Can I disable a magic item, with disable device?

[Max Caysey]

I've just read something quite interesting, in stronghold builders guidebook.

Disabling Wall Augmentations
Remember that augmentations are essentially magic items, and magic exists through which their effects can be temporarily suppressed (such as dispel magic) or permanently disjoined (such as Mordenkainen’s disjunction). Treat each stronghold space of augmented wall (or each 800 square feet, for freestanding walls) as a separate magic item for this purpose. As stationary magic items (see Wondrous Architecture, below), wall augmentations can be discovered by a rogue (or other character capable of finding traps) and deactivated with a Disable Device check. The DC for both Search and Disable Device checks is equal to 25 + the spell level of the highest-level spell used in the creation of the wall augmentation. If a wall has multiple augmentations, each one must be discovered and disabled separately. A successful Disable Device check against a wall augmentation suppresses the magic properties (just as if you had successfully cast dispel magic against the item)of a 5-foot-by-5-foot section of the wall for 1d4 rounds. If you beat the DC by 10 or more, you suppress the magic properties for 1d4 minutes instead.

This I find utterly crazy. Lets say Sneakky Mcbad is a level 3 rogue, has 18 int, nible fingers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#nimbleFingers), and masterwork thieves tools. He approaces Laloch Tower, wich is augmented with a level 9 spell, thus making the DC 34. Now Sneakky McBad just simply takes 20 and away the augmentation goes, even though it has been cast by a level #¤%&/ lich. Can anyone explain how a simple mundane skill, can suppres magic?

I find this exptremly lame, and I'm hoping that someone here can tell me, how or why they seem it fair, that a level 3 rogues is all it need to take care of this? And how the DC migh be improved dramatically!

EDIT: If you had a +2 skill item, like some magical gloves, a level 1 could do this... :smallconfused::smallannoyed:

[Fax Celestis]

Two things: being able to do that is exactly what the Trapfinding ability does. And he can't just take 20: you can't take 20 if there's ever a chance of negative effects on a failure.

He can take 10, which will make your example rogue hit a 24, but that's not that high a DC.

[Max Caysey]

Two things: being able to do that is exactly what the Trapfinding ability does. And he can't just take 20: you can't take 20 if there's ever a chance of negative effects on a failure.

You take 20 on seach, but since the wall augmentation does not "go off" like a trap there is no risk at failiure, it just isnt suppressed, so you try again, and again... hence until you hit 20 or simply just take 20. I agree you cant do this in a trap, but a wall augmentation is like a magic item, not a trap...

[Fax Celestis]

You're sure there's no way it could do sonething? Why would a rogue want to disable something that doesn't pose a threat?

Further, even if he could take 20, that would still take 40-160 rounds (2d4*20) (or 4-16 minutes). That's a long time.

[Max Caysey]

You're sure there's no way it could do sonething? Why would a rogue want to disable something that doesn't pose a threat?

Further, even if he could take 20, that would still take 40-160 rounds (2d4*20) (or 4-16 minutes). That's a long time.

If you wanted to weaken a spot in the wall, because the entrance was guarded, that could be done by removing all the augmentations, allawing for ethereal or gasious passing, or removing the elemental protection, or the magical treatment reducing Hardness and hitpoints, thus making it easyer to create a hole...

But am I the only one who thinks this is way stupid? First of all, I find it strange that if wall augmentations are like a magic item, that disable device can suppress this, seeing that the skill cant (to my knowledge) disable magic items. And then the DC is so low, that a level 1 actually could do it...

[Fax Celestis]

If you wanted to weaken a spot in the wall, because the entrance was guarded, that could be done by removing all the augmentations, allawing for ethereal or gasious passing, or removing the elemental protection, or the magical treatment reducing Hardness and hitpoints, thus making it easyer to create a hole...

Except that they're only suppressed for 1d4 rounds, and he has to disable each augmentation individually. Each one takes at minimum 2d4 rounds to disable, much longer if he's taking 20. Put three augmentations on your wall and a rogue will never be able to disable all three at the same time.

[Melcar]

I've just read something quite interesting, in stronghold builders guidebook.

Disabling Wall Augmentations
Remember that augmentations are essentially magic items, and magic exists through which their effects can be temporarily suppressed (such as dispel magic) or permanently disjoined (such as Mordenkainen’s disjunction). Treat each stronghold space of augmented wall (or each 800 square feet, for freestanding walls) as a separate magic item for this purpose. As stationary magic items (see Wondrous Architecture, below), wall augmentations can be discovered by a rogue (or other character capable of finding traps) and deactivated with a Disable Device check. The DC for both Search and Disable Device checks is equal to 25 + the spell level of the highest-level spell used in the creation of the wall augmentation. If a wall has multiple augmentations, each one must be discovered and disabled separately. A successful Disable Device check against a wall augmentation suppresses the magic properties (just as if you had successfully cast dispel magic against the item)of a 5-foot-by-5-foot section of the wall for 1d4 rounds. If you beat the DC by 10 or more, you suppress the magic properties for 1d4 minutes instead.

This I find utterly crazy. Lets say Sneakky Mcbad is a level 3 rogue, has 18 int, nible fingers (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#nimbleFingers), and masterwork thieves tools. He approaces Laloch Tower, wich is augmented with a level 9 spell, thus making the DC 34. Now Sneakky McBad just simply takes 20 and away the augmentation goes, even though it has been cast by a level #¤%&/ lich. Can anyone explain how a simple mundane skill, can suppres magic?

I find this exptremly lame, and I'm hoping that someone here can tell me, how or why they seem it fair, that a level 3 rogues is all it need to take care of this? And how the DC migh be improved dramatically!

EDIT: If you had a +2 skill item, like some magical gloves, a level 1 could do this... :smallconfused::smallannoyed:

Your quote says: "A successful Disable Device check against a wall augmentation suppresses the magic properties (just as if you had successfully cast dispel magic against the item)of a 5-foot-by-5-foot section of the wall for 1d4 rounds" Just make sure the creator of the wall augmentations are CL 21, then dispel magic, will not have high enough check possible to dispel the magic, and so neither can a disbable device, since it does not include greater dispel magic, reaving dispel og Mordenkainen's Disjunction. Those spells could do it of cource, but only dispel magic is mentioned in connection to the disable device. Its true that the augmentations have low caster level, but thats just the minimum caster level. So just have some epic level caster to do it, then the augmentations become a lot stronger.

[torrasque666]

Your quote says: "A successful Disable Device check against a wall augmentation suppresses the magic properties (just as if you had successfully cast dispel magic against the item)of a 5-foot-by-5-foot section of the wall for 1d4 rounds" Just make sure the creator of the wall augmentations are CL 21, then dispel magic, will not have high enough check possible to dispel the magic, and so neither can a disbable device, since it does not include greater dispel magic, reaving dispel og Mordenkainen's Disjunction. Those spells could do it of cource, but only dispel magic is mentioned in connection to the disable device. Its true that the augmentations have low caster level, but thats just the minimum caster level. So just have some epic level caster to do it, then the augmentations become a lot stronger.

I think its more referring to the suppression mechanic than anything else, given that of your spells listed, only Disjunction doesn't refer to Dispel Magic as a base.

[Melcar]

I think its more referring to the suppression mechanic than anything else, given that of your spells listed, only Disjunction doesn't refer to Dispel Magic as a base.

Might be, though it would make sense that Larloch's augmentation could not just be taken down by some low level (in terms of principle at least). If it were only a suppresion mechanics reference, then they clould have just said: "dispel check" and not include the specific spell name.

Personally I would rule as such... But this is the RAW forum to end all RAW forums... soo :smallwink:

[torrasque666]

Might be, though it would make sense that Larloch's augmentation could not just be taken down by some low level (in terms of principle at least). If it were only a suppresion mechanics reference, then they clould have just said: "dispel check" and not include the specific spell name.

Personally I would rule as such... But this is the RAW forum to end all RAW forums... soo :smallwink:

Aye, but can it really be counted as a success if it would fail? Can't now can it? Therefore, if the DD check passes, it suppresses the effects regardless of the caster level.​

[Melcar]

Aye, but can it really be counted as a success if it would fail? Can't now can it? Therefore, if the DD check passes, it suppresses the effects regardless of the caster level.​

Well it does mention the specific spell (dispel magic), I mean they could have easily have mantioned other or dispel as a general thing, but they chose to mention a specific spell. That might just indicate, that there is a maximum casterleve possibility of suppresion. I cant say that for sure... but usually i have been told, here, that specifics are important. Thus, the wall augmentations cant be dispelled if the caster level is above 19 (with dispel magic), and that is the spell tied to disable device in this context.

I would agree with your statement, if it sayd a dispel check or something similar, general, but it mentions the spell dispel magic, specifically and that spell has a limit, thus disable device must have a limit too... by my reasoning.

[Phelix-Mu]

Also keep in mind that Stronghold Builder's Guidebook is a 3.0 resource, and so little idiosyncrasies in language are to be expected when viewed from a 3.5 standpoint. Not that it's relevant in this case; it may or may not be, and actually knowing one way or the other is a real hassle, if even possible at all.

So, for all 3.0 stuff, I generally just say "make sure your DM agrees that it works this way." Because 3.5 is incoherent enough without expecting it to communicate well with its predecessor.:smallwink:

[Necroticplague]

A rogue can disable the augmentation like he can a magic trap. Even if the magic is relatively persistent (thus why it is so quick to re-assert itself), its does have some actual presence is the world. Sure, its a bit fantastic, that a skilled rogue could find the weak point in a spell to shut it down for a little bit, but so is the fact you can imbue a wall with magic in the first place.

[Crake]

I would agree with your statement, if it sayd a dispel check or something similar, general, but it mentions the spell dispel magic, specifically and that spell has a limit, thus disable device must have a limit too... by my reasoning.

Nothing in the dispel magic spell says that spells of caster level 21+ cannot be affected by the spell. Just because the check is limited at +10, doesn't mean it is unable to affect those spells. There are a variety of methods around that limitation, which according to your reasoning would still not allow you to dispel spells of CL21+ yet they do. The +10 cap is irrelevant, because the dispel check is treated as an automatic success (as noted in the rules text, a dispel magic spell is determined as successful or not by the dispel check, if it says "as if you successfully cast dispel magic", the dispel check is treated as if it succeeded)

[torrasque666]

I would agree with your statement, if it sayd a dispel check or something similar, general, but it mentions the spell dispel magic, specifically and that spell has a limit, thus disable device must have a limit too... by my reasoning.


Nothing in the dispel magic spell says that spells of caster level 21+ cannot be affected by the spell. Just because the check is limited at +10, doesn't mean it is unable to affect those spells. There are a variety of methods around that limitation, which according to your reasoning would still not allow you to dispel spells of CL21+ yet they do. The +10 cap is irrelevant, because the dispel check is treated as an automatic success (as noted in the rules text, a dispel magic spell is determined as successful or not by the dispel check, if it says "as if you successfully cast dispel magic", the dispel check is treated as if it succeeded)

This guy has it. There are easy ways to gain bonuses to dispel checks, both Soultouched Spellshaping(MoI, gives insight bonus equal to invested essentia) and Elven Spell Lore(PH2, +2 to dispel and SR caster checks) come to mind.

[Max Caysey]

A rogue can disable the augmentation like he can a magic trap. Even if the magic is relatively persistent (thus why it is so quick to re-assert itself), its does have some actual presence is the world. Sure, its a bit fantastic, that a skilled rogue could find the weak point in a spell to shut it down for a little bit, but so is the fact you can imbue a wall with magic in the first place.

I dont have much of a problem with skilled rogues doing this, but a level 1 i have huge problems with. I dont understand why casterlevel doesnt matter. Elminster or Larloch or Ioulaums augmentations should be way more dificult do take down that say a level 5. They are not and I think that when a level 1 rogue can disable a level 9 augmentation by Ioulaum, something is wrong. I personally think that casterlevel should apply or that there was some way om improving the DC... alot!

To begin with I dont even understand how they can disable a magi item... that to me if all "#¤%& up to begin with...

[Melcar]

Nothing in the dispel magic spell says that spells of caster level 21+ cannot be affected by the spell. Just because the check is limited at +10, doesn't mean it is unable to affect those spells. There are a variety of methods around that limitation, which according to your reasoning would still not allow you to dispel spells of CL21+ yet they do. The +10 cap is irrelevant, because the dispel check is treated as an automatic success (as noted in the rules text, a dispel magic spell is determined as successful or not by the dispel check, if it says "as if you successfully cast dispel magic", the dispel check is treated as if it succeeded)

Yes... thats true that you could have something that boosted you effective casterlevel above +10, but then have someone with circle magic to do your augmentations for you... until that casterlevel is so high that dispel magic cant effect it. something like CL 40+11 = 51 (+4 for ring on enduring arcana) so it would then take a dispel check of 55 to dispel them it would be quite hard to get dispel magic, with a normal max of +10 to reach 55... just saying.

I see what you mean, and understand what you are saying... just not liking it, and in this event I would house rule as such :smallsmile:

[torrasque666]

I dont have much of a problem with skilled rogues doing this, but a level 1 i have huge problems with. I dont understand why casterlevel doesnt matter. Elminster or Larloch or Ioulaums augmentations should be way more dificult do take down that say a level 5. They are not and I think that when a level 1 rogue can disable a level 9 augmentation by Ioulaum, something is wrong. I personally think that casterlevel should apply or that there was some way om improving the DC... alot!
To begin with I dont even understand how they can disable a magi item... that to me if all "#¤%& up to begin with...

Its applying them more as magical traps than the traditional magic items that are worn/carried due to their permanently stationary nature.

Or are you saying that rogues, the one class(in core) that can find and disable magical traps doesn't make sense?

And to disable a level 9 augmentation, the rogue would need to roll a nat 20 on the DD check, even if using your theoretical rogue from the OP. Otherwise, they A) must have failed by 4 or less(so a nat 16) and B) must be aware they failed(which they might not be, depending on the visibility of the augment.)

A +14 on a skill check IS someone who is absurdly highly skilled and well trained. Does that really seem too far-fetched, or are you just going with the mindset of the Guy at the Gym?


I see what you mean, and understand what you are saying... just not liking it, and in this event I would house rule as such :smallsmile:
Well, as you put it, this is
this is the RAW forum to end all RAW forums... soo :smallwink: soo.....

[Max Caysey]

[FONT=Verdana]

Its applying them more as magical traps than the traditional magic items that are worn/carried due to their permanently stationary nature.

Or are you saying that rogues, the one class(in core) that can find and disable magical traps doesn't make sense?


I little bit of both... But as I can see this is the way it was intended.

On another note... how do I then disallow this to happen? How do I either remove the possibility, or raise the DC? What can I do, as a stronghold builder? Could I simply ward my stuff, and permanency the whole thing? Woundn't that make it impossible for rougues to disable the spells, since they now were just permanent area spells?

[Chronos]

Others have already told the solution: You just put multiple redundant augments on the walls, so they can't get them down at the same time.

As to how it works in-game, I always picture it as the magic depending on complicated writing and patterns of lines on the object, and the rogue can figure out which ones to smudge or scratch to short it out.

[Melcar]

I little bit of both... But as I can see this is the way it was intended.

On another note... how do I then disallow this to happen? How do I either remove the possibility, or raise the DC? What can I do, as a stronghold builder? Could I simply ward my stuff, and permanency the whole thing? Woundn't that make it impossible for rougues to disable the spells, since they now were just permanent area spells?

After thinking upon this again I think you could do the following:

1) Simply ruling that disable device cant be used to suppres magic. It cant suppres a permanent prismatic sphere, so it cant suppress a permanent teleportation circle. Period. You simply disallow te skill to work like that.

2) Have the CL matter. Adding the caster level to the DC would increase the dificulty, without removing the possibility in total. Ethereal Solid would as such add a minimum of +9 to the dc.

3) Add the same rule as with permanency, that the rogue has to be of equal level as the caster/builder of the ward, or higher to suppress it. Leaving the DC alone. Meaning that if the caster was level 21, then the rogue would have to be level 21 to suppress it.

I think they could all work seeing you are unhappy with the current rules.

[Psyren]

Disable Dweomer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/disable-dweomer) lets you do this in PF. It's impractical during combat, but it's also easier to optimize a skill check than a dispel check.

As for how it works, I would imagine it works like using it to disarm a magic trap. (I like Haley's explanation. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0867.html))

[Max Caysey]

Disable Dweomer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/disable-dweomer) lets you do this in PF. It's impractical during combat, but it's also easier to optimize a skill check than a dispel check.

As for how it works, I would imagine it works like using it to disarm a magic trap. (I like Haley's explanation. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0867.html))

Dammit... that is a good explanation... I still dont like, that a level 1 can do it. I personally feel it should be somewhat more difficult, if done by someone like Larloch or Srinshee etc.

Im reminded of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9GpgKi6yL8).

[sleepyphoenixx]

In a world where magical protections are the norm it's not all that surprising that someone who specializes in circumventing security measures would learn to get around them.
As for it being possible at level 1 - it is, but very unlikely to succeed. See the rules for Disable Device:

The Disable Device check is made secretly, so that you don’t necessarily know whether you’ve succeeded.

The DC depends on how tricky the device is. Disabling (or rigging or jamming) a fairly simple device has a DC of 10; more intricate and complex devices have higher DCs.

If the check succeeds, you disable the device. If it fails by 4 or less, you have failed but can try again. If you fail by 5 or more, something goes wrong. If the device is a trap, you spring it. If you’re attempting some sort of sabotage, you think the device is disabled, but it still works normally.

These rules also mean that you can't really take 20 on the check - taking 20 means you try until you succeed, and the ability to fail while thinking you succeeded means that approach is useless.

All that aside, walls and other static defenses aren't really meant to keep people from sneaking in. That's what guards and traps are for.

[Lightlawbliss]

...
All that aside, walls and other static defenses aren't really meant to keep people from sneaking in. That's what guards and traps are for.

This is a very good point. The wall wasn't to stop the spy, It was to stop or funnel the enemy hoards.

Also, I would expect a lvl 20 caster to have an initial defense like requiring the ability to fly to get to the wall anywhere save the gate. (assuming they need to actually let people that can't fly in and out in the first place.)

[Psyren]

Thinking on it more, I wonder what Disable Dweomer would really be used for. I guess you could use it to suppress a cursed item long enough to dump it?


These rules also mean that you can't really take 20 on the check - taking 20 means you try until you succeed, and the ability to fail while thinking you succeeded means that approach is useless.

I don't buy that. Thinking you succeeded is not really a "penalty for failure." Setting off a trap is, but jamming a machine or disrupting a magical effect that won't do anything to you if you fail (e.g. suppressing a magic sword) has no penalties.

Considering that in PF, DD is used to open locks, this would mean that you can't take 20 on a lock anymore. That is clearly not the way the rules are intended to work.

[Fax Celestis]

Considering that in PF, DD is used to open locks, this would mean that you can't take 20 on a lock anymore. That is clearly not the way the rules are intended to work.

Not really? Locks have a very real mechanism for displaying failure: the lock doesn't open.

[Psyren]

Not really? Locks have a very real mechanism for displaying failure: the lock doesn't open.

Right, and that's not a penalty, thus you can take 20.

Also, "sabotage" would mean jamming a lock behind you, and that use becomes impossible if "believe you succeeded" counts as a "penalty."

[sleepyphoenixx]

Right, and that's not a penalty, thus you can take 20.

Also, "sabotage" would mean jamming a lock behind you, and that use becomes impossible if "believe you succeeded" counts as a "penalty."

This is not a matter of interpretation, it's straight from the Disable Device rules. And "believe you succeeded when you didn't" is very much a penalty when it concerns the magical effects the OP talks about.

Taking 20 includes failing and trying again. You can't retry if you're not aware you've failed (also RAW), so you can't take 20.

[animewatcha]

Everyone remember puzzles in video games where everything has to be done 'right or there-abouts' and sometimes needs precise timing? While level 20 characters can passwall traps, level 1 characters might need to suppress traps so that the arrow can hit the special spot/button ( let's call it concealment for simplicity's sake ) on the wall with the characters needing to run like heck cause the door opening has a timed mechanism.

Platformers, puzzle games, etc.

[Psyren]

This is not a matter of interpretation, it's straight from the Disable Device rules.

"Believing you succeeded" is RAW, yes. Whether that is a penalty however is very much open to interpretation.

Think about it. You can take 20 on Spot/Search, and believe nothing is there even if you are quite wrong. You can take 20 on Disguise, but you won't ever know how good you've done until you wear it and try to walk past the guards. It's no different here.

[Curmudgeon]

You can take 20 on Spot/Search, and believe nothing is there even if you are quite wrong. You can take 20 on Disguise, but you won't ever know how good you've done until you wear it and try to walk past the guards. It's no different here.
As I read it, any skill where the rules say something like
Check: Your DM makes the Disable Device check for you secretly, so that you don’t necessarily know whether you’ve succeeded. normally precludes taking 10 or taking 20. (If you've got some special ability which says you can take 10/20, obviously that's a specific exception.) So Decipher Script, Disable Device, Disguise, Forgery, and maybe Sense Motive, Spot, and Use Rope (some applications) don't allow you to take 10/20; your DM is making the check (not you), and you're not allowed to know what the result was.

[sleepyphoenixx]

"Believing you succeeded" is RAW, yes. Whether that is a penalty however is very much open to interpretation.

Think about it. You can take 20 on Spot/Search, and believe nothing is there even if you are quite wrong. You can take 20 on Disguise, but you won't ever know how good you've done until you wear it and try to walk past the guards. It's no different here.

Believing you disabled something when you actually didn't is very much a penalty for failure. Even if you debate that, "trying (and failing a lot) until you succeed" means you'll actually believe that the wall is disabled when it isn't - meaning you won't try further. So taking 20 makes absolutely no sense in this instance.

[Psyren]

Believing you disabled something when you actually didn't is very much a penalty for failure. Even if you debate that, "trying (and failing a lot) until you succeed" means you'll actually believe that the wall is disabled when it isn't - meaning you won't try further. So taking 20 makes absolutely no sense in this instance.

So if you take 20 on Search, and you didn't find anything in the first few seconds, you stopped looking then, right? So taking 20 on Search is impossible? Despite that being a specific example for a valid Take 20 in the PHB, pg. 65?


As I read it, any skill where the rules say something like normally precludes taking 10 or taking 20. (If you've got some special ability which says you can take 10/20, obviously that's a specific exception.) So Decipher Script, Disable Device, Disguise, Forgery, and maybe Sense Motive, Spot, and Use Rope (some applications) don't allow you to take 10/20; your DM is making the check (not you), and you're not allowed to know what the result was.

No, you make your spot check (if you're doing it actively, anyway) - the DM hides the DC from you, sure , or makes the Hide check of {whatever is hiding} secretly, but you roll Spot, just like you roll Search and you roll Disable Device.

And as above, you don't know if you succeeded or failed on Search just because you didn't find anything, yet you're still allowed to take 20.

[Curmudgeon]

No, you make your spot check (if you're doing it actively, anyway) - the DM hides the DC from you, sure , or makes the Hide check of {whatever is hiding} secretly, but you roll Spot, just like you roll Search and you roll Disable Device.
I added the "(some applications)" qualifier for Spot (specifically for reading lips). But no, you're definitely not rolling Disable Device. It says so explicitly in the rules (Player's Handbook, page 72), and that's what "made secretly" means: you don't get to know the number.

[Jowgen]

Taking 10 falls under the "checks without roll" section of the rules, and it is never stated that a player can not opt to take 10 instead of rolling when then DM is supposed to roll.

The spell Magic Circle against Evil even provides a specific example, where a player is stated to be allowed to take 10 on the Spellcraft roll needed for one of the spells fuctions, even though this would be a secret roll.

The DM makes this check secretly. If the check fails, the diagram is ineffective. You can take 10 (see page 65) when drawing the diagram if you are under no particular time pressure to complete the task.

[Psyren]

Curmudgeon's stance is that if you state a number (i.e. "I would like to take 20 on this check") then you know the number, and therefore it violates RAW. But what the rules actually say is that you don't know the result, i.e. whether you pass/fail. And taking 10 or taking 20 does not tell you the ultimate result - you can still fail a roll even if you take 20.

[Curmudgeon]

Taking 10 falls under the "checks without roll" section of the rules, and it is never stated that a player can not opt to take 10 instead of rolling when then DM is supposed to roll.

The spell Magic Circle against Evil even provides a specific example, where a player is stated to be allowed to take 10 on the Spellcraft roll needed for one of the spells fuctions, even though this would be a secret roll.

The DM makes this check secretly. If the check fails, the diagram is ineffective. You can take 10 (see page 65) when drawing the diagram if you are under no particular time pressure to complete the task.
There's a difference between just "the DM rolls secretly" and "you do not know the result". Magic Circle against Evil has just the first prohibition, whereas Disable Device also includes the second. If you know all the numbers (including 10 instead of an unknown d20 roll), you know the result.

[Psyren]

Since skills don't autosucceed, if you don't know the DC, then just knowing the die number tells you nothing. So no, you don't actually know the result.

[Curmudgeon]

Since skills don't autosucceed, if you don't know the DC, then just knowing the die number tells you nothing. So no, you don't actually know the result.
The thing is, once you know the Search result to find a trap, you also know the DC to disable it: they're the same number (Dungeon Master's Guide, pages 67-68). So if you are allowed to know that the Disable Device check is equal to or greater than the Search check to find the trap, you're violating the "you don’t necessarily know whether you’ve succeeded" rule. Because you're not allowed to know the check number with Disable Device in the case of a trap, and the rule isn't specific to traps, we have to conclude that you're not normally allowed to know the number with any Disable Device check.

[sleepyphoenixx]

So if you take 20 on Search, and you didn't find anything in the first few seconds, you stopped looking then, right? So taking 20 on Search is impossible? Despite that being a specific example for a valid Take 20 in the PHB, pg. 65?


We're not talking about Spot and Search, we're talking about Disable Device. There's a difference between being extra thorough when searching a room/looking for something and thinking you have something disabled when you don't.
Disable Device also explicitly mentions that you can't retry when you miss the check by more than 4, which pretty much precludes taking 20 by definition unless you're barely capable of failing the check anyway.

[Jowgen]

There's a difference between just "the DM rolls secretly" and "you do not know the result". Magic Circle against Evil has just the first prohibition, whereas Disable Device also includes the second. If you know all the numbers (including 10 instead of an unknown d20 roll), you know the result.

There is nothing to suggest that these are seperate prohibitions, as all skills that specify that the DM makes the roll secretly (Decipher Script, Disable Device, Forgery, Sense Motive, Read Lips via Spot, Use rope) go on to say that this is for purpose of leaving the player in doubt regarding their success in the very same sentence. Unless you can name an instance where a roll is made secretly for any other purpose, or at the very very least doesn't descibe the two supposed seperate prohibitions in seperate sentences, they are not seperate prohibitions.


The thing is, once you know the Search result to find a trap, you also know the DC to disable it: they're the same number (Dungeon Master's Guide, pages 67-68). So if you are allowed to know that the Disable Device check is equal to or greater than the Search check to find the trap, you're violating the "you don’t necessarily know whether you’ve succeeded" rule. Because you're not allowed to know the check number with Disable Device in the case of a trap, and the rule isn't specific to traps, we have to conclude that you're not normally allowed to know the number with any Disable Device check.

Your argument is mudded up by meta-gaming elements, as a player who doesn't know this rule wouldn't know that search DC = Disabling DC, while the knowledge that "the harder the trap is to find the harder it is to disable" might not be known in character. Furthermore, even if a player/character does know this rule, other factors might affect the search and disabling DC seperately without the player knowing (e.g. DM secretly awards a +2 circumstance bonus to find but not to disable because the player has managed to spot the blood left by the last trap-victim).

Simply finding the trap doesn't tell you what the exact Disable DC is. If the search DC was 25, and you found it with a 30 (by it by rolling or taking 10/20), at best you'd know that you ought to be able to disable the trap by also hitting a DC 30, unless of course the DM has given you a bonus on your search, or gives you a penalty to your Disable Device, in which case even a 30 might not be enough.

Disable Device description specifically states that the roll is made "secretly, so that you don’t necessarily know whether you’ve succeeded" (emphasis mine). The use of "nessecarily" shows that it the player being unable to predict the outcome is no a hard universal rule, and since the player can never be certain what kind of check he'll need exactly, he'll will never nessecarily know whether Taking 10 is enough or not.

Yes, he will know his un-modified check result, and I do get where you're coming from with this seemingly going against the point of keeping the result secret, but as the RAW lies, taking 10 on a Disable Device is fine.

To emphasise this point, here is an excpert from the Ritual of Theft Truebond Benefit (DMG II, p. 235): "You gain a +2 bonus on any Open Lock or Search check on which you take 20, and on any Bluff, Disable Device, or Sleight of Hand check on which you take 10.".

[Lightlawbliss]

...
Disable Device also explicitly mentions that you can't retry when you miss the check by more than 4, which pretty much precludes taking 20 by definition unless you're barely capable of failing the check anyway.

Why is this discussion occurring? As the quoted post pointed out, there is a limit on retry that essentially negates the value of taking 20 when it is even possible. The try again portion also states you must know you failed to try again. Combined, this essentially negates taking 20 at any time where you would do so.

[Melcar]

I think in many cases, taking 20 should not include, "you failed many times". It could be, that by being really careful, and by using the appropiate amount of time, would, like when we see movies where they disable bombs, have one try at it, but because you spend a long time really studying the bomb/trap when you do "go for it" the result is that much better. To me that would work, without me knowing anything about the DC. In many cases this action would seem strange. When do you know when to stop trying, when do you know to continue applying the skill, when you first did not succeed.

[torrasque666]

I think in many cases, taking 20 should not include, "you failed many times". It could be, that by being really careful, and by using the appropiate amount of time, would, like when we see movies where they disable bombs, have one try at it, but because you spend a long time really studying the bomb/trap when you do "go for it" the result is that much better. To me that would work, without me knowing anything about the DC. In many cases this action would seem strange. When do you know when to stop trying, when do you know to continue applying the skill, when you first did not succeed.

You're free to think that, but the SRD has this to say:

Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.

Emphasis mine.

[Melcar]

You're free to think that, but the SRD has this to say:


Emphasis mine.

Indeed it does... I keep forgetting, though I should know it by now that this is the RAW forum! :smallbiggrin:

[SiuiS]

Why are we assuming a rogue working on a magic wall security system doesn't have goggles or potion of detect magic?



But am I the only one who thinks this is way stupid?

Yes.

The rogue isn't 'just using a mundane skill'. He's assumed to have a smattering of arcane and divine knowledge for these things. The rogue is drawing diagrams in chalk on the wall, praying to forgotten and possibly made up gods in between those prayers and focusing his chi to exact a negative resonance to what he presumes the wall functions on to cause thaumic interference. Candles and incense get lit, minor damage to reroute the ley lines, etc., all going on. Chants, bells, maybe dancing a little.

Just because it's not a magic spell doesn't mean it's mundane. This is a world where you can pray and have divine power come aid you – even as a fighter. Why is knowing how to bypass standardized magitek a problem? Magic is not sacred. It is not immune to being worked on, plied at the edges and having the red wire cut once you take off the faceplate. It's temporary, to boot.

[Sartharina]

A rogue able to disable these traps at level 1 is the same as a Wizard able to cast 9th-level spells at level 1 (Versatile caster Domain wizard says Hi) - a level of optimization so ridiculous that it's not worth worrying about.

The average level 1 rogue will have a +5 or +6 to the Disable Device check. And disabling **** is what rogues do. That's they're job. If a level 3 wizard can take out a CR 20 monster, there's no problem with a level 3 rogue taking out a level 9 spell.

[SiuiS]

A rogue able to disable these traps at level 1 is the same as a Wizard able to cast 9th-level spells at level 1 (Versatile caster Domain wizard says Hi) - a level of optimization so ridiculous that it's not worth worrying about.

The average level 1 rogue will have a +5 or +6 to the Disable Device check. And disabling **** is what rogues do. That's they're job. If a level 3 wizard can take out a CR 20 monster, there's no problem with a level 3 rogue taking out a level 9 spell.

That's the long and the short of it, aye.

[Der_DWSage]

There's also the fact that Rogues are experts in security and the disarming thereof, whereas Wizards tend to be generalists. I am fully in favor of Sneaky McRogue being able to, from level 1, disarm the wards of Laloch tower with a good plan and heavy investment in his chosen profession. Laloch, after all, is a capable combatant, expert necromancer, controller of undead hordes...but when it comes to wards, they're rather clearly purely magical, which has its own weaknesses. You're comparing an expert safecracker (Who is going to be paste if he ever messes up, or meets the owner of the tower, or does anything wrong whatsoever) against a generalist, in this case.

I will admit that there should be a way to boost that Disable Device DC further, but it shouldn't be based purely on caster level. There should be an actual investment-y'know, like Sneaky McRogue has put in.

[Jowgen]

To sum up the gist of the thread thus far:

Stronghold Builder's Guidebook gives 2 new uses for Disable device, which allows a rogue capable of disarming magical traps to temporarilty (1d4 rounds or minutes) supress the magic of Magically Augumented Walls and Wonderous Architecture, by hitting DCs in the 30 +/- 5 range. OP's concern was that this was non-sensical and too easily achieved.

Part of OP's originl concern was alleviated as one can not Take 20 on a Disable Device check, as failing by 5 or more results in something "going wrong", meaning there is a penalty for failure that prevents taking 20.

The idea that one can take 10 on Disable Device has been contented on the basis that it is meant to be a secret roll, as to keep the player uncertain of their success/failure, but extensive counter-arguments and examples regarding the taking of 10 with disable device have been provided.

Adding additional augmentations to the wall has been proposed as a raw counter to this disable device use, as it takes 2d4 rounds to disable a single augumentation but the disabling only lasts 1d4 rounds, meaning one can stack them to reduce the abuse potential. Several home-brew balancing approaches have been suggested as well, which mostly focused on tweaking the required DCs and checks.

On the fluff side of things, those who disagree with the OP's perception of this being an outlandish idea for a skill use have made arguments that Rogues specialize in circumventing security measures, are already capable of affecting active magic effects with their "Mundane" skill as with spell traps (e.g. glyph of warding), and that a level 1 rogue disabling a 9th level spell effect represents a degree of over-optimization that should not be worried about any more than a 1st level wizard getting access to 9th level spells.

I personally propose that that the Disable Device-ing of wonderous architecture should more in the focus of upcomming discussion, as the line between wonderous architecture and regular wonderous items strikes me as a rather blurry one that could be abused.

Did I leave anything out?

[Max Caysey]

To sum up the gist of the thread thus far:

Stronghold Builder's Guidebook gives 2 new uses for Disable device, which allows a rogue capable of disarming magical traps to temporarilty (1d4 rounds or minutes) supress the magic of Magically Augumented Walls and Wonderous Architecture, by hitting DCs in the 30 +/- 5 range. OP's concern was that this was non-sensical and too easily achieved.

Part of OP's originl concern was alleviated as one can not Take 20 on a Disable Device check, as failing by 5 or more results in something "going wrong", meaning there is a penalty for failure that prevents taking 20.

The idea that one can take 10 on Disable Device has been contented on the basis that it is meant to be a secret roll, as to keep the player uncertain of their success/failure, but extensive counter-arguments and examples regarding the taking of 10 with disable device have been provided.

Adding additional augmentations to the wall has been proposed as a raw counter to this disable device use, as it takes 2d4 rounds to disable a single augumentation but the disabling only lasts 1d4 rounds, meaning one can stack them to reduce the abuse potential. Several home-brew balancing approaches have been suggested as well, which mostly focused on tweaking the required DCs and checks.

On the fluff side of things, those who disagree with the OP's perception of this being an outlandish idea for a skill use have made arguments that Rogues specialize in circumventing security measures, are already capable of affecting active magic effects with their "Mundane" skill as with spell traps (e.g. glyph of warding), and that a level 1 rogue disabling a 9th level spell effect represents a degree of over-optimization that should not be worried about any more than a 1st level wizard getting access to 9th level spells.

I personally propose that that the Disable Device-ing of wonderous architecture should more in the focus of upcomming discussion, as the line between wonderous architecture and regular wonderous items strikes me as a rather blurry one that could be abused.

Did I leave anything out?


A very nicely put post... And I do belive you got pretty much the highs and lows of the thred so far.

When it comes to the wondrous architecture, they do resemble normal wondrous items alot and this was part and parcel of my initial concern. After close consideration I can see why rogues should be able to circumvent the augmentations.... and traps. I still have a dislike for the difficulty of this. However the non-taking-20 helps, and so does multiple augmentation. However wondrous architecture are in fact just big/heavy magic items, that can be moved, and which are created in much the same way, and I dont quite understand how this can be supressed too. A magical bed for instance is not a trap, nor an augmentation...

[torrasque666]

I think the good ol' "Specific Vs General" clause will assuage your fears.

Augments are a specific type of Wondrous Architecture, which are in and of themselves a specific type Wondrous Item.
Augments can have their own rules on top of W.A. rules, which in turn have their own rules on top of the W.I. rules.

[Jowgen]

I think the good ol' "Specific Vs General" clause will assuage your fears.

Augments are a specific type of Wondrous Architecture, which are in and of themselves a specific type Wondrous Item.
Augments can have their own rules on top of W.A. rules, which in turn have their own rules on top of the W.I. rules.

The 'specific' from the book actually doesn't do much in this regard.


Wondrous architecture are essentially immobile (or largely immobile) magic items, and follow all the normal rules for using such items.

The Creating Wonderous Architecture section is also rather interesting in this regard. It defined Wonderous Architecture as "stationary or bulky versions of wondrous items", and gives specific crafting rules for them. Items that are "bulky but technically removable—like a statue, a tapestry, or a rug—" and have a permanent spell effect cost 1,000 gp × the spell level × the caster level; which is quite the discount from regular custom magic items; although the to-be-enchanted item price isn't included in this. Completely permanent fixtures are even cheaper, at 500 gp × the spell level × the caster level, which can be an amazing bargain.

The best part in this (really surprised me): the creator "does not have to provide any material components or focuses the spell requires, nor are any XP costs inherent in any of these spells incurred in the creation of the item." It doesn't specify that you need the craft wonderous item feat, but I think this might be implied in the "follow all the nomral rules" clause.


So yeah, from the way I read, the question whether a rogue can attempt to disable a given magic item depends on whether that item is "bulky" enough for it to have been eligble for being created via these rules.

[torrasque666]

It says that Wondrous Architecture follows the usual rules. Augments are then said to follow those rules and more.
And while Wondrous Architecture can be disabled as per the following statement (Page 70)

As a stationary magic item, wondrous architecture isessentially identical to a magic trap (even though some
have beneficial rather than harmful effects), such
items can be discovered by a rogue (or other character
capable of finding traps) and deactivated with a Disable
Device skill check. The DC for both Search and Disable
Device checks is equal to 25 + the spell level of the
highest-level spell used in the construction of the wondrous
architecture.
its due to the stationary nature that it can be disabled, as the stationary nature causes it to be treated as a magical trap instead. This is also noted in the section on Disabling Augmentations as well.

As stationary magic items (see Wondrous Architecture,below), wall augmentations can be discovered by
a rogue (or other character capable of finding traps)
and deactivated with a Disable Device check. The DC
for both Search and Disable Device checks is equal to
25 + the spell level of the highest-level spell used in the
creation of the wall augmentation. If a wall has multiple
augmentations, each one must be discovered and
disabled separately. A successful Disable Device check
against a wall augmentation suppresses the magic
properties (just as if you had successfully cast dispel
magic against the item)of a 5-foot-by-5-foot section of
the wall for 1d4 rounds. If you beat the DC by 10 or
more, you suppress the magic properties for 1d4 minutes
instead.

emphasis mine on both.

Not arguing, as now that I have reread what you posted, we seem to be in agreement.

[Jowgen]

Not arguing, as now that I have reread what you posted, we seem to be in agreement.

It appears that we are. :smallsmile:

I do think there are, however, still a few minor details to work out.

For one, there is the Arcane Key, a 500 gp magic item from Sharn, City of Towers; that adds the following functionality to Disable device and Open Lock. I am not sure whether the added functionality is made entirely pointless by the rules we've been discussing, or if there is some other kind of interaction.


Arcane Key: This is a set of thieves tools enchanted to allow the bearer to interact with mystical
bonds and seals. A rogue—and only a rogue— equipped with an arcane key can use Open Lock against a door sealed with arcane lock or hold portal, and he can use Disable Device to temporarily shut down the alarm function of an arcane seal.
To pick a mystically sealed lock, the character must make a successful Open Lock check. The DC of the check is increased by 10. Doors sealed by magic may not have any sort of physical lock; in this case, the DC of the Open Lock check is 20. A successful check permanently dispels the effects of hold portal, while the sealing magic of arcane lock and arcane seal is simply suppressed for 10 minutes.
Opening an arcane seal in this manner triggers the seal’s mental alert, unless that effect has already been suppressed. This requires a successful Disable Device check, with a DC of 10 + the caster level of the seal. Success suppresses the effect for 10 minutes.

Also, there are a few things that I think need addressing.

A) If magic is employed to create a stationary physical object with magic properties, either with permanency to construct something, or just normally for tactical purposes; can Disable Device overcome them? They'll qualify as being stationary, are certainly magical in nature even in the absence of having magical effects...

Wall of Force seems like it might be safe, as it's immune to Dispell Magic, but I'm not even 100% on this. What about similar spells? Could someone disable device the permanenced Wall of Fire blocking a corridor?

B) There are certain stationary objects that weren't specifically created to be magical, but may have a magical effect in certain situations.

An altar to a God for example. Could Disable Device supress its fuction for the purpose of a Desecrate spell?

Or how the ability of any common house to keep out an univited vampire? Could a vampire rogue supress the effect that keeps it from entering with a sufficiently high disable device check?

These are mostly just musings, but I do think they're the type that might well come up in some game and lead to an argument.