Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 5997427" data-attributes="member: 336">Well since we're now to quoting rules, here are the ones for the OPEN LOCK skill, from the d20 SRD.&nbsp; I have no interest in pulling out the books to look it up there.&nbsp; You are correct that improvised poses a penalty, I misremembered, but the highlighted area is what's relevant.&nbsp; It implies that without a set of tools the rogue takes a penalty, &quot;even if a simple tool is employed&quot;.What if he doesn't employ a simple tool?&nbsp; According to the relevant skill he'd still take a penalty.&nbsp; If I wanted to be &quot;correct&quot; in my ruling, I had to go look somewhere else for the relevant information.&nbsp; This is another reason why I ended up hating the reliance on the rules of 3.x.&nbsp; Looking at multiple places to determine intent of a particular &quot;rule&quot; was exhausting.&nbsp; Eventually 3.x devolved, IME, to looking for rules all over the place.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; When the reading of the Thieves' Tools description, as you posted, makes it seem as if they are &quot;required&quot; for the checks to even function.Chuck this up as another reason why the &quot;process-sim&quot; argument for these types of rules never satisfied me.-</blockquote>

[QUOTE="D'karr, post: 5997427, member: 336"] 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. 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. - [/QUOTE]

Verification