The "real" reason the game has changed.

[Hussar]

OK

First, I completely endorse and embrace that rule.

However, I think you could talk to any person involved in the design of the game and they would tell you that this rule preventing your scenario is a million miles away from the intent.

Characters need appropriate tools to perform tasks and the presumption of this need is a solid default foundation. But the rules bend over backwards to disclaim that the story and DM's judgement should take precendent. You have not used an improvised tool in your description. You have simply painted a different skin over the otherwise required tool. As described by you, this character without his spoon would be just as limited as a "normal" roue with his thieves tools.

To me that level of re-skinning is beyond an obvious consideration. And, frankly, if anyone truly got hung up on that distinction, I would doubt their ability to provide a really good game experience in any system.



I also wonder if the concept of lock picks are completely absent form 4E. I truly don't know that answer. But it wouldn't suprise me if you are ignoring the rule guidance in 4E but treating it as absolute in 3E.

Ask and ye shall recieve:

4e PHB page 189

Open Lock - Make a thievery check ot pick a lock.

That is the entire description of Open Lock skill. There is nothing in the skill description that requires thieves' tools.

Add to this the very express advice in the DMG to "say yes" and it equates to pretty strong backing for doing exactly what I did in the game.

In 3e, the DM would be very well within the intent of the rules to follow the rules. The rules state that I need tools. I don't have tools. The DM says no. End of story and there's actually pretty little advice given in the 3e ruleset to counter that.

Now I'm curious... how is the first sentence any different than what is in the 3.5 books? In fact it doesn't even mention what happens if you improvise... and it implies that you cannot use Thievery skill in this manner without the proper tools.

I'm honestly not sure what that book is. That's one of the Essentials thingies isn't it? I'm not playing in an Essentials game.

There is a distinct lack of office supplies on the list also - so the DM would have to decide the paper clip was a suitable tool - or would that not be by the RAW? (Now, before you say "well a paper clip is a wire, I'll counter with the spoon is a pry bar or any other number of possible ways it could be a potential usable tool for this)

The rule says "or the like", the DM is the final arbiter of what or the like means - so, in 3E, by the RAW, he could just as easily said your rogue's "magic spoon" was a suitable tool, just like your DM in 4E allows your rogue to fonzerelli bump a lock with it in 4E even though the rogue isn't really picking the lock.

I have to ask, would you really give your DM grief if he said your crazy rogue can't open the lock by hitting it with his "magic spoon"?

Regardless - we're arguing play experience and semantics - which is pretty OT.

IMO, YMMV, and all that...

Really? That's you're argument? That someone would look at a spoon and think, sure, that qualifies as a pick, or a pry bar. A wooden spoon? A completely non-magical one at that. ((I don't know where the idea came from that it was a magical spoon. It's not - it's just a spoon that the character believes is a holy relic.))

Would I give the DM grief? No, probably not. I'd be a bit disappointed I think since shutting down creativity is generally a bad idea. It was funny, it totally fit with the character and it made for a memorable moment in the game.

Then again, I wouldn't even try to do it in a 3e game because it's directly against the stated rules. We tried to cleave pretty close to RAW in our 3e games and this would have been problematic in our games simply because 3e was so heavily based around making RAW very important to how the world worked.

Hrm, that came out wrong. let me try again.

For me, 3e was a strongly simulationist system. It tried to have pretty specific rules that covered almost every eventuality. So, we relied on the ruleset to provide answers about the in game reality becuase we largely could.

I would not use 3e for a more free form game to be honest. It's not what it's designed around IMO.

 

[Abraxas]

And my group doesn't do a lot of reskinning even in 4e. I think different rulesets push in different directions, but group habits are probably just as important, if not more so.

It may be just me that thinks outside the boxes on my character sheet a lot. Of course that may be due to my family. There isn't a game that my family plays (card or board) that we haven't created some sort of variant rule for. Hell, we had a heinous death card in UNO - I doctored a red zero card to look like a skull and crossbones, if someone played that card on you everyone else at the the table got to give you their highest point card from their hand and you had to sit out the rest of the hand.

 

[Abraxas]

Really? That's you're argument? That someone would look at a spoon and think, sure, that qualifies as a pick, or a pry bar. A wooden spoon? A completely non-magical one at that. ((I don't know where the idea came from that it was a magical spoon. It's not - it's just a spoon that the character believes is a holy relic.))

I've been putting the words magic spoon in quotes because your character thinks it's something out of the ordinary - not that it's actually an enchanted spoon.

In the case of making the game more fun the DM is well within the rules to decide that yes, a friggin spoon is a suitable improvised tool - which is no more strange than you seemingly suggesting that in absolutely no way could it ever even possibly be considered an improvised tool and doing so is against the RAW.

The interpretation of any rule can be such as to shut down player creativity - if it is bad to do so now in 4E it was also bad to do it in 3E.

We obviously disagree, but this is enough of a side track of the thread for me.

Good Day.

 

[Imaro]

I'm honestly not sure what that book is. That's one of the Essentials thingies isn't it? I'm not playing in an Essentials game.

But... essentials has the same rules as 4e... and where it doesn't, essentials is the most up to date... isn't it?

NOTE: The exact same paragraph can be found on pg. 221 of the original 4e PHB. It's not in the skill description it's in the equipment description.

 

[BryonD]

Ask and ye shall recieve:

4e PHB page 189



That is the entire description of Open Lock skill. There is nothing in the skill description that requires thieves' tools.

Ok, well if that is the start and end of it and it is not addressed anywhere else, then count that as one more grain of sand on the "reasons I don't prefer 4E".

Add to this the very express advice in the DMG to "say yes" and it equates to pretty strong backing for doing exactly what I did in the game.

In 3e, the DM would be very well within the intent of the rules to follow the rules. The rules state that I need tools. I don't have tools. The DM says no. End of story and there's actually pretty little advice given in the 3e ruleset to counter that.

Again you are playing double standards, counting the "very express advice to say yes" in favor of 4E, but ignoring such advice for 3E and further presuming a non-thoughtful bad DM for 3E. As I said, a bad DM is a bad DM, no matter what sysytem you use.

If your experience with 3E models that, then that is too bad for you that you missed out on the full potential.

Bottom line, the rules require tools and you *DO* have tools. If anything, your tool is more restrictive because a "normal" rogue can replace traditional tools, your re-skinned unique tool is irreplacable.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But... essentials has the same rules as 4e... and where it doesn't, essentials is the most up to date... isn't it?

It depends upon the context.

When an argument requires that Essentials is the same ruleset as 4e, it is the same edition.

When an argument requires that Essentials is not the same ruleset as 4e, it is a different ruleset, but still not a different edition.

I hope that clears it all up.


RC

 

[Mallus]

More of this reductio ad absurdum bizness. YOu really want a response to an absurdity? Is proportionality so unavailable that the reasonable inbetween becomes invisible? Is characterizing my point that way really being "honest"?

To be fair, you've engaged in a bit of that, too.

You've been suggesting that without the camping and cartography, the game is nothing but a series of combat encounters. Or a railroad. Which is just as reductive, not to mention untrue.

 

[Mort]

"Try to say yes" is good DMing advice for just about any RPG.

This whole tangent about requiring tools to pick a lock, I just don't see it:

3e and 4e have near identical rules on the issue, I just don't see the wide distinction: 3e you need tools and if you have improvised(whatever that means) tools vs. proper you have a minus, 4e you need tools and have a plus for using "proper" tools. different approaches but essentially the same rule.

The bottom line, both edditions give the DM full say - and the DM needs to take the situation into account:

poor quality lock in the slums? the rogue's thumbnail may be an improvised tool (and heck, the rogue may know that hitting these locks just right works, so his fist (aka the Fonzereli bump) may work too.

Lock to the imperial vault? Anything short of the best lockpicks available may be considered improvised.

It's not the system dictating here, it's the DM - and to me that's ok: 3e or 4e the DM needs to dictate (and own up to) the play experience.

 

[LostSoul]

If not entirely new players, then getting more insight on why they are only using "options" from their character sheet might help all to understand what it is that is causing it. That would be the most helpful thing, for yourself and its inclusion in this thread as accounts of it happening, why they are only pulling things from the character sheet, rather than trying new things.

I would like to hear, if they offer an answer, at least.

I'll take a shot at this.

I think Hussar's example shows why this happens. It doesn't matter if you have a spoon or a set of thieves' tools when you want to pick a lock. Great - that allows players to get really creative in their interpretation of what happens in the game world!

That's only as long as the players get creative. What happens when players don't? Nothing. Resolution is exactly the same - make a Thievery check. The game doesn't care how your character opens that lock. That means that actions in the game world aren't part of the currency of the game.

That's not actually the case - the procedure for making skill checks requires the player to describe the character's action in the game world. However, the game will still work if the player simply says, "I make a Thievery check." I think the game suffers when this happens, and steps should have been taken to make sure it didn't (or happened as rarely as possible).

This is why 3E required thieves tools - it encoded fictional causes into the rules. That's not necessary, in my opinion, because you have a DM. And because you have a DM to make those kinds of judgement calls, I think it's better to rely on that person, their authority, and creativity instead of rules. Rules can create strange corner-cases and are subject to lawyering.​

This habit really shows up in combat, where players (in my experience) usually describe their characters actions in two ways: moving miniatures around a battlemap and declaring the name of their Power in their attack (or other rules constructs, like Second Wind). Both of these are artefacts of the real word, not the imagined world, and the imagined world's "reality" suffers as a result.

In my 4E (hack), I know that dropping the battlemap really drew the entire group into the imagined game world.

That's my guess at why this happens, based on weekly play of 4E - save for a six month or so period where I spent time hacking the game to address this.

 

[BryonD]

"Try to say yes" is good DMing advice for just about any RPG.

Exactly

This whole tangent about requiring tools to pick a lock, I just don't see it:

3e and 4e have near identical rules on the issue, I just don't see the wide distinction: 3e you need tools and if you have improvised(whatever that means) tools vs. proper you have a minus, 4e you need tools and have a plus for using "proper" tools. different approaches but essentially the same rule.

So it is, in fact, buried in the 4E system as well. That is good to know and I happily take that grain of sand back offf the scale.

It's not the system dictating here, it's the DM - and to me that's ok: 3e or 4e the DM needs to dictate (and own up to) the play experience.

Again, exactly right.