D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[JamesonCourage]

I get what you are saying. However this, ruleswise, is incorrect. If you had no tools you took a penalty. If you had any kind of tool, even improvised, it was a straight roll. And if you had masterwork tools you got a bonus.

Well:

Thieves’ Tools
This kit contains the tools you need to use the Disable Device and Open Lock skills. Without these tools, you must improvise tools, and you take a -2 circumstance penalty on Disable Device and Open Lock checks.

The bold section appears in all three sources. Thieve's tools = no penalty, Masterwork = +2, improvised = -2, no tools = no roll. At least, that's generally how it worked (some DMs might let you roll with no tools with a bigger penalty, as per the up to +/-20 section in the DMG). But... yeah. Bowing out! As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

In 3e lock picking, you must use some form of tool to pick a lock. That's hard wired right into the mechanics.

<snip>

Now, how this applies to non-pickable locks like a chinese puzzle box or a combination lock, the rules are silent on, but, that's a nit pick and it's pretty reasonable to presume that most DM's are not going to tell players they cannot open a combination lock because they don't have picks.

This is an approach to mechanics that irritates me: if the game takes for granted that there will be locks that you open using Open Locks, and that you don't need tools for, then why does it say that you must use some form of tool to pick a lock?

Maybe I've misunderstood [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] and [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], but that seems related to their idea of a "patina of process simulation" which is not doing any real work in action resolution.

It seems like the real rule should be "When your PC wants to open a lock, you must state (at least in general terms) how s/he is doing this." In the case of an ordinary lock, you talk about your use of a lockpick. In the case of a combination lock, you talk about your use of a hearing cone (or whatever). In the case of any lock, you talk about your use of a "Fonzie bump"! Which technique is permissible, and what effect it has on difficulty, would be determined by the GM (or the group as a whole, at a more democratic table), based primarily in genre considerations.

 

[D'karr]

Well:

The bold section appears in all three sources. Thieve's tools = no penalty, Masterwork = +2, improvised = -2, no tools = no roll. At least, that's generally how it worked (some DMs might let you roll with no tools with a bigger penalty, as per the up to +/-20 section in the DMG). But... yeah. Bowing out! As always, play what you like

Well since we're now to quoting rules, here are the ones for the OPEN LOCK skill, from the d20 SRD. I have no interest in pulling out the books to look it up there.

Open Lock (Dex; Trained Only)
Attempting an Open Lock check without a set of thieves’ tools imposes a -2 circumstance penalty on the check, even if a simple tool is employed. If you use masterwork thieves’ tools, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus on the check.

Check
The DC for opening a lock varies from 20 to 40, depending on the quality of the lock, as given on the table below.

Action
Opening a lock is a full-round action.

Special
If you have the Nimble Fingers feat, you get a +2 bonus on Open Lock checks.

Untrained
You cannot pick locks untrained, but you might successfully force them open.

You are correct that improvised poses a penalty, I misremembered, but the highlighted area is what's relevant. It implies that without a set of tools the rogue takes a penalty, "even if a simple tool is employed".

What if he doesn't employ a simple tool? According to the relevant skill he'd still take a penalty. If I wanted to be "correct" in my ruling, I had to go look somewhere else for the relevant information.

This is another reason why I ended up hating the reliance on the rules of 3.x. Looking at multiple places to determine intent of a particular "rule" was exhausting. Eventually 3.x devolved, IME, to looking for rules all over the place. Obviously contradictory rules in this case.

To make it even worse the Disable Device rules on the d20 SRD make no mention of Thieves' Tools at all. When the reading of the Thieves' Tools description, as you posted, makes it seem as if they are "required" for the checks to even function.

Chuck this up as another reason why the "process-sim" argument for these types of rules never satisfied me.


-

 

[Underman]

I'd like it if some of the people who "get" dissociated mechanics could vet my post here (837).

Here's the thing. I think this thread now has several people self-congratulating each other, lots of smug "I wish you could XP you", that kind of thing. This isn't a proper debate; I think it's a popularity contest over who can argue the longest about their subjective preferences over another. Therefore, no point.

The other reason I think there is no point is that there are clear indications of hangups over past accusations from several years ago, and some people don't seem to have fully recovered from it. Well, that's understandable, but I'm not one of their enemies, and yet at least a few times I seem to have been taken for one. It feels to me rather prejudicial, and not a fun conducive environment. Let them have their thread, it's not my place to force anyone to understand something who doesn't want to understand.

Edit: Although I'm replying to your post, I'm not including you in the general "they". On the contrary, I truly admire your posts as well as Nagol's and others' at one time or another for being so articulate and neutral or self-restrained in tone.

 

[LostSoul]

Ah, fair enough. I can say that I did not understand dissociated mechanics before, and now I think that my critiques of it (attack rolls, HP, turn-based initiative, etc.) missed the point.

My conclusion is that different people approach RPGs in radically different ways, so much so that it's really hard to be able to communicate with someone who has a different approach.

 

[Underman]

Ah, fair enough. I can say that I did not understand dissociated mechanics before, and now I think that my critiques of it (attack rolls, HP, turn-based initiative, etc.) missed the point.

I'm going to gloss over this statement, not because I agree or disagree, but because I honestly don't know. Maybe you did get the point, I don't know?

My conclusion is that different people approach RPGs in radically different ways, so much so that it's really hard to be able to communicate with someone who has a different approach.

Ya, but I still believe this thread's bottleneck in communciation is more attitude. For example:

That's an ugly shirt
No, you find that shirt ugly

The 2nd statement is contradictory merely for argument sake, but AFAICT they are not mutually exclusive.

Yet i think I'm reading that over and over again, being contradictory just to be argumentative, that "you find that mechanic dissociated because you're unwilling..." is somehow significantly different than "that's a dissociated mechanic". Me, I think it's banal. It's not any more helpful than "you find that shirt is ugly" vs "that's an ugly shirt".

That is what I was referring to in my cheeky post about Comic Book Guy, but which somehow got sidetracked in a non-sequitur about some guy's Grand Unified Theory of Ugly Shirts.

That said, I do think there's one significant difference between "you find that shirt is ugly" vs "that's an ugly shirt" -- each statement shifts the subjective blame to the other, like a game of passing the hot potato.

If dissociation is a relationship between the player and the desired fiction and the desired mechanic, the current argument seems to be about shifting the onus to one end or another. IMO, an argument about who deserves the onus isn't worth arguing about unless it's fairly and honestly applied in context of the playstyle.

 

[pemerton]

I still believe this thread's bottleneck in communciation is more attitude. For example:

That's an ugly shirt
No, you find that shirt ugly

The 2nd statement is contradictory merely for argument sake, but AFAICT they are not mutually exclusive.

Yet i think I'm reading that over and over again, being contradictory just to be argumentative, that "you find that mechanic dissociated because you're unwilling..." is somehow significantly different than "that's a dissociated mechanic". Me, I think it's banal.

<snip>

If dissociation is a relationship between the player and the desired fiction and the desired mechanic, the current argument seems to be about shifting the onus to one end or another.

From my point of view, the situation is slightly different. Some of the posts in this thread are the latest in a long line of posts arguing that "dissociated" mechanics impede immersion, and hence roleplaying, and hence (i) are a marker of shallow, "board game" play, and (ii) ought not to be part of D&D (or other RPGs).

I don't care about any particular person's preferences and experiences, if I have never RPGed with them and am never likely to. But I don't think it's unreasonable of me, and others, to contest (i) and (ii).

 

[JeffB]

My conclusion is that different people approach RPGs in radically different ways, so much so that it's really hard to be able to communicate with someone who has a different approach.

And is exactly why WOTC or any other company will never unite the D&D fanbase with one edition, no matter how much they playtest and get feedback.

Endthread

 

[Neonchameleon]

The other reason I think there is no point is that there are clear indications of hangups over past accusations from several years ago, and some people don't seem to have fully recovered from it.

Try persistent and ongoing for the entire lifespan of 4e starting with the incoherent notion of disassociated mechanics, and the problems with the "tyrrany of fun" (or possibly before that) and many outright lies - and continuing through to the current day with people still trying to define 4e as Not D&D and Not an RPG, and trying to salt the earth and have no traces of 4e in D&D Next.

Well, that's understandable, but I'm not one of their enemies, and yet at least a few times I seem to have been taken for one. It feels to me rather prejudicial, and not a fun conducive environment.

Welcome to ENWorld! At one point on the front page of the D&D Next we had seven separate threads about how this or that aspect of 4E should not be included in D&D Next. So far as I can tell the ENWorld rules allow anything but attacking the character of other posters, threats, and one or two other things. As far as 4e is concerned, I consider this an actively hostile environment - and this forum in specific has regular gravedancing on 4e. Which means I'm crankier than I am on e.g. RPG.net because there the mods step in to actually deal with the edition wars and say what's acceptable.

 

[Underman]

From my point of view, the situation is slightly different. Some of the posts in this thread are the latest in a long line of posts arguing that "dissociated" mechanics impede immersion, and hence roleplaying, and hence (i) are a marker of shallow, "board game" play

I get that. Well, then, the interesting question for me is:
These mechanics impede my immersion and so it feels like a tactical skirmish
No, not in my game

Are those mutually exclusive statements? I don't think so, but this thread hardly managed to get around to discussing that, being so caught up in other wrangles.

If you reword it like so
These mechanics impede my immersion and so the game is a tactical skirmish for everyone

That's clearly incorrect

, and (ii) ought not to be part of D&D (or other RPGs).

Claims of what 'ought to be' need to be sussed for its actual intent, I think