Keeping Knock from working on a chest.

[Alokue]

So, I have this character who is a first mate aboard a ship with a bunch of people she just met. She has a chest which holds stuff she doesn't want anyone to see. I already have the best lock and an Arcane Lock on it, but if you bring the completely broken, stupid spell Knock up, none of that really matters. I'm looking for a way to keep the chest locked. I don't have a use rope skill, and WBL is 13,000gp, and what's in the chest is decent meat, cheese, and milk for RP purposes so don't break the bank.

[Kazuel]

Would multiple locks force multiple knock spells?

[Urpriest]

Here's the thing: unless the chest is immune to damage, all the locks in the world are irrelevant. Knock is a second level spell. A treasure chest has 5 hardness and 15 hit points. Let's take a third level fighter, suppose he's got 16 Str and using a longsword two-handed with Power Attack. Each hit deals 1d8+9 damage, or 13.5 on average. Your chest is down in 12 seconds.

Now you might object that if the chest is bashed to bits you'll know about it. You're perfectly right, but Knock doesn't make it impossible to tell that someone has broken in to your chest. If all you want is to make sure you know when your chest has been broken into, there are a number of real-life tricks that should work fine in a D&D game, from sticking a hair on the outside of the chest to see if it's been disturbed to using chalk dust.

[Cyrano]

I'm not sure having someone aboard your ship bash your private chest to smithereens is really the sort of case you should be worried about. I mean, if it held priceless gems or baby hearts, and you suspected that your shipmates knew about it, sure. This chest is full of victuals. Unless he's aboard the Ship o' Nutjobs, nobody's gonna take a greatsword to the icebox.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Knock explicitly doesn't affect "ropes, vines, and the like." You might be able to get away with tying the chest shut.

[Sylthia]

You could put an alarm on the chest, or simply have someone guard it.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Anyone who wants to get into you chest is unless you break the bank. save up for an Obdurium chest with many superior/amazing (I sense a copy pasta in the player's handbook on names for lock types) locks.

[Psyren]

You can use the Pathfinder version of Knock, which doesn't automatically defeat locks. A superior lock (DC 40) is only 150 gp. so they would need a CL of 30 to defeat it automatically.

[Curmudgeon]

There's a fairly easy solution to Knock: make it something which can't be targeted by the spell. Knock can only work on "One door, box, or chest". So, instead of keeping your valuables in a chest, make a similar container out of a sturdy barrel. A barrel can't ever be opened via Knock.

[Psyren]

But how do you lock a barrel? All they would need then is a crowbar.

[Curmudgeon]

But how do you lock a barrel? All they would need then is a crowbar.
I'm sure you can get someone to rig up a custom lock for a large, threaded bunghole. They used to do that for brandy and other expensive liquors to keep the help from stealing while they were supposed to be cleaning up.

[Chronos]

Or if we use that interpretation, just get a padlock. The chest itself isn't locked; the padlock attached to it (which is a different object) is.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Get a column in the middle of you cabin. On the column is a secret panel behind which is a superior lock. Unlocking the lock allows you to pull a lever behind a desk. Pulling the lever allows you to move the column. in a hole bellow the column is your stash. Up grade material of the column and compartment lining as it becomes affordable.

[Alokue]

There's a fairly easy solution to Knock: make it something which can't be targeted by the spell. Knock can only work on "One door, box, or chest". So, instead of keeping your valuables in a chest, make a similar container out of a sturdy barrel. A barrel can't ever be opened via Knock.


I'm sure you can get someone to rig up a custom lock for a large, threaded bunghole. They used to do that for brandy and other expensive liquors to keep the help from stealing while they were supposed to be cleaning up.

Thanks Curmudgeon. That works pretty perfectly.

[Deophaun]

There's a fairly easy solution to Knock: make it something which can't be targeted by the spell. Knock can only work on "One door, box, or chest". So, instead of keeping your valuables in a chest, make a similar container out of a sturdy barrel. A barrel can't ever be opened via Knock.
Tippyverse would then require that no one ever kept anything in chests, and instead valuables were kept in barrels.

Then, people start calling barrels "chests," and knock suddenly works on them again.

What if, in a less rules-lawyery fashion, we had a container which had no opening. Now, the question becomes how you access its contents. Passwall would work, but that's a level 5 spell. A stone coffer could be opened with stone shape, so at least you bring that up to a 3rd level spell (4th for arcane types). But, it makes it as hard for you to access as it does for a thief, so that might not be the way to go.

The other option would be a resetting trap of arcane lock. Put it on one of the locks, and set it to go off whenever it is unlocked without some other trigger. Wizard casts knock, lock unlocks, lock casts arcane lock. Lather, rinse, repeat.

As for dealing with bash-happy burglars, that's what hardening is for.

[Curmudgeon]

Thanks Curmudgeon. That works pretty perfectly.
Well, it's not exactly perfect. You're limited to things which can fit into the barrel through the bunghole. So no suits of expensive armor or whatnot. You could roll up a valuable painted canvas, but couldn't store the same thing in a frame.

Tippyverse would then require that no one ever kept anything in chests, and instead valuables were kept in barrels.

Then, people start calling barrels "chests," and knock suddenly works on them again.
Yes, I suppose if the barrels got sufficiently altered to where they functioned as conveniently as chests, that would indeed be the case. I'm not proposing any shenanigans along those lines.

[ArcturusV]

One of my favorite tricks for this? Complete Scoundrel has a "reverse lock". The thing is, that it LOOKS locked to all checks and examinations. No matter what. But it's actually opened. The act of picking it, or using the knock spell on the apparently locked lock, actually locks it while it looks open.

... it sounds silly, and stupid. But that's stumped so many players at my table.

[Psyren]

Thanks Curmudgeon. That works pretty perfectly.

It's also homebrew, so you may as well houserule the Knock spell itself. (At least, I'm unaware of stats for threaded-bunghole custom locks myself.)

[Lord Vukodlak]

You could have a lock that's not actually a lock.

Say for a moment you had a bag of holding in the form of a chest. The trick was you couldn't access the extra dimensional space without they key otherwise you'd just find a regular space inside. On the cheap side you can just have a hidden compartment at the bottom of the chest which contains the bag of holding. Furthermore the chest could have two locks and an arcane lock which means a knock spell would only undo two measures.

My group stopped bashing open chests after an incident where a particularly long and narrow chest contained a staff of power, granted it only had 10 charges left but it still would have been a very useful staff to wield even after the charges were expended.

[Big Fau]

You can use the Pathfinder version of Knock, which doesn't automatically defeat locks. A superior lock (DC 40) is only 150 gp. so they would need a CL of 30 to defeat it automatically.


This is something that bothers me. A completely ordinary craftsman is capable of building a device that requires an Epic-level spellcaster to defeat, but that same device can be straight-up destroyed by a goblin with a stick and a few minutes time.

Locks are utterly stupid in D&D.

[NeoPhoenix0]

This is something that bothers me. A completely ordinary craftsman is capable of building a device that requires an Epic-level spellcaster to defeat, but that same device can be straight-up destroyed by a goblin with a stick and a few minutes time.

Locks are utterly stupid in D&D.

Seriously? you're complaining about something a wizard can't do but a fighter can? What about damage spells? they also work, especially if they have the right type of damage.

[Psyren]

This is something that bothers me. A completely ordinary craftsman is capable of building a device that requires an Epic-level spellcaster to defeat, but that same device can be straight-up destroyed by a goblin with a stick and a few minutes time.

Locks are utterly stupid in D&D.

It doesn't "require" an epic caster - a lower level one can get lucky on their CL check after all. The point is to make it so that level 3 wizards can't autobypass every lock they come across, like they can in 3.5. Isn't that what we want?

[undead hero]

But how do you lock a barrel? All they would need then is a crowbar.

Look into waste drums. They have a ring around the top that can be locked. Hard as hell to put back on once it's off.

I use them to store non hazardous groundwater... Annoying little buggers

[Lord Vukodlak]

This is something that bothers me. A completely ordinary craftsman is capable of building a device that requires an Epic-level spellcaster to defeat, but that same device can be straight-up destroyed by a goblin with a stick and a few minutes time.

Locks are utterly stupid in D&D.

Well first Psyren left out the part where with Knock you get a +10 bonus on that check. Which makes all locks open to the spell caster by about level 10.

Secondly due to how power attack works in pathfinder, it takes a bit longer to smash open objects. Your standard goblin would struggle to damage an iron chest.

Thirdly there isn't much a safe or a chest can do against someone determined to destroy the thing in order to get inside. The main deterrent would be to design it in such a way that the force required to blow it open would also destroy or damage what was inside.

In my group they've destroyed, potions, scrolls, wands and one partially charged staff of power due to simply forcing chests open. Eventually the stopped doing that. They also started closing there eyes when they open chests and feeling around for a note that might contain an explosive ruins spell.

[Seharvepernfan]

Well, if I were a player and I cast knock on a chest with one lock and it didn't open, I'd cast it maybe one more time, and if that didn't work, I'd think the spell wasn't affecting it. Have the chest contain 8 teeny tiny locks on the underside, under a hidden panel or even a permanent silent image, in addition to the main one on the front. Knock only disables two at a time, so the caster would have to cast knock 5 times to open it.

Now, if knock makes a sound as the locks are unlocked, just have them be custom made to open silently.

Nobody is going to cast knock 5 times on a chest if it doesn't work the first two or three times. They'll just think the chest is magically resistant, and focus on either picking the lock normally (pretty hard at DC 40) or bash it in (or steal the key).

[NeoPhoenix0]

Knock doesn't work on padlocks or cables. How about a chest wrapped in obdurium cable with a superior lock.

[Psyren]

Well first Psyren left out the part where with Knock you get a +10 bonus on that check. Which makes all locks open to the spell caster by about level 10.

No, Psyren didn't leave it out. A level 10 caster needs a natural 20 to open a Superior lock with Knock. A level 20 caster meanwhile has a 50/50 shot.

[Alokue]

It's also homebrew, so you may as well houserule the Knock spell itself. (At least, I'm unaware of stats for threaded-bunghole custom locks myself.)

The deal is, the DM will probably go for a locked barrel beating the knock spell, but for some ungodly reason he's a fan of keeping the rules the same even on stupid stuff (I guess the reason is, if he fixed knock, he'd feel obliged to fix every other spell and post the fixes in the house rules section of the PBP.) I actually wasn't going to use the weird threaded barrel thing since I don't really understand what they mean, I was more going to punch holes in the top and side of the barrel and put a padlock through it.

I don't really have to worry about it being destroyed, I just don't want it being fiddled with in a way that someone could negate. Urpriest's real-life tricks work to a point, but they fail if the thief is very observant.

The chest is for holding cheese, milk, and rabbit meat. It's enchanted to purify food and water (he will agree to me counting milk as food.) Because I am a catfolk who likes to eat well. :D But.

[Drachasor]

A permanent Animate Objects could be used. Permanent Invisibility would be a nice safety feature as well. Lastly, you could have the box physically impossible to open, but with a permanent Shrink Item on a crucial part. Say the command word and the part becomes a small piece of cloth and the box can be opened.

Shrink Item also works if it isn't permanent. Of course, if you can do that, you can do Secret Chest, so that might be out of your reach.

Knock is a bit weird though, since it works on things WELDED shut. Bizarre.

Edit: Didn't notice the WBL.

Edit2: Do you have any magic available in general? Mending can let you have non-welded metal of up to 1 pound be used to keep it shut (e.g. can't open). That doesn't count as barred, imho. Break it to open it, then mend it back together. Stops knock, though anyone else could break it too.

I think most of the good ideas have been stated.

Edit3: You could buy a second chest that you keep more securely hidden. First chest is a decoy. Or, have 5 chests, each one a bit smaller than the previous. You'd have to knock each one to get in.

[Lord Vukodlak]

No, Psyren didn't leave it out. A level 10 caster needs a natural 20 to open a Superior lock with Knock. A level 20 caster meanwhile has a 50/50 shot.

Yes you did because you didn't give him the right context into how the knock spell works in pathfinder. Hell you didn't even explain how the Knock spell worked at all now that I think about it. You just said a CL of 30 is needed to beat a Superior Lock automatically.


Knock doesn't work on padlocks or cables. How about a chest wrapped in obdurium cable with a superior lock.
Huh what? where do you get the idea it doesn't work on padlocks? Cables yeah it won't work on cables.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Huh what? where do you get the idea it doesn't work on padlocks? Cables yeah it won't work on cables.

I read the spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/knock.htm) and it doesn't include padlocks. If the padlock is on a chain it will work because it works on chains but it doesn't work on padlocks.

[Devronq]

I noticed no one said antimagic feild, could you just put an antimagic feild on the chest somehow so then you could open it with magic at all?

[NeoPhoenix0]

I noticed no one said antimagic feild, could you just put an antimagic feild on the chest somehow so then you could open it with magic at all?

Suggest a way to put an anti-magic field on a chest with 13,000 or less gold then.

Buying a casting of anti-magic field won't work because it's an emanation centered on you.

[Psyren]

Yes you did because you didn't give him the right context into how the knock spell works in pathfinder. Hell you didn't even explain how the Knock spell worked at all now that I think about it. You just said a CL of 30 is needed to beat a Superior Lock automatically.

Right, 30 + 10 = 40, thus you win regardless of roll. Did I really need to spell that out? Come on now :smallconfused:

And I gave both the DC and price of superior locks too, that's plenty of context. Well, while we're on the subject of poor context, your own post mentioned level 10 casters bypassing every lock - sure it's possible, but a 5% chance per cast isn't much to write home about.

[lesser_minion]

If you have any way to put spell resistance on the chest, it should be effective against the knock spell, despite knock's header claiming otherwise.

Only personal range spells cast on their casters and spells which actually mention not being subject to spell resistance in their description are actually not subject to spell resistance. For any other case, the DMG rules for adjudicating spell resistance (that is, spells that act directly check spell resistance, spells that act indirectly do not) are more specific to the situation (in that they consider it at all) than the "spell resistance: yes/no" line, which is what matters when determining which rule counts.

This is essentially the same principle by which fireball's "spell resistance: yes" line doesn't mean that you can claim spell resistance against damage you took from a fireball hitting a gas pocket.

Note that this is a case where there isn't a single interpretation of the rules -- I'm sure a lot of people believe that it's the spell descriptions that should be seen as more specific -- that can be blessed as 'RAW' over the others. All I can do is throw some reasoning out there and hope that it sticks with some people. So ask your DM before trying this, or if you are the DM, consult with your players. I'm pretty sure that most people would consider this an example of RAW torture, even if they ultimately agree with the conclusion.

Also, animating the chest won't work here -- Knock doesn't give a damn whether or not D&D thinks it's targeting a creature, only whether or not the target is a portal or a container.

[NeoPhoenix0]

@lesser_minion: For the actual effect of a spell the text of the spell takes precedence. Where the text doesn't say the header of the spell takes precedence. The DMG doesn't take precedence for two reasons. One, the spell is more specific than a general rule. Two, Primary source rule, spells are from the players handbook or whatever splat book you got them from not the DMG so the DMG can't take precedence over them.

[lesser_minion]

One, the spell is more specific than a general rule.

I've already explained my reasoning. The spell header is not a specific rule, it is a general rule. Specific means specific to the situation. Virtually all of the rules presented in a spell's description can be overridden as general rules, because they describe the general case in which that spell is used.

As for primary source, specific vs. general trumps primary source. There is certainly no "no rule in another rulebook can override the spell's description" principle in the game.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I suggest putting the goods in an enigma box and putting that in an otherwise standard looking chest.

After opening the regular chest you're presented with two locks which are basic combination locks.

These unlock a pair of hinges which hold fast a set of coded wheels whith a button in the center of each that act as another lock by requiring you to turn them such that they spell the correct code word.

Incorrect code-words cause the first two locks to close again, starting the process over. When the correct code is entered (the owner of the box may have written it down somewhere if you want the players to be able to avoid simply inputting random words until they get it right) the wheels swing open to reveal three locks requiring standard keys that must also be turned in the correct sequence.

Turning one of the keys out of order causes the other two to lock, requiring that you start the sequence over. Each key must be turned once each to the left and right (that is a six turn sequence).

This is effectively ten locks at minimum; eleven if you count the one on the chest itself.

The enigma box sits on a pressure plate trigger for a mechanical trap set to activate if the weight on the trigger is less than the enigma box's empty weight. A set of explosive packs (secrets of sarlonna pg 138) detonates one round after the enigma box is removed from the chest.

The walls of the enigma box are also filled with the contents of explosive packs. Any attack that deals damage to the box causes it to explode on the following round, destroying the contents if they can't survive 30d6 damage.

I'll leave it to you to decide how sturdy the walls of the box are and how many pounds of explosive pack to put in the pressure plate trap.

10lbs of explosive for the box costs 1000gp and at least 2 for the trap costs 200; 333.33 and 66.67 if you make the explosives yourself.

BTW, if the owner doesn't want his goods blown up, a simple note attached to the lip of the chest's lid, such that it swings into plain view when the chest is opened, that says "the box in this chest will explode with the force of a fireball if it's forced open" will probably suffice. Naturally, you'll omit this if you put enough explosive in the trap to cause the box to explode in a chain reaction.

[NeoPhoenix0]

I've already explained my reasoning. The spell header is not a specific rule, it is a general rule. Specific means specific to the situation. Virtually all of the rules presented in a spell's description can be overridden as general rules, because they describe the general case in which that spell is used.

As for primary source, specific vs. general trumps primary source. There is certainly no "no rule in another rulebook can override the spell's description" principle in the game.

I am dumbfounded as to how you can call the general rule about whether the effect of a spell on a creature is direct or indirect is more specific than the header of the specific spell being cast on a creature.

[Drachasor]

Eh, maybe someone already suggested this. How about he just get 10-20 locks. One knock per 2 locks would mean a lot of knocks are needed. They don't even all have to be good locks or even all use different keys.

Actually, forget all that. Spend 2k on a Handy Haversack. I don't you have more than 120lbs of food. Carry it with you, it only ways 5 lbs.

[Der_DWSage]

So, I have this character who is a first mate aboard a ship with a bunch of people she just met. She has a chest which holds stuff she doesn't want anyone to see. I already have the best lock and an Arcane Lock on it, but if you bring the completely broken, stupid spell Knock up, none of that really matters. I'm looking for a way to keep the chest locked. I don't have a use rope skill, and WBL is 13,000gp, and what's in the chest is decent meat, cheese, and milk for RP purposes so don't break the bank.

Getting back to the original topic here...

I can see a few ways to circumvent this issue, definitely.

1.As has been suggested, buy several locks. Five simple locks will run you 100 GP, and while the party Rogue might still get into it, that's generally more spell slots than a Wizard will spend on a lockbox. This can be spread to also account for multiple Arcane Locks.

2.Fakeout. Make them regret trying to steal from you by having five 'decoy' boxes that are just as intricately locked, but also put something into the decoy boxes. A sepia snake sigil, a scrap of paper with Explosive Runes, a cursed Amulet of Thought Projection, an incredibly angry cat that can slaughter a level 3 wizard...the jokes go on. Sooner or later they'll get the hint, and have no one to blame but themselves for poking into things that don't belong to them.

3.It's a little pricy and would require GM fiat, but Spell Immunity(Knock) + Permanency sounds like a legitimate thing that should work. However, this feels like it's leaning on the bank.

4.Throw a magic mouth on there. They only need to get the ear-shattering scream once to let you know to throw them overboard, and again, no one to blame but themselves.

[lesser_minion]

I am dumbfounded as to how you can call the general rule about whether the effect of a spell on a creature is direct or indirect is more specific than the header of the specific spell being cast on a creature.

Your amazement is not a valid counter-argument. It still amounts to "nuh-uh!"

I've already explained my reasoning twice here. You are welcome not to agree with me, but I am not going to be convinced by somebody arbitrarily declaring that I'm wrong.


3.It's a little pricy and would require GM fiat, but Spell Immunity(Knock) + Permanency sounds like a legitimate thing that should work. However, this feels like it's leaning on the bank.

That still requires you to convince the DM that spell resistance does apply, on top of the outright fiat of getting the Spell Immunity up on the chest in the first place (in fact, I'm pretty sure the reason for Knock's spell resistance line is that the designers assumed that no valid target would ever have spell resistance).

[Douglas]

Your amazement is not a valid counter-argument. It still amounts to "nuh-uh!"

I've already explained my reasoning twice here. You are welcome not to agree with me, but I am not going to be convinced by somebody arbitrarily declaring that I'm wrong.
The rule you are referencing is a general principle that applies to all spells in the entire game. Knock's spell header is a rule that applies to that single individual spell. A rule that applies to precisely one spell is obviously more specific than a rule that applies to all spells, therefore Knock's spell header wins, if there even is a conflict, and the existence of that conflict is itself debatable.

Seriously, how is this even in question at all?

In fact, I would characterize the "rule" you reference as being an explanatory guideline about the logic behind how the writers chose "yes" or "no" for each individual spell, not an actual rule - so specific vs general doesn't even come up.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Final statement on spell resistance before i stop discussing it due to it wasting my time. This time in argument form.

From the DMG you have a statement about whether or not to apply spell resistance to spells.

From the PHB you have spell descriptions that include a header on whether or not to apply spell resistance to them.

The DMG statement is a broad statement that covers spells. Note spells is plural.
In the PHB you can take a the header for a spell. Note spell is singular. This header only covers that individual spell effect.

The singular spell is more specific than a statement covering all spells. When you are considering consequences of casting a given spell outside its effect description then you default to the statement in the DMG.

[Der_DWSage]

That still requires you to convince the DM that spell resistance does apply, on top of the outright fiat of getting the Spell Immunity up on the chest in the first place (in fact, I'm pretty sure the reason for Knock's spell resistance line is that the designers assumed that no valid target would ever have spell resistance).

Huh. Knock doesn't have spell resistance-that's kind of a minor detail I never noticed. Thanks for pointing that out.

That being said, it still feels like there should be some spell to ward against Knock, and Spell Immunity feels like one of those that would do the work. Or just a GM fiat 3rd level 'Improved Arcane Lock. Cannot be overcome by Knock' spell.

[lesser_minion]

Seriously, how is this even in question at all?

I already gave my reasoning, and I have no intention of repeating myself. I even made it clear that this was a potentially controversial reading of the rules when I posted it.


Huh. Knock doesn't have spell resistance-that's kind of a minor detail I never noticed. Thanks for pointing that out.

There is a reason I posted a long-winded argument to the effect that Knock actually is subject to spell resistance, you know :smalltongue:.

[Threadnaught]

There is a reason I posted a long-winded argument to the effect that Knock actually is subject to spell resistance, you know :smalltongue:.

That's not RAW.

Whether or not Knock should be subject to Spell Resistance is a whole different discussion. Personally I'd side with the group that would rather it was.

[ahenobarbi]

You could make the chest a creature, like an Animated Object (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm) or a brain-washed Mimic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/mimic.htm) and thus non-subject to Knock.

[Balor01]

X padlocks. 3, 7 or 10.

Sure it may take you 20 rounds to unlock and lock, but hey. Your stuf is quite safe in this.

[Deophaun]

Or just a GM fiat 3rd level 'Improved Arcane Lock. Cannot be overcome by Knock' spell.
There is already a 3rd level improved arcane lock (Stronghold Builder's Guide). Knock still works on it. :smallsigh:

[Steward]

There is already a 3rd level improved arcane lock (Stronghold Builder's Guide). Knock still works on it. :smallsigh:

How about a 9th-level spell, Mordenkainen's Retributive Lock? It's impervious to knock and inflict 4d6 negative levels on anyone who tries to use knock on it, no save?

To make it balanced, the lock falls off on its own if anyone touches it.

[ahenobarbi]

How about a 9th-level spell, Mordenkainen's Retributive Lock? It's impervious to knock and inflict 4d6 negative levels on anyone who tries to use knock on it, no save?

To make it balanced, the lock falls off on its own if anyone touches it.

Firstly too keep it gygaxian you should call it Drawet's Arcane Lock :smallwink:

Secondly it seems a bit too good: Energy Drain (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/energyDrain.htm), also 9th level spell does only 2d4 negative levels.

Thirdly it seems kinda harsh. Trapping the chest may be a good idea, but there's a spell for that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glyphOfWarding.htm).

[Big Fau]

Seriously? you're complaining about something a wizard can't do but a fighter can? What about damage spells? they also work, especially if they have the right type of damage.

My complaint is that it takes a DC 40 check to open the stupid thing, be it a CL check (their Knock spell) or an Open Lock check (the main reason I don't play Rogues is because the party's tank can open a locked door faster 50% of the time, as lock DCs are insane). While boosting skill checks is trivial pumping Open Lock is absurd, especially if the DM allows Disable Device to replicate the effect (and doubly-so if the Rogue has a staff with Knock in it).

Also, Knock is a bad spell because it steals some of the spotlight from the Rogue.

[Deophaun]

Also, Knock is a bad spell because it steals some of the spotlight from the Rogue.
Funny. I think the Rogue is a bad class because something like knock can steal the spotlight from it.

[undead hero]

Funny. I think the Rogue is a bad class because something like knock can steal the spotlight from it.

Next time I want to qualify for a class that has a prerequisite of sneak attack or evasion I'll just cast a knock spell and say I have both.

Sneak attack Knock B****!

[Big Fau]

Sneak attack Knock B****!

"No, you see, the sword is a key. And when you stick it in someone, it unlocks their death."

[Psyren]

My complaint is that it takes a DC 40 check to open the stupid thing, be it a CL check (their Knock spell) or an Open Lock check (the main reason I don't play Rogues is because the party's tank can open a locked door faster 50% of the time, as lock DCs are insane). While boosting skill checks is trivial pumping Open Lock is absurd, especially if the DM allows Disable Device to replicate the effect (and doubly-so if the Rogue has a staff with Knock in it).


There are disadvantages to battering your way through a lock though - being less able to hide the signs of your forced entry, the loud noise it makes compounded by the general lack of stealth that bruisers tend to have, the lock being useless afterward etc. Knock and DD may be harder than simply breaking it, but finesse being more difficult than brute force is realistic in most cases. And though there are ways to mitigate some or all of those drawbacks, those take additional resources themselves.

As for a knock spell, again I say that I'm happy with the way PF implemented it - adding a very easy to remember failure chance to the spell. It makes it so that a scroll of Knock is no longer a universal skeleton key, and even a staff needs a hefty price to be reliable against well-made locks. The rogue meanwhile can take 20, be aided, use tools etc. all of which are reusable resources.

[Drachasor]

As for a knock spell, again I say that I'm happy with the way PF implemented it - adding a very easy to remember failure chance to the spell. It makes it so that a scroll of Knock is no longer a universal skeleton key, and even a staff needs a hefty price to be reliable against well-made locks. The rogue meanwhile can take 20, be aided, use tools etc. all of which are reusable resources.

The implementation just means Knock isn't worth it. Just break the lock and then fix it.

[SethoMarkus]

Why not just put an illusion in the chest of the chest being empty. Use just a simple lock to keep it shut, make sure you are alone and unobserved whenever you access the food items stored within, and not make a big deal out of it. If someone asks to see what's inside the chest, show them that it is empty. If you don't make a big deal about it, I doubt they will really care that much. When you want something, just open the chest and disbelieve the illusion.

Though, since this whole thing is for RP reasons, why worry about Knock and lock picks at all? Wouldn't that introduce a new scenario for roleplay? Someone steals the food from you, so you get a chance to act out your disappointment/anger/sorrow/whatever.

I mean, it's not like you're trying to keep your lichdom phylactery hidden in a bit of cheese in a box...

[Big Fau]

The implementation just means Knock isn't worth it. Just break the lock and then fix it.

(Eternal) Wands of Make Whole are a thing, after all.

[Psyren]

The implementation just means Knock isn't worth it. Just break the lock and then fix it.


(Eternal) Wands of Make Whole are a thing, after all.

If you're trying to sneak in though, fixing the lock after that commotion won't help your cause.

The point of PF Knock is to give a party a chance at functioning without a rogue, but not replace one as thoroughly as 3.5 Knock does.

[Deophaun]

If you're trying to sneak in though, fixing the lock after that commotion won't help your cause.
Silence is also a second level spell.

[Deepbluediver]

How much homebrewing is allowed? As you pointed out, the Knock spell isn't very balanced, so I prefer to change that.
My favorite fix is to just have it perform a Strength check to burst the lock/door/whatever, except replacing Str with your modifier from Intellect.

[Drachasor]

If you're trying to sneak in though, fixing the lock after that commotion won't help your cause.

The point of PF Knock is to give a party a chance at functioning without a rogue, but not replace one as thoroughly as 3.5 Knock does.

That's what Silence* is for....(oh, I'm sorry, this is Pathfinder so that's what Invisibility is for).

And frankly, there are about a million ways to quietly break things and quietly use magic.

*Oh noes, you can't use magic. Bah, use a lantern -- for casting you just have the Line of Effect blocked to make a cone of silence around someone.

[Psyren]

Silence is also a second level spell.

On a wand/scroll, which requires a command word, which must be spoken loudly. Not always practical.

And now you're buying two magic items (one to silence your breakage, and one to repair it) where the rogue can do both for free.

I'm not denying that the options are there, but it just isn't the same as having a rogue. Which is preferable depends on the situation, as intended.

[Drachasor]

On a wand/scroll, which requires a command word, which must be spoken loudly. Not always practical.

And now you're buying two magic items (one to silence your breakage, and one to repair it) where the rogue can do both for free.

I'm not denying that the options are there, but it just isn't the same as having a rogue. Which is preferable depends on the situation, as intended.

In Pathfinder a Rogue is hardly ever preferable to another class. Skills are easier to pick up and tumbling got nerfed TO THE GROUND!

[Telonius]

Take your chest. Lock it. Place it in a larger chest. Lock that. Put those in a larger chest. Lock that.

If it's a prepared spellcaster, there's a fairly low chance they've prepared three Knocks that day. If they haven't, you know a Wizard's been at your goods.

If it's a Sorcerer, they might be getting in.

If it's somebody using an item of Knock, you've just made them waste three charges, likely more costly to them than the contents of the chest.

[Psyren]

In Pathfinder a Rogue is hardly ever preferable to another class. Skills are easier to pick up and tumbling got nerfed TO THE GROUND!

The point I'm making is that using skills to bypass a lock (instead of brute force or magic) carries advantages of its own that don't exist in 3.5. The specific class you use to exercise that skill isn't really relevant to me, so long as DD is on their list.

(In other words, I'm using "rogue" as shorthand for "skillmonkey." Which skillmonkey your group brings along is dependent on the campaign's power level - again, as intended.)

[The Fury]

Sovereign Glue the lid shut. Nobody's gettin' that open! Of course now you have a new problem.

[Psyren]

Sovereign Glue the lid shut. Nobody's gettin' that open! Of course now you have a new problem.

Universal Solvent :smalltongue:

[The Fury]

Oh come on! Who brings Universal Solvent when trying to crack a chest? :smallmad:

[undead hero]

Take your chest. Lock it. Place it in a larger chest. Lock that. Put those in a larger chest. Lock that.

If it's a prepared spellcaster, there's a fairly low chance they've prepared three Knocks that day. If they haven't, you know a Wizard's been at your goods.

If it's a Sorcerer, they might be getting in.

If it's somebody using an item of Knock, you've just made them waste three charges, likely more costly to them than the contents of the chest.

Make sure your PC/NPC has a Russian accent...

[Krobar]

Oh come on! Who brings Universal Solvent when trying to crack a chest? :smallmad:

The guy that has it in his Handy Haversack or Belt of Many Pockets anyway.

You just never know when some sovereign glue or universal solvent will come in handy.

[Chronos]

Disable Device doesn't replace Open Lock. You can disable a lock by jamming gum into the keyhole, but that won't open it.

[Psyren]

Disable Device doesn't replace Open Lock. You can disable a lock by jamming gum into the keyhole, but that won't open it.

In case you're referring to my posts, I was referencing Pathfinder rules (where DD and Open Lock were combined into one skill.)

[Deophaun]

On a wand/scroll, which requires a command word, which must be spoken loudly. Not always practical.
It has a duration of three minutes, and the silence effect itself is handy during the initial B&E. The scenarios where it's not always practical are rare enough to not be worth considering.

And now you're buying two magic items (one to silence your breakage, and one to repair it) where the rogue can do both for free.
Assuming both need to be done at all (considering that alarm and magic mouth are cheap and easy ways to thwart any rogue's efforts to hide his theft).

What you're left with is the rogue's skills are superior only when you need to be absolutely sure no one knows that a low-value target was stolen as soon as they walk into a room.

[Chronos]

In case you're referring to my posts, I was referencing Pathfinder rules (where DD and Open Lock were combined into one skill.)Oh, OK then. I've seen others elsewhere argue that the same was true in 3.5, and I thought you were doing the same.

[RFLS]

The deal is, the DM will probably go for a locked barrel beating the knock spell, but for some ungodly reason he's a fan of keeping the rules the same even on stupid stuff.

*raises eyebrow menacingly* Grrr.

[Vaz]

One of my favorite tricks for this? Complete Scoundrel has a "reverse lock". The thing is, that it LOOKS locked to all checks and examinations. No matter what. But it's actually opened. The act of picking it, or using the knock spell on the apparently locked lock, actually locks it while it looks open.

... it sounds silly, and stupid. But that's stumped so many players at my table.

Combine that with a standard lock, so that whenever one is open, the other is locked, with only a skeleton key of some sort (always kept hidden on your person) capable of bypassing both.

[Sith_Happens]

Thirdly it seems kinda harsh. Trapping the chest may be a good idea, but there's a spell for that (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glyphOfWarding.htm).

Oh, right, there's that. Instead of trying to beat Knock on 13000 gp, just buy a Glyph Seal (MIC) for 1000 gp and have a buddy put your favorite eligible spell in it.

[ahenobarbi]

Oh, right, there's that. Instead of trying to beat Knock on 13000 gp, just buy a Glyph Seal (MIC) for 1000 gp and have a buddy put your favorite eligible spell in it.

Wow. That's a superb item there... I want a character built around it :smallwink:

Buy collar of perpetual attendance for unseen servant swarm, hand each servant one of those babies, win initiative, say supercalafragalisticexpialadoshus (which trigger readied action of each servant to setup the trap where it is) and make enemies trigger traps (hmm... bull rush with telekinesis).

[Psyren]

It has a duration of three minutes

...Which is great if you know where every lock you need to sneak by is 3 minutes before you reach it.



and the silence effect itself is handy during the initial B&E.

Of course silence is handy if you plan to bash every lock you come across, I never denied that. The silence + make whole combo is a good workaround for when you have nobody with DD. But a workaround is all it is, and it has disadvantages of its own - e.g. needing two level 2 spells and a strong arm to handle every lock instead of one, or none.



The scenarios where it's not always practical are rare enough to not be worth considering.

Incentive to be stealthy is part of plenty of modules and campaigns.



Assuming both need to be done at all (considering that alarm and magic mouth are cheap and easy ways to thwart any rogue's efforts to hide his theft).

I'm glad you mentioned Alarm, which is a level 1 magic trap, thus the rogue has a good shot at knowing it's there long before he is in range of it and taking precautions. One more reason to use the rogue instead of the BSF, who won't even realize the danger until it's too late.