|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 9:06PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
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. 
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 11:41PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2010
|
"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)
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 12:03AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 12:12AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2010
|
That is a fair trade. I personally like the sound and range as I think it makes it distinct but that is just my touchy feely point of view.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 7:26AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
"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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 7:47AM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 5:43PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 5:54PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
I am fine with your second and third criteria. I am diametrically opposed to your first.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 5:58PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
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.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 8:23PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
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.
|
|
|
