part of the wizard, not to use their abilities to their full potential.
You are correct.
But to state that - as the game currently stands - it is ever going to be likely that the wizard 'goes around knocking all the locks open before a rogue can get to them' is a strawman as that situation just will not occur.
It is not a case of 'the wizard not using his abilities to his full potential'. It is a case of the wizard player not being a moron.
If the wizard is casting it as a ritual - the rogue has 1 minute while the wizard casts the ritual during which time he gets to try to open the lock 10 times (and then laugh at the wizard who just wasted his components for nothing).
If the wizard is not casting it as a ritual, he is wasting his very few and precious spell slots per day and in this case I really do not see the problem. Sure - maybe the wizard beats the rogue to the punch a couple of times (although I can't in any conceivable way imagine why he would waste his slot in this way). But every time he does so, that makes him a little bit weaker elsewhere - such as in combat - which only makes the at-will damage dealers like the rogue that much more important there.
I really don't see the problem. Not with either the rituals as they stand (they take time and money to do what the rogue does in 1/10 of the time - for free. Not to mention the noise - which means you will never sneak up on anything with a locked door) or with it as a spell slot (the wizard only gets two or three level two spell slots - and if he wants to waste them on locks that is his choice. It is just a stupid choice).
The spell gives parties without rogues a way to get past locks, if they are willing to spend the time and money to do it. And this is a good thing, just as having ways for a party without a cleric to heal is a good thing.
Carl
No, it is a system problem. The wizard should not be able to go around knocking all the locks open before a rogue can get to them. The thing that validates the rogue should not be the decision, on the part of the wizard, not to use their abilities to
I always thought of knock as the type of spell the wizard would cast only when the rogue had terrible rolls or if you had to quickly get through a locked door. I never thought of it as invalidating the rogue. I'd also think of it as something the wizard could use if there was no rogue in a party. I don't see a problem with the spell. If a player is invalidating another player's key abilities then there is a problem that is more than just what the game has available....
Sorry, but I don't agree. The problem is with the spell, not the player. It is unreasonable to expect people not to use what they have at their disposal. What the wizard has at their disposal could, in 3e, invalidate the rogue. Thankfully, the changes they have made to DDN's version of the spell make it a useful utility spell without invalidating the rogue; that is how it should stay.
If the Wizard and Rogue were working against each other, you'd be right. But what kind of party functions that way? It's a player problem if the Wizard has to one-up everyone else with his amazing powers and honestly makes another player feel useless (no matter how refined the rules are, if that was the player's intent they could find a way to do it). Unless the two do have some kind of lock-opening competition going throughout the game, then it's just good roleplaying.
Sorry, but I don't agree. The problem is with the spell, not the player. It is unreasonable to expect people not to use what they have at their disposal. What the wizard has at their disposal could, in 3e, invalidate the rogue. Thankfully, the change
But to state that - as the game currently stands - it is ever going to be likely that the wizard 'goes around knocking all the locks open before a rogue can get to them' is a strawman as that situation just will not occur.
I agree, 100%. I was not talking about DDN as it currently stands. I was talking about 3e/the theoretical result of things being reverted in the direction the OP and some of his peers in this thread desire. I LOVE the way knock currently works. I do not think it overshadows the rogue. I think what it does is, as you described, “a very good thing.” While there are a few spells that need to be tweaked, overall I think the DDN wizard is very well balanced. If anything, I think it is underpowered from level 1-6.
I agree, 100%. I was not talking about DDN as it currently stands. I was talking about 3e/the theoretical result of things being reverted in the direction the OP and some of his peers in this thread desire. I LOVE the way knock currently works. I do
If the Wizard and Rogue were working against each other, you'd be right. But what kind of party functions that way? It's a player problem if the Wizard has to one-up everyone else with his amazing powers and honestly makes another player feel useless (no matter how refined the rules are, if that was the player's intent they could find a way to do it). Unless the two do have some kind of lock-opening competition going throughout the game, then it's just good roleplaying.
Sorry, I still do not agree with you. In real life, when a group of people are forced to interact in an environment that is not geared towards optimization, intentionally showing up your peers is a social problem. But, when organizations are trying to find optimal groups for any given task they don't choose someone who is less effective. They choose specialists for every field. If one of the other specialists is able to regularly show up someone in a field they do not specialize in, the person who gets shown up is likely to be replaced with someone that cannot be shown up. If a wizard can regularly show up a rogue in the rogue’s field of specialization, from the point of view of optimization there is no reason for a rogue to be present.
Now, this game isn't all about optimization. But, it is also a game. Life is unfair enough. I don't want to be straddled with inferior capabilities just because the concept that interests me is designed to be weaker for some arbitrary reason. I demand that my chosen class actually be the best, mechanically speaking, in the field that it specializes in. If it is the best at that field then other classes should not be able to show it up in that field.
If one class can, and someone playing that class does, it is not just a social problem. It is a system problem. People should not have to play down their characters. The game should achieve balance without that. And no, a player cannot always find a way to show up another player in their area of mechanical expertise unless the mechanics allow that.
That is why knock, as it currently stands, is great. That is also why I won’t buy or play this game if it returns to the sort of mechanics that the OP is asking for.
Sorry, I still do not agree with you. In real life, when a group of people are forced to interact in an environment that is not geared towards optimization, intentionally showing up your peers is a social problem. But, when organizations are trying t
But how often are you rinning into 10 locked doors in a single day? How often are you running into more than 3?
Depends on the adventure. Massive dungeon crawls can have locked doors, chests, and the like in the dozens, if not higher. Roaming through the forest in search of an owlbear? Probably none.
Depends on the adventure. Massive dungeon crawls can have locked doors, chests, and the like in the dozens, if not higher. Roaming through the forest in search of an owlbear? Probably none.
I think the DCs affected by the current playtest version of knock deserve to be bumped up by 5 each. If 20 is an average lock, why set the ritual version at 15? Spending 10 rounds and components on a check that is, by design, going to fail seems silly. As it stands, I see knock's usefulness as a spell slot (assuming the presence of a rogue) being more along the lines of opening a door quickly due to some encroaching hazard or danger; the rogue goes "Oh crap, I fumbled my pick lock attempt!" and the Wizard goes "Oh crap, I have to burn a spell slot on freakin' knock now!"
I think the DCs affected by the current playtest version of knock deserve to be bumped up by 5 each. If 20 is an average lock, why set the ritual version at 15? Spending 10 rounds and components on a check that is, by design, going to fail seems si
But to state that - as the game currently stands - it is ever going to be likely that the wizard 'goes around knocking all the locks open before a rogue can get to them' is a strawman as that situation just will not occur.
I agree, 100%. I was not talking about DDN as it currently stands. I was talking about 3e/the theoretical result of things being reverted in the direction the OP and some of his peers in this thread desire. I LOVE the way knock currently works. I do not think it overshadows the rogue. I think what it does is, as you described, “a very good thing.” While there are a few spells that need to be tweaked, overall I think the DDN wizard is very well balanced. If anything, I think it is underpowered from level 1-6.
Sorry. I misunderstood.
Interesting point about being 'underpowered' from level 1-6. Compared to AD&D, where the conventional wisdom was that wizards were weak and puny at low levels to compensate their godly power at high levels; how do you think their relative power compares? Are they (at low level) more or less underpowered relative to the other classes when compared to an AD&D wizard's power relative to the other classes?
And are they, in your opinion, underpowered compared to all classes? Or just the Monk and Fighter (and now, Barbarian)?
Carl
I agree, 100%. I was not talking about DDN as it currently stands. I was talking about 3e/the theoretical result of things being reverted in the direction the OP and some of his peers in this thread desire. I LOVE the way knock currently works. I do
I've always found the notion that the knock spell makes rogues "obsolete" to be totally ridiculous. As if picking locks is all that rogues are good for. As someone who likes playing rogues, I find the idea that all that rogues are good for is opening locks and disarming traps to be quite insulting. For one thing, not every rogue should have to be skilled at picking locks. Maybe I'm more of a thug or assassin, and would rather spend my skills elsewhere. A rogue should no more be assumed to have lockpicking ability than a wizard should be assumed to know the fireball spell.
Besides, picking locks hasn't been something that only rogues can do since 3rd edition, with the introduction of a universal skill system. In 4e, likewise, anyone could train in thievery if they wanted to. Then there's also the fact that picking a lock can be done at-will, while knock consumes daily spell slots.
And then there's the simple fact that the fighter or barbarian can also "make the rogue obsolete" by simply bashing down the door or breaking open the chest. It's probably going to make less noise than 5e's knock spell too. Heck, an adamantine weapon allows them to do so with ease, and is alot cheaper than having to keep buying wands of knock! Should we also nerf fighter and barbarian damage against objects, just so rogues don't get their feelings hurt?
To those that think the knock spell should be inferior to picking locks with the skill, think about it. Daily powers should be better than at-will powers. This is just common sense. Also, what if my rogue multiclasses as a wizard? Should such a character never have a reason to get the knock spell, say for emergencies when I need to open something very quickly? I think they should. It's not something most rogue/wizards would do, but it should at least be an option. If the spell is flat out inferior to the skill, there's simply no point.
In the end, if a wizard really wants to spend a bunch of his very limited daily spells unlocking things, I say so what? If anything, I think such a wizard is a fool for wasting his spells if there's someone else in the party that can do it for free. If he wants to be an idiot, let him!
I've always found the notion that the knock spell makes rogues "obsolete" to be totally ridiculous. As if picking locks is all that rogues are good for. As someone who likes playing rogues, I find the idea that all that rogues are good for is opening
I've always found the notion that the knock spell makes rogues "obsolete" to be totally ridiculous. As if picking locks is all that rogues are good for. As someone who likes playing rogues, I find the idea that all that rogues are good for is opening locks and disarming traps to be quite insulting. For one thing, not every rogue should have to be skilled at picking locks. Maybe I'm more of a thug or assassin, and would rather spend my skills elsewhere. A rogue should no more be assumed to have lockpicking ability than a wizard should be assumed to know the fireball spell.
Besides, picking locks hasn't been something that only rogues can do since 3rd edition, with the introduction of a universal skill system. In 4e, likewise, anyone could train in thievery if they wanted to. Then there's also the fact that picking a lock can be done at-will, while knock consumes daily spell slots.
And then there's the simple fact that the fighter or barbarian can also "make the rogue obsolete" by simply bashing down the door or breaking open the chest. It's probably going to make less noise than 5e's knock spell too. Heck, an adamantine weapon allows them to do so with ease, and is alot cheaper than having to keep buying wands of knock! Should we also nerf fighter and barbarian damage against objects, just so rogues don't get their feelings hurt?
To those that think the knock spell should be inferior to picking locks with the skill, think about it. Daily powers should be better than at-will powers. This is just common sense. Also, what if my rogue multiclasses as a wizard? Should such a character never have a reason to get the knock spell, say for emergencies when I need to open something very quickly? I think they should. It's not something most rogue/wizards would do, but it should at least be an option. If the spell is flat out inferior to the skill, there's simply no point.
In the end, if a wizard really wants to spend a bunch of his very limited daily spells unlocking things, I say so what? If anything, I think such a wizard is a fool for wasting his spells if there's someone else in the party that can do it for free. If he wants to be an idiot, let him!
I agree. I absolutely love how rogues have different archtypes that do different things. I always wanted to be a rogue but never wanted sneak attack as an ability. People could say just don't use it but why play a class with an ability you do not want? So I never played one. If the archtypes stay the same and if my group decides to gives Next a try I could finally play a rogue. I've seen every archtyoe of rogue on the TV show Leverage. There is the Mastermind (the one who oversees and thinks of the plans), The Hitter (basically the thug type), The Conartist (I would say she multi-classed as a bard though), The thief (specialty in stealing, lockpicking, and safe-cracking), and finally The Hacker (although he's not of much use in a medieval setting). The archtypes remind me of this show.
I agree. I absolutely love how rogues have different archtypes that do different things. I always wanted to be a rogue but never wanted sneak attack as an ability. People could say just don't use it but why play a class with an ability you do not wan
Interesting point about being 'underpowered' from level 1-6. Compared to AD&D, where the conventional wisdom was that wizards were weak and puny at low levels to compensate their godly power at high levels; how do you think their relative power compares? Are they (at low level) more or less underpowered relative to the other classes when compared to an AD&D wizard's power relative to the other classes?
And are they, in your opinion, underpowered compared to all classes? Or just the Monk and Fighter (and now, Barbarian)?
Carl
They are underpowered from level 1-6 compared to all the classes except for, maybe, the cleric. I have zero interest in ever playing a cleric; as an artifact of that, I am not super familiar with the cleric, and I don't feel particularly comfortable commenting on their power level. It has been so long since I have played AD&D that I also can't really compare this wizard to that one. All I am left with, in regards to my memory of AD&D, are general impressions.
They are underpowered from level 1-6 compared to all the classes except for, maybe, the cleric. I have zero interest in ever playing a cleric; as an artifact of that, I am not super familiar with the cleric, and I don't feel particularly comfortable
I've always found the notion that the knock spell makes rogues "obsolete" to be totally ridiculous. As if picking locks is all that rogues are good for. As someone who likes playing rogues, I find the idea that all that rogues are good for is opening locks and disarming traps to be quite insulting. For one thing, not every rogue should have to be skilled at picking locks. Maybe I'm more of a thug or assassin, and would rather spend my skills elsewhere. A rogue should no more be assumed to have lockpicking ability than a wizard should be assumed to know the fireball spell.
And I have always found the idea that wizard spells that replicate the areas of the game that other characters are supposed to be specialists in should also be better at performing those tasks to be ridiculous. You don't want to take skills related to trapfinding or lockpicking? Don't. But, if a rogue does, that is one of the areas of the game where rogues are meant to be the specialists.
Besides, picking locks hasn't been something that only rogues can do since 3rd edition, with the introduction of a universal skill system. In 4e, likewise, anyone could train in thievery if they wanted to. Then there's also the fact that picking a lock can be done at-will, while knock consumes daily spell slots.
2nd level daily spell slot is not exactly a rare commodity. It ends up being, for all intents and purposes, virtually being an at-will commodity. You are likely to have a spell slot that can be used to cast knock whenever you need to. And, as has been noted, you can use a ritual to open simple locks. Meanwhile, back when you first get a 2nd level spell slot and it actually is a big commodity rogues are far less effective at picking locks. They will only be rolling a d6 skill die. At that point in time, being able to open a DC 20 lock automatically will be worth the resource spent.
And while it is not something that only rogues can do in 3e and 4e, the mechanics of both editions gave rogues an advantage when it came to being trained at those tasks. What is more, DDN is also returning to various older paradigms.
And then there's the simple fact that the fighter or barbarian can also "make the rogue obsolete" by simply bashing down the door or breaking open the chest. It's probably going to make less noise than 5e's knock spell too. Heck, an adamantine weapon allows them to do so with ease, and is alot cheaper than having to keep buying wands of knock! Should we also nerf fighter and barbarian damage against objects, just so rogues don't get their feelings hurt?
Not all doors can be smashed down. Smashing down a door makes noise.
To those that think the knock spell should be inferior to picking locks with the skill, think about it. Daily powers should be better than at-will powers. This is just common sense. Also, what if my rogue multiclasses as a wizard? Should such a character never have a reason to get the knock spell, say for emergencies when I need to open something very quickly? I think they should. It's not something most rogue/wizards would do, but it should at least be an option. If the spell is flat out inferior to the skill, there's simply no point.
No, daily powers should not necessarily be better than at-will powers. Overall balance is the only context that matters. The sort of thinking you are using led to the god-wizards of 3e. Those god-wizards ended up turning a lot of people off the edition. To me, what ought to be common sense is that a task that specializes in a particular type of task should be the best at performing that task. Fighters should be the most survivable of characters. Rogues should be the best characters at hiding, picking locks, and the like. And so on and so forth.
And, the current knock is not hands down inferior to a rogue picking locks. No, it cannot be used to open doors of a DC higher than 20. But, it never fails to open a door with a DC of 20. That is something that a rogue can never say is true of his ability to pick locks. He can roll low. He can fail to pick a DC 20 lock. When your multiclass rogue does so, and he still needs to bypass the door quickly, your multiclass rogue will have a reason to use knock.
In the end, if a wizard really wants to spend a bunch of his very limited daily spells unlocking things, I say so what? If anything, I think such a wizard is a fool for wasting his spells if there's someone else in the party that can do it for free. If he wants to be an idiot, let him!
And I say that if the wizard starts looking like the 3e variant I walk away from this edition. I also say that a lot of other players feel the same way. Making another game with a 3e style wizard is a sure fire way to make this edition as big a failure as 4e.
And I have always found the idea that wizard spells that replicate the areas of the game that other characters are supposed to be specialists in should also be better at performing those tasks to be ridiculous. You don't want to take skills related t
In AD&D, 1st level wizards had no more than 4 starting hit points (unless they had an amazing Con) and had one spell per day, ONE. Specialist wizards could have two spells per day, but they were rather difficult to qualify for. There were no cantrips, either. "Cantrip" was a 1st level spell, and it couldn't inflict damage at all.
I'd say the 1st level 5e Wizard with at-will cantrips, two 1st level spells per day and at least 6 hit points is quite a bit better off than the poor 1st level 2e wizard. Playing a wizard at starting level in those days was quite the experience.
In AD&D, 1st level wizards had no more than 4 starting hit points (unless they had an amazing Con) and had one spell per day, ONE. Specialist wizards could have two spells per day, but they were rather difficult to qualify for. There were no cantrips
And I have always found the idea that wizard spells that replicate the areas of the game that other characters are supposed to be specialists in should also be better at performing those tasks to be ridiculous. You don't want to take skills related to trapfinding or lockpicking? Don't. But, if a rogue does, that is one of the areas of the game where rogues are meant to be the specialists.
Even if the knock spell is itself superior to a single use of the lockpicking skill, the wizard is still not better at that role than the rogue, who can do it at-will. This has always been the case, but it is especially true now that wizards get so few spells per day. I just can't see my wizard wasting his precious daily spells on knock, even if it was equal to or better than a rogue's lockpicking.
2nd level daily spell slot is not exactly a rare commodity. It ends up being, for all intents and purposes, virtually being an at-will commodity. You are likely to have a spell slot that can be used to cast knock whenever you need to.
What? A wizard gets no more than 3, THREE 2nd level spells per day in this edition. That's not even close to an at-will commodity. And even if you happen to have knock prepared and are willing to spend one of those precious few spell slots casting it, that's one less invisibility or some other good 2nd level spell you can cast that day. And every single lock you encounter after that is one more lost spell that could have been used for something else. Unlike rogues, wizards have to divide their resources between combat and other tasks. A rogue can pick locks all day long and never lose an ounce of combat capability. The same is not true of the wizard.
And, as has been noted, you can use a ritual to open simple locks. Meanwhile, back when you first get a 2nd level spell slot and it actually is a big commodity rogues are far less effective at picking locks. They will only be rolling a d6 skill die. At that point in time, being able to open a DC 20 lock automatically will be worth the resource spent.
The ritual version of knock can only open locks with a DC of 15 or lower. And even if that were not the case, there's nothing keeping the rogue from trying until he succeeds, other than time. A rogue can make 10 attempts in the time it takes to cast knock as a ritual. A rogue would have to be extremely unlucky to not pick the lock before the wizard finishes his ritual.
And while it is not something that only rogues can do in 3e and 4e, the mechanics of both editions gave rogues an advantage when it came to being trained at those tasks. What is more, DDN is also returning to various older paradigms.
And I say that if the wizard starts looking like the 3e variant I walk away from this edition. I also say that a lot of other players feel the same way. Making another game with a 3e style wizard is a sure fire way to make this edition as big a failure as 4e.
I don't know if you're familiar with my posts, but I have agreed with many of the nerfs that have been handed to the wizard class. I don't want wizards to be like they were in 3e, either. But in this case, I think this is one case of the pendulum swinging a bit too far in the other direction.
That said, the only major problems I have with the new version of knock are the punishment for using it as a ritual (as if the long casting time wasn't already punishment enough) and the loud noise, which I thnk is just ridiuclous. Why not just have the fighter bash down the door if knock is going to make as much or more noise? If those two things were to change, would the spell still be acceptable to you?
Even if the knock spell is itself superior to a single use of the lockpicking skill, the wizard is still not better at that role than the rogue, who can do it at-will. This has always been the case, but it is especially true now that wizards get so f
Picking disable device is a permanent resource investment. The character is preparing Disable device on a permanent basis over other abilities. Preparing knock is a fluid and non permanent choice. THAT is why you pay for it to take a spell slot to use. For the the utility and versatility. So you do not NEED to get extra powerful oomph on top of that cost.
On the other hand I agree that you are already pay the time price when casting the ritual, so no need to reduce oomph there.
Then there is the range issue. Being able to open at range makes you able to ignore most traps. You dont end up at the front line and there is probably more benefits I cant think of right now. Now we are again left with surplus oomph, but that is neatly taken care of by the noise.
Lastly the maximum DC is balanced with auto success.
I will repeat my suggestion to keep moving forward and embrace the next ideas: Add higher level options to it such as silent opening or higher DC.
And please stop comparing it to rogues only... everyone has access to all skills equally! This is spell vs skill balancing, not clas vs class.
Picking disable device is a permanent resource investment. The character is preparing Disable device on a permanent basis over other abilities. Preparing knock is a fluid and non permanent choice. THAT is why you pay for it to take a spell slot to us
Interesting point about being 'underpowered' from level 1-6. Compared to AD&D, where the conventional wisdom was that wizards were weak and puny at low levels to compensate their godly power at high levels; how do you think their relative power compares? Are they (at low level) more or less underpowered relative to the other classes when compared to an AD&D wizard's power relative to the other classes?
And are they, in your opinion, underpowered compared to all classes? Or just the Monk and Fighter (and now, Barbarian)?
Carl
They are underpowered from level 1-6 compared to all the classes except for, maybe, the cleric. I have zero interest in ever playing a cleric; as an artifact of that, I am not super familiar with the cleric, and I don't feel particularly comfortable commenting on their power level. It has been so long since I have played AD&D that I also can't really compare this wizard to that one. All I am left with, in regards to my memory of AD&D, are general impressions.
I was just curious.
I agree that they are underpowered relative to the other classes - especially the demigod barbarian, fighter and monk. Probably the rogue as well, but less so. Not so much the cleric - but there is also less overlap between their function and that of the cleric (clerics are often doing something other than just killing stuff).
But I think they are less underpowered at low levels (and less overpowered) at high levels) than in earlier editions (those prior to4E) - so it is a step in the right direction in my opinion. And with tricks like Scion and Tactician for the evocation wizard and the extra spells and rituals for the scholarly wizard, not to mention their cantrips, I'm not sure they are all that underpowered. Somewhat, perhaps. But not by an order of magnitude. And since there is a high consensus that the martial damage classes need have their damage brought down I'm willing to wait and see.
The illusion wizard worries me, however. I don't think the benefits attached to that school make muster unless the DM really uses a lot of illusions. I think that is a difficult class to make work well - I'd have rather seen Necromancy, SUmmoning or Conjuration rather than illusion. But the illusionist was the original specialist - so it needed to be done.
But their big benefit really just comes down to "your saves are tougher" which isn't very 'cool'.
Carl
They are underpowered from level 1-6 compared to all the classes except for, maybe, the cleric. I have zero interest in ever playing a cleric; as an artifact of that, I am not super familiar with the cleric, and I don't feel particularly comfortable
Picking disable device is a permanent resource investment. The character is preparing Disable device on a permanent basis over other abilities. Preparing knock is a fluid and non permanent choice. THAT is why you pay for it to take a spell slot to use. For the the utility and versatility. So you do not NEED to get extra powerful oomph on top of that cost.
On the other hand I agree that you are already pay the time price when casting the ritual, so no need to reduce oomph there.
Then there is the range issue. Being able to open at range makes you able to ignore most traps. You dont end up at the front line and there is probably more benefits I cant think of right now. Now we are again left with surplus oomph, but that is neatly taken care of by the noise.
Lastly the maximum DC is balanced with auto success.
I will repeat my suggestion to keep moving forward and embrace the next ideas: Add higher level options to it such as silent opening or higher DC.
And please stop comparing it to rogues only... everyone has access to all skills equally! This is spell vs skill balancing, not clas vs class.
Honestly if I were a wizard I would only use it in emergencies or cast it as a ritual if we had no rogue. I think its dumb some people think that taking away versatility is fun. What if no one wanted to be the rogue?
Honestly if I were a wizard I would only use it in emergencies or cast it as a ritual if we had no rogue. I think its dumb some people think that taking away versatility is fun. What if no one wanted to be the rogue?
Please read what you quoted. Noone is taking anything away from any CLASS. Knock is a spell that is going to be available to MANY classes, balancing it around 1 class is nonsense. Disable device is a SKILL and all skills are available to ALL classes via backgrounds.
This has nothing to do with who does or does not want to be a rogue.
Knock needs to be a viable choice ON balance with Disable device. The 3E version was far superior. The next version is in my opinion nearly right; higher DC as ritual and higher level options and we are there.
Please read what you quoted. Noone is taking anything away from any CLASS. Knock is a spell that is going to be available to MANY classes, balancing it around 1 class is nonsense. Disable device is a SKILL and all skills are available to ALL classes
Even if the knock spell is itself superior to a single use of the lockpicking skill, the wizard is still not better at that role than the rogue, who can do it at-will. This has always been the case, but it is especially true now that wizards get so few spells per day. I just can't see my wizard wasting his precious daily spells on knock, even if it was equal to or better than a rogue's lockpicking.
The direr the situation the higher the chance that a wizard will end up casting knock. Likewise, the direr the situation the more a character shines when they bypass it. The wizard will be able to cast knock many, many times by 20th level. The only way for a character with Disable Device to shine as brightly is to be able to do something with that skill that cannot be achieved with the spell. Likewise, the only way to make the spell feel special/magical is to be able to do something with the spell that cannot be done with the skill. Right now Disable Device can be used to open up silently locks that cannot be opened with Knock, but there is always a chance that Disable Device will fail (whereas Knock always works when used against the appropriate type of device, but is noisy). That is as it should be.
And every single lock you encounter after that is one more lost spell that could have been used for something else. Unlike rogues, wizards have to divide their resources between combat and other tasks. A rogue can pick locks all day long and never lose an ounce of combat capability. The same is not true of the wizard.
Except a wizard doesn’t have to cast knock in any situation where the reward is not worth the expenditure. When they don’t cast knock they can use their resources on something else, including combat capability. When you pick Disable Device as a skill your spent resources are fixed, locked into place, and used up for the entire rest of that characters life. That is doubly true if you spent any feats on the skill. And, in the specific case of rogues, they have permanently given up a good deal of combat capability in return for Skill Mastery and 4 extra trained skills. So, what you are saying is not quite true.
The ritual version of knock can only open locks with a DC of 15 or lower. And even if that were not the case, there's nothing keeping the rogue from trying until he succeeds, other than time. A rogue can make 10 attempts in the time it takes to cast knock as a ritual. A rogue would have to be extremely unlucky to not pick the lock before the wizard finishes his ritual.
Which is neither here nor there. 3e was horribly imbalanced, so I could care less what it did. I won’t buy another edition of the game that has that same imbalance. 4e balanced combat well, but didn’t take out of combat activities into consideration in that balance. That too is a problem for me. Though, knock was not as much of a problem in 4e for a variety of reasons. I won’t get into them here because all that really matters right now is how DDN is balancing things.
I don't know if you're familiar with my posts, but I have agreed with many of the nerfs that have been handed to the wizard class. I don't want wizards to be like they were in 3e, either. But in this case, I think this is one case of the pendulum swinging a bit too far in the other direction.
That said, the only major problems I have with the new version of knock are the punishment for using it as a ritual (as if the long casting time wasn't already punishment enough) and the loud noise, which I thnk is just ridiuclous. Why not just have the fighter bash down the door if knock is going to make as much or more noise? If those two things were to change, would the spell still be acceptable to you?
I don’t agree that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. It would be a problem for me if the noise component was removed. The reason you don’t have a fighter “just bash down the door” is because some doors cannot be bashed down. As for the ritual, it really depends. I would rather the option to retry skill checks be removed. I think you should only be able to roll a skill check once. At best, I would like to see a “retry” mechanic that does not allow you to automatically succeed, or reroll, but gives you a chance to automatically roll X number with X amount of time (based on your d20 and your skill die). For example, I think you should get one skill roll. If you fail you can spend 20 rounds trying again, at which point you automatically roll 20 + ½ your skill die’s maximum value + your stat modifier. If that does not work you cannot succeed at the task until something about the situation changes. That being said, if they do allow retries then I don’t think the ritual version of Knock should lower the DC you can open; given that context, I think the time wasted casting the ritual is enough of a price.
The direr the situation the higher the chance that a wizard will end up casting knock. Likewise, the direr the situation the more a character shines when they bypass it. The wizard will be able to cast knock many, many times by 20th level. The only w
The direr the situation the higher the chance that a wizard will end up casting knock. Likewise, the direr the situation the more a character shines when they bypass it. The wizard will be able to cast knock many, many times by 20th level. The only way for a character with Disable Device to shine as brightly is to be able to do something with that skill that cannot be achieved with the spell. Likewise, the only way to make the spell feel special/magical is to be able to do something with the spell that cannot be done with the skill. Right Disable Device can be used to open up silently locks that cannot be opened with Knock, but there is always a chance that Disable Device will fail (whereas Knock always works when used against the appropriate type of device, but is noisy). That is as it should be.
This is why I think Knock should require a roll instead of being automatically successful.
What? A wizard gets no more than 3, THREE 2nd level spells per day in this edition. That's not even close to an at-will commodity.
Except you can use a higher level slot to cast a lower level spell. That means that wizards actually receive 15 potential uses of knock per day.
And if you do that you're wasting more and more valuable spells. Do you really want to give up a 9th level spell to cast knock? The way you keep casually disregarding the spells per day limit as a if it were a non-issue makes me wonder if you've ever played a wizard.
Except a wizard doesn’t have to cast knock in any situation where the reward is not worth the expenditure. When they don’t cast knock they can use their resources on something else, including combat capability. When you pick Disable Device as a skill your spent resources are fixed, locked into place, and used up for the entire rest of that characters life. That is doubly true if you spent any feats on the skill. And, in the specific case of rogues, they have permanently given up a good deal of combat capability in return for Skill Mastery and 4 extra trained skills. So, what you are saying is not quite true.
Rogues also get more skills than any other class. Taking open lock as one of their skills is hardly a big sacrifice for them.
We also need to stop looking at this as a class vs. class thing. Anyone can be a thief in Next and have the open lock skill. Your skills have more to do with your background than your class. That's one of the things I love about it.
The new knock spell/ritual makes alot of noise. It's so loud that anything within 300 ft. can clearly hear it.
Anyone within 300 ft. would be able to hear someone smashing down a door as well.
So there's no reason to cast knock instead of bashing down the door. That is not acceptable. One takes a standard action, is free and at-will, the other is a spell that has to be found/learned, paid to be put in your spellbook, and either costs a spell slot or takes time to use as a ritual. Even if we can't agree that knock should be on par with picking a lock, can we at least agree that it should be a superior, or at least quieter option than bashing down the door?
I don’t agree that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. It would be a problem for me if the noise component was removed. The reason you don’t have a fighter “just bash down the door” is because some doors cannot be bashed down.
Such doors are few and far between. I doubt if the door is made from adamantine that it could be unlocked with a DC 15 check either, or even a DC 20 check. But for every other door in the game that can be broken down, the loud noise makes knock an absolutely useless alternative to brute vandalism. Maybe that's what you want, but if so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
This is why I think Knock should require a roll instead of being automatically successful. Except you can use a higher level slot to cast a lower level spell. That means that wizards actually receive 15 potential uses of knock per day.[/quote]An
This is why I think Knock should require a roll instead of being automatically successful.
No thanks. I want the way the spell works to feel different than the way the skill works. I like spell that work automatically as opposed to attacks/skill checks that require rolls (as long as the end result is balanced).
And if you do that you're wasting more and more valuable spells. Do you really want to give up a 9th level spell to cast knock? The way you keep casually disregarding the spells per day limit as a if it were a non-issue makes me wonder if you've ever played a wizard.
Hyperbole. You won't use a 9th level spell. You will use your 2nd level slots first. Then you will move up to your 3rd. Then to your 4th. And so on and so forth. The chances of you needing to unlock more doors than you have 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spell slots is infinitesimal. The number I gave was the total number of spell slots that could potentially be used to cast knock. The point being, the wizard has enough that the spell is not exactly a rare resource. And if you think it is, then it is you who I think has not actually played a wizard.
Rogues also get more skills than any other class. Taking open lock as one of their skills is hardly a big sacrifice for them.
The rogue pays for those extra skills with hit dice, weapon proficiencies, and armor proficiencies. It is a very big sacrifice. Balanced! I am not complaining about the sacrifice. But still, a sacrifice.
We also need to stop looking at this as a class vs. class thing. Anyone can be a thief in Next and have the open lock skill. Your skills have more to do with your background than your class. That's one of the things I love about it.
I didn't make it just about rogues. Someone who is not a rogue has to sacrifice one out of four potential skill slots in order to be able to Disable Device. They should feel like their choice is useful, even if there is a wizard in the group. And a rogue gives up a lot of combat power to be the best at skill use. Disable Device is one of the thematic areas of the game that rogues have traditionally excelled at. A rogue who chooses to use his skill speciality on Disable Device should not ever feel like wizards overshadow him by magicing open all the tough locks they encounter.
So there's no reason to cast knock instead of bashing down the door. That is not acceptable. One takes a standard action, is free and at-will, the other is a spell that has to be found/learned, paid to be put in your spellbook, and either costs a spell slot or takes time to use as a ritual. Even if we can't agree that knock should be on par with picking a lock, can we at least agree that it should be a superior, or at least quieter option than bashing down the door?
Sorry, what!? You let fighters bash down doors with a standard action!!!? Have you ever actually tried bashing in a door? Unless it is a flimsy piece of crap, it takes time. Sometimes a lot of time. Usually a lot of time. So no, it does not take a single standard action.
No thanks. I want the way the spell works to feel different than the way the skill works. I like spell that work automatically as opposed to attacks/skill checks that require rolls (as long as the end result is balanced). Hyperbole. You won't use
No thanks. I want the way the spell works to feel different than the way the skill works. I like spell that work automatically as opposed to attacks/skill checks that require rolls (as long as the end result is balanced).
The problem with how it is now is that it is incapable of being a backup option should the party not have a rogue or other character that can pick the lock. If you come up against a door with a DC higher than 20, you can't use knock to open it - no matter what. That's not acceptable to me. There shouldn't be any mandatory, must have classes. I feel the same way about clerics and healing, and yes, wizards too, which is why I want ritual casting to be available to anyone with a feat.
One thing they could do is let the spell scale with level (i.e. add +X to the maximum DC it can unlock for each higher level spell slot used to cast it).
And if you do that you're wasting more and more valuable spells. Do you really want to give up a 9th level spell to cast knock? The way you keep casually disregarding the spells per day limit as a if it were a non-issue makes me wonder if you've ever played a wizard.
Hyperbole. You won't use a 9th level spell. You will use your 2nd level slots first. Then you will move up to your 3rd. Then to your 4th. And so on and so forth. The chances of you needing to unlock more doors than you have 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spell slots is infinitesimal. The number I gave was the total number of spell slots that could potentially be used to cast knock. The point being, the wizard has enough that the spell is not exactly a rare resource. And if you think it is, then it is you who I think has not actually played a wizard.
It's not hyperbole. You yourself said a wizard could use knock 15 times. That would mean using all of his higher level spells, including the one 9th level spell he gets per day. That's a pretty huge sacrifice to make to unlock a door or chest!
In other threads regarding wizard vs. fighter balance, you keep bringing up that wizards and fighters are balanced in damage output because you assume that A) there are going to typically be 20 rounds of combat per day and B) a wizard is going to be using all of his spell slots, including his highest level spells to inflict damage. It's only if those two things are true that fighter and wizard DPR are balanced.
But if he's using those spell slots on utility things, such as knock, that reduces his damage potential each time he does so. It'd be like if a rogue lost sneak attack damage for the rest of the day each time he picked a lock. I don't think rogues would be so eager to unlock doors if that were the case!
Yeah, there's the ritual option. The problem is, any door that is worth using a ritual to open is probably going to have a higher DC to open than 15.
Rogues also get more skills than any other class. Taking open lock as one of their skills is hardly a big sacrifice for them.
The rogue pays for those extra skills with hit dice, weapon proficiencies, and armor proficiencies. It is a very big sacrifice. Balanced! I am not complaining about the sacrifice. But still, a sacrifice.
The rogue has better weapon proficiencies, armor proficiencies, etc. than the wizard does. But that's fine. Wizards should be the worst at those things. Just don't forget that the wizard paid that price, as well as others, to have his magic.
I didn't make it just about rogues. Someone who is not a rogue has to sacrifice one out of four potential skill slots in order to be able to Disable Device. They should feel like their choice is useful, even if there is a wizard in the group. And a rogue gives up a lot of combat power to be the best at skill use. Disable Device is one of the thematic areas of the game that rogues have traditionally excelled at. A rogue who chooses to use his skill speciality on Disable Device should not ever feel like wizards overshadow him by magicing open all the tough locks they encounter.
If there's a rogue or other character in the party that has the skill to unlock the door, why is the wizard wasting his precious daily spell slots on knock? A wizard that does so is someone who doesn't know the value of teamwork and frankly, is an idiot, because he's throwing away his chance to shine in other situations just to try and steal the spotlight from the rogue.
But let me try this another way. Let's say you have two characters in the group with the open lock skill. Which one deserves the spotlight and gets to unlock the door? Maybe the spotlight isn't really that important. Maybe what really matters is that the party gets to open the door.
Sorry, what!? You let fighters bash down doors with a standard action!!!? Have you ever actually tried bashing in a door? Unless it is a flimsy piece of crap, it takes time. Sometimes a lot of time. Usually a lot of time. So no, it does not take a single standard action.
It depends on the hardness and hit points of the door. Some doors would take multiple swings to bring down, but then I'm used to having a fighter or barbarian in my group with an adamantine weapon and power attack.
The problem with how it is now is that it is incapable of being a backup option should the party not have a rogue or other character that can pick the lock. If you come up against a door with a DC higher than 20, you can't use knock to open it - no m
"One thing they could do is let the spell scale with level (i.e. add +X to the maximum DC it can unlock for each higher level spell slot used to cast it)." Ive been saying this since page 1... *sigh*
Here is an alternative knock that you might like better FallingIcicle: 2nd level Range Touch Effect: You touch a lock and roll a d20+caster stat+your skill die against the DC of the lock. If you fail the lock doesnt open be you retain the spell (like otto's irresistable dance). If you succeed the lock opens. Either way the spell makes no other noice than the lock it self opening. Ritual: No ritual version of this spell
NOW its balanced against the skill "no because you use up a slot" yes but the person who picked disable device also used up a slot, theirs was just permanent and they dont get to use it as a combat power if the day requires it. So balanced but borring as hell
Or use the NEXT version who has balanced trade offs: Auto sucess vs max DC RANGE vs sound (I notice everyone keep overlooking the insane effect of range when they talk about how its not worth casting if there's a person with the skill in the party)
"One thing they could do is let the spell scale with level (i.e. add +X to the maximum DC it can unlock for each higher level spell slot used to cast it)."Ive been saying this since page 1... *sigh*Here is an alternative knock that you might like bet
Or use the NEXT version who has balanced trade offs: Auto sucess vs max DC RANGE vs sound (I notice everyone keep overlooking the insane effect of range when they talk about how its not worth casting if there's a person with the skill in the party)
I think they should remove the loud sound but make it touch range. That would be fair, IMO.
I think they should remove the loud sound but make it touch range. That would be fair, IMO.
"One thing they could do is let the spell scale with level (i.e. add +X to the maximum DC it can unlock for each higher level spell slot used to cast it)." Ive been saying this since page 1... *sigh*
Here is an alternative knock that you might like better FallingIcicle: 2nd level Range Touch Effect: You touch a lock and roll a d20+caster stat+your skill die against the DC of the lock. If you fail the lock doesnt open be you retain the spell (like otto's irresistable dance). If you succeed the lock opens. Either way the spell makes no other noice than the lock it self opening. Ritual: No ritual version of this spell
NOW its balanced against the skill "no because you use up a slot" yes but the person who picked disable device also used up a slot, theirs was just permanent and they dont get to use it as a combat power if the day requires it. So balanced but borring as hell
Or use the NEXT version who has balanced trade offs: Auto sucess vs max DC RANGE vs sound (I notice everyone keep overlooking the insane effect of range when they talk about how its not worth casting if there's a person with the skill in the party)
That would not be a balanced knock. That would be a horribly overpowered knock, and one which would start to push droves of players away from this game.
That would not be a balanced knock. That would be a horribly overpowered knock, and one which would start to push droves of players away from this game.
The problem with how it is now is that it is incapable of being a backup option should the party not have a rogue or other character that can pick the lock. If you come up against a door with a DC higher than 20, you can't use knock to open it - no matter what. That's not acceptable to me.
1) You are fully capable of being a backup to someone like a rogue with Disable Device. What you cannot do is be a replacement of a rogue with Disable Device. They will still be able to open the locks that the group needs to find a way to open. DC 25+ skill checks should not be used as obstacles that the group is required to bypass anyway. The chance of failure, and thus the chance of the game grinding to a halt if they are used in binary pass or the quest fails situations, is too high. DC 25+ locks amount to optional areas for exploration, or optional paths that lead the group to some minor benefit. The group is not required to utilize such pathways, and as such nobody is required in order to pick such locks.
2) Allowing wizards to do everything that Disable Device can do is not acceptable to me. I am not playing in another game where wizards can do everything that the other classes can do/where magic can completely replace non-magical options.
It's not hyperbole. You yourself said a wizard could use knock 15 times. That would mean using all of his higher level spells, including the one 9th level spell he gets per day. That's a pretty huge sacrifice to make to unlock a door or chest!
In other threads regarding wizard vs. fighter balance, you keep bringing up that wizards and fighters are balanced in damage output because you assume that A) there are going to typically be 20 rounds of combat per day and B) a wizard is going to be using all of his spell slots, including his highest level spells to inflict damage. It's only if those two things are true that fighter and wizard DPR are balanced.
But if he's using those spell slots on utility things, such as knock, that reduces his damage potential each time he does so. It'd be like if a rogue lost sneak attack damage for the rest of the day each time he picked a lock. I don't think rogues would be so eager to unlock doors if that were the case!
Without using all of your spell slots on damage spells, the wizard is still the clear winner in damage potential up to about 10 rounds (when comparing high level wizards and fighters). Moreover, your lower level spells (1st, 2nd) are not used for damage in those calculations. They are used for utility spells. Your at-will spell will do more damage than 1st and 2nd level spells. And you have up to 15 knocks. But, no game is actually going to require the group to bypass that many locks in one day. 3-6 is far more likely. Which means your 2nd and 3rd level spell slots will be enough. Which means that you will still compete for top DPR position in the group for most of the rounds out of a day. You will fall behind in single target DPR eventually. You will be the clear winner when it comes to AoE DPR.
Your attempt to paint the daily resource as an effective balancing mechanic due to some sort of extensive rarity is either misinformed or disingenuous. That sort of thinking is exactly what allowed the overpowered wizards of 3e.
Rogues also get more skills than any other class. Taking open lock as one of their skills is hardly a big sacrifice for them.
The rogue pays for those extra skills with hit dice, weapon proficiencies, and armor proficiencies. It is a very big sacrifice. Balanced! I am not complaining about the sacrifice. But still, a sacrifice.
The rogue has better weapon proficiencies, armor proficiencies, etc. than the wizard does. But that's fine. Wizards should be the worst at those things. Just don't forget that the wizard paid that price, as well as others, to have his magic.
If there's a rogue or other character in the party that has the skill to unlock the door, why is the wizard wasting his precious daily spell slots on knock? A wizard that does so is someone who doesn't know the value of teamwork and frankly, is an idiot, because he's throwing away his chance to shine in other situations just to try and steal the spotlight from the rogue.
Sorry, but no. Sometimes the rogue fails to pick the lock. If it is a lock that the group must bypass, and it has a DC 20 or lower lock, then allowing an alternative method to bypass the lock quickly is fine. But if the wizard acts as a replacement for the rogue even when it comes to optional / alternative areas in the sandbox, and still opens those doors whenever the rogue fails, then the wizard starts to overshadow the rogue. The wizard would not be an idiot for opening those doors, and the rogue would be overshadowed. Meanwhile, the wizard would still have more than enough spell slots to shine in other areas.
But let me try this another way. Let's say you have two characters in the group with the open lock skill. Which one deserves the spotlight and gets to unlock the door? Maybe the spotlight isn't really that important. Maybe what really matters is that the party gets to open the door.
Either. They both spent equal resources on the ability. If they didn’t, then one will have a higher statistical probability of success and he will tend to shine on such checks. And spotlight really is that important. Pretending that it wasn’t is what led to the imbalances of 3e.
1) You are fully capable of being a backup to someone like a rogue with Disable Device. What you cannot do is be a replacement of a rogue with Disable Device. They will still be able to open the locks that the group needs to find a way to open. D
2) Allowing wizards to do everything that Disable Device can do is not acceptable to me. I am not playing in another game where wizards can do everything that the other classes can do/where magic can completely replace non-magical options.
I'm not aware of a wizard spell that lets them find and disable traps or other mechanical devices. All they can do is open locks, and considering that they are often warding things with arcane lock spells, that seems totally appropriate to me. But if it really bothers you that much, feel free to house rule the knock spell out of your game. You keep making the ultimatum that you'll "walk away" from this edition if you don't get what you want, but that's ridiculous. No rule nazi ninjas are going to hunt you down and make sure you use the rules as written. It's your game. Do whatever you want. Nobody is going to get 100% of what they want out of this edition.
Without using all of your spell slots on damage spells, the wizard is still the clear winner in damage potential up to about 10 rounds (when comparing high level wizards and fighters). Moreover, your lower level spells (1st, 2nd) are not used for damage in those calculations. They are used for utility spells. Your at-will spell will do more damage than 1st and 2nd level spells. And you have up to 15 knocks. But, no game is actually going to require the group to bypass that many locks in one day. 3-6 is far more likely. Which means your 2nd and 3rdlevel spell slots will be enough. Which means that you will still compete for top DPR position in the group for most of the rounds out of a day. You will fall behind in single target DPR eventually. You will be the clear winner when it comes to AoE DPR.
This is true if we're talking about 20th level characters. For most of the game, a wizard has far fewer spell slots available, and 1st and 2nd level spell slots aren't overshadowed by cantrips in damage until higher levels. Casting knock isn't much of a sacrifice for a 20th level wizard, I'll give you that. But for a 5th level wizard, it is.
Sorry, but no. Sometimes the rogue fails to pick the lock.
Why can't he just try again? Sure, there might be those rare instances where some huge monster is chasing the party or some Indiana Jones style rolling boulder is coming at them, and the party needs to get through the door RIGHT NOW, but those situations are extremely rare, in my experience.
Your attempt to paint the daily resource as an effective balancing mechanic due to some sort of extensive rarity is either misinformed or disingenuous. That sort of thinking is exactly what allowed the overpowered wizards of 3e.
You seem quite fond of painting me as some defender of 3e's imbalances. I've said many times that I want the classes to be much better balanced, and have agreed with many of the changes that have been made to the class, and have suggested other ways of balancing them. Just because we happen to disagree about this one specific spell hardly means that I want a return to the 3e era of caster dominance.
All I really care about in regards to Knock are these things:
First, the Knock spell needs to be a suitable backup should there not be someone in the party that can pick the lock. There shouldn't be any obstacle in the game that only one class/background/skill can overcome. The DC cap on the spell means that it can never open "very hard" or harder locks, and the ritual version is even worse. So the current version of the spell fails at this criteria.
Second, casting Knock should be superior to bashing down the door, which IMO should be a last resort. The loud noise component they added to Knock makes it not worth doing. Just let the fighter break the door down if you're going to make so much noise anyway. Sure, there will sometimes be doors sturdy enough that the fighter can't break them down. But I can guarantee you that if someone went to enough expense and trouble to build such a sturdy door, they would also make sure to equip it with the finest lock as well, putting the DC well above knock's limit, especially the ritual versions'.
Third, Knock needs to be better than simply using a Shatter spell (also 2nd level) to destroy the door, especially since Shatter has many uses beyond just bypassing locked doors. Again, the noise factor was the main advantage Knock used to have over shattering the door. Now, there really isn't a point. Just blow it up.
Honestly, as long as those three criteria are met, it's fine with me if rogues or other characters with the disable device skill are better at unlocking things than the Knock spell is.
I'm not aware of a wizard spell that lets them find and disable traps or other mechanical devices. All they can do is open locks, and considering that they are often warding things with arcane lock spells, that seems totally appropriate to me. But if
Seems to me the easy solution to #1 is 'don't put obstacles in front of your PCs that they can't overcome', which strikes me as a basic tenet of good DMing. So, if nobody in the party has the ability to open a 'very hard' lock, don't use 'very hard' locks.
Seems to me the easy solution to #1 is 'don't put obstacles in front of your PCs that they can't overcome', which strikes me as a basic tenet of good DMing. So, if nobody in the party has the ability to open a 'very hard' lock, don't use 'very hard'
Seems to me the easy solution to #1 is 'don't put obstacles in front of your PCs that they can't overcome', which strikes me as a basic tenet of good DMing. So, if nobody in the party has the ability to open a 'very hard' lock, don't use 'very hard' locks.
+1, sort of; the addendum that should be added is that you can use very hard locks, but you don't use them on any obstacles that you expect the group to bypass. They basically become the same thing as walls. In officially produced quests you only put optional areas that the group doesn't have to enter behind such locks, or optional/unnecessary bonus treasure. In homebrew quests, you don't even have to plot out what is actually behind them. They are just a set piece. They serve as a reminder that you are missing a particular archetype, much the way other challenges often do when you are missing different archetypes. You never, however, put such obstacles in the way of the quests overall progression. A group should never have to bypass a lock with a higher DC than 20.
+1, sort of; the addendum that should be added is that you can use very hard locks, but you don't use them on any obstacles that you expect the group to bypass. They basically become the same thing as walls. In officially produced quests you only put
