PDA

View Full Version : How big of a nerf to Wizards would this be?



Frosty
2007-12-28, 06:32 PM
how much of a power hit would Wizards take if the following spells do not exist:

Rope Trick
Magnificent Mansion
Time Stop
Shivering Touch
Ray of Stupidity
Celerity (lesser and greater as well)
Polymorph (and all spells that change your form or anyone else's form)

Would it stop Wizards from being the end all be all?

Bag_of_Holding
2007-12-28, 06:36 PM
how much of a power hit would Wizards take if the following spells do not exist:

Rope Trick
Magnificent Mansion
Time Stop
Shivering Touch
Ray of Stupidity
Celerity (lesser and greater as well)
Polymorph (and all spells that change your form or anyone else's form)

Would it stop Wizards from being the end all be all?

Banning Rope Trick is a silly idea. It's definitely not game-breaking, and it allows the party to rest in peace :smallamused: . Magnificent Mansion and Ray of Stupidity is debatable since the former I have not seen in action for a long time and without the latter the monstrosity known only as Twelve-headed Hydra may not be defeated by any average party.

I ban ST, Celerity and Polymorph (except Wild Shape of course) in my games, but I don't think the other ones are really worth banning just to stop them from being 'the end all be all'. :smalltongue:

RTGoodman
2007-12-28, 06:38 PM
They're still going to be powerful, but it'll go a long way to keep some of the cheese out. A lot of people houserule that most of those don't exist anyway (though usually I don't see shivering touch on the list). Of course, most players are gonna be mad about rope trick and magnificent mansion being unavailable.

EDIT: Also, if you do ban polymorph and the rest of the shapechanging spells, you might consider the new ones from Complete Mage(?) that make you take a specific shape. Those seem (to me at least) to be more balanced.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-28, 06:39 PM
Banning Rope Trick is a silly idea. It's definitely not game-breaking, and it allows the party to rest in peace :smallamused:

I disagree. It brings taverns and roadside camping (and setting watches!) back into the game. It makes the world a place you have to actually be in, not one you pop out of into extradimensional spaces when it's not convenient to be there anymore.

I think Rope Trick is a terrible spell. Magnificent Mansion is worse, but that's because it's basically Rope Trick, Greater, only with a different name.

Bag_of_Holding
2007-12-28, 06:41 PM
I disagree. It brings taverns and roadside camping (and setting watches!) back into the game. It makes the world a place you have to actually be in, not one you pop out of into extradimensional spaces when it's not convenient to be there anymore.

Yeah, if the purpose of banning Rope Trick was to bring in other often ignored (as soon as the caster reaches CL 9) elements back into the game, then I guess banning RT also can be a good idea. :smallsmile:

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-28, 06:56 PM
This reminds me...

What's the environment of a rope trick? I assume it replicates the place in which you opened it, but I'm not sure. What happens?

TheLogman
2007-12-28, 07:00 PM
I always imagined it as like a White space, like an asylum cell, but with no padded walls. Cept maybe a little bigger.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-12-28, 07:06 PM
The question stems from Rope trick being an extradimensional space seemingly created as you enter. Which makes you wonder if it's at absolute zero heat, if it's totally dark, and more. If so, it'd make it les powerful, since you'd need to bring enough stuff to actually make it habitable.

Kizara
2007-12-28, 07:20 PM
how much of a power hit would Wizards take if the following spells do not exist:

Rope Trick
Magnificent Mansion
Time Stop
Shivering Touch
Ray of Stupidity
Celerity (lesser and greater as well)
Polymorph (and all spells that change your form or anyone else's form)

Would it stop Wizards from being the end all be all?

Wroth doing, but not enough.

Collin152
2007-12-28, 07:25 PM
I always figured Rope Trick created a dark pit of utter averageness, with the only source of light being the entrance. Not a good place to prepare spells in.

Frosty
2007-12-28, 07:27 PM
Worth doing, but not enough.

What would you suggest we add then?

Kizara
2007-12-28, 07:31 PM
What would you suggest we add then?

*=work yet to do/not addressed yet. You could simply ban these spells.

Spoilered for length.

Sorc/Wiz:

-Alarm duration is now 1hr/level.
-Detect Undead is a 0-level spell.
-Hold Portal range is now Close.
-Comprehend Languages is a 3rd-level spell.
-Detect Secret Doors is a 2nd-level spell.
-Charm Person duration is now 10 min/level.
-**Identify M component removed.
-Tenser’s Floating Disk is now 10 min/level.
-Color Spray is a 2nd-level spell.
-Jump gives +5/10/20 instead of the listed bonuses.
-Arcane Lock now has a 250gp M component (instead of as listed).
-Fog Cloud can be burnt away in the same manner as Obscuring Mist.
-Glitterdust is a 3rd-level spell, save is changed to Fort, and this spell negates concealment or displacement for its duration.
-Melf’s Acid Arrow now does 2d6 acid damage/round.
-Touch of Idiocy: Pick 2 scores to drop, not all 3. Damage is now 2d4. Will negates, lasts for 1 min/level.
-Held or attended objects are allowed a save, included the use of Shatter.
-Invisibility is broken by any strenuous action, including casting any spell. Essentially, recipients are restricted to actions such as mundane conversation or movement, possibly including actions such as swimming or climbing. These rules cover Invisibility Sphere and Mass Invisibility as well.
-An Enemy can strike at up to three adjacent ‘images’ created by Mirror Image as a full-attack action by sweeping his weapon through the area. He makes touch attacks against the targets, hits against the images dispel them, but hits against you in this fashion deal no damage.
-Ghoul Touch duration now simply 1d6 rounds.
-Tasha’s Hideous Laughter is a 3rd-level spell.
-Blindness/Deafness duration is 2hours/level.
-Blur lasts 2rounds/level.
-Knock functions as-stated in regards to barriers held closed by magical spells (such as a door with Hold Portal). However, against mundane means, it has the result of a DC 25 Open Lock check on the door in question. Alternately, it can give +10 to Open Lock checks (to creature touched) for 1 min/level. Finally, it’s range is now touch.
-Rope Trick is removed.
-Spider Climb also grants immunity to webs, including the Web spell. However, it is now 1 min/level.
-*Alter Self
-See Dispel Magic changes, above.
-Explosive Runes now has 250 gp material component cost (gold dust) and has a 1 minute casting time.
-Phantom Steed speed is now 30ft + 10 ft/2 caster levels (maximum 100 ft).
-Only 1 save is needed against Stinking Cloud, and you can try every round till you make it (suffering effects until you do). Once you make the save you are immune to the effects of that Stinking Cloud.
-Suggestion: While a reasonable suggestion imposes -1 or -2 to the save, an unreasonable one or one that is highly contrary to the subject’s desires simply will not work.
-Tongues is a 5th-level spell.
-Wind Wall is a 6th-level spell.
-Ray of Exhaustion cannot stack with itself, or with any other magical effect that creates fatigue. That is, you cannot simply cast it on someone twice to make them exhausted, regardless if they make their saves.
-Fly now has a casting time of 1 round and a duration of 2 rounds/level.
-Fire Trap is a 2nd-level spell.
-Dimension Door: If cast as a swift action, has a range of close. If cast as a standard action, has a range of close +40ft. If you take 1 round to cast it, it has a range of long.
-Leomound’s Secure Shelter is a 5th-level spell.
-Solid Fog allows you to make a strength check (DC 25) to be able to move through it at half speed, and not suffer the penalty to attacks.
-Crushing Despair is a 3rd-level spell.
-Otiluke’s Resilient Sphere has a casting time of 1 round. Note: This may result in you trapping yourself with enemies in the sphere.
-Shadow Conjuration is removed.
-*Polymorph
-Animate Dead is a 3rd-level spell.
-Mordenkainen’s Private Sanctum is now 10ft cube/level, and the cubes must be continuous. Any spell or ability able to penetrate magical Darkness overcomes the screening effect of this spell.
-Teleport has a casting time of 2 rounds.
-Baleful Polymorph: You may not polymorph them into a fatal form. Duration is 1 round/2 levels. No secondary Will save (or subsequent penalties). Equipment melds into the new form and re-forms with the subject when the duration expires. Normal form is resumed after duration, with a -2 circumstance penalty to all actions for 1 round due to disorientation.
-Fabricate is removed.
-Feeblemind: The penalty to the Will save for arcane casters is removed. It can be dispelled by a Break Enchantment as well as the listed effects.
-Shadow Evocation is removed.
-Magic Jar is removed.
-Overland Flight now grants poor manoeuvrability.
-Mordenkainen’s Magnificent Mansion: The entrance is a barrier that requires a Will Save to pass. If the mansion is dispelled (targeting the entrance), those inside are deposited outside where the entrance was and are stunned for 1 round (no save). Nothing can be removed from the mansion.
-Contingency’s triggered spell can’t have a casting time longer then 1 standard action. Triggering condictin is based on your perceptions and must be external. “Cast stone skin when I’m attacked” is valid, “cast stone skin when I feel hungry” is not.
-Teleport, Greater has a casting time of 1 round.
-Teleport Object has a casting time of 1 round.
-Insanity is an 8th-level spell.
-Etheral Jaunt is a 6th-level spell.
-Delayed Blast Fireball does 1d8/level fire damage.
-Forcecage has a casting time of 1 round.
-Shadow Conjuration, Greater is removed.
-Simulacrum is an 8th-level spell.
-Moment of Prescience does not apply to Initiative checks (this is not a house rule).
-Symbol of Insanity is a 9th-level spell.
-Otiluke’s Telepathic Sphere has a casting time of 1 round.
-Polymorph Any Object: Fortitude Negates. If cast on a person, acts as permanent-duration Baleful Polymorph. If cast on objects, it effects a 10ft cube/level, cannot create materials of great intrinsic value, and costs 1,000 XP. (similarity chart is removed)
-Shadow Evocation, Greater is removed.
-Etheralness is a 8th-level spell.
-Gate: see cleric list
-*Mordenkainen’s Disjunction
-Shades is removed.
-Shapechange: see druid list.
-Time Stop is removed from normal play, exists as an epic spell.

Reinboom
2007-12-28, 07:34 PM
This is my list of banned:
Ray of Enfeeblement
Ray of Stupidity
Shivering Touch
Alter Self
Polymorph
Polymorph any Object
Shapechange
Gate
Time Stop
Celerity
Greater Celerity
Forcecage
Wraithstrike
Detect Secret Doors
Knock
Antimagic Field (Shaped)
Phantom Steed
Rope Trick
Tiny Hut
Private Sanctum
Greater Teleport
Planar Bubble
Mage's Magnificent Mansion
Mage's Disjunction
Programmed Amnesia

Oh, and I also ban the wizard and just allow the sorcerer... but... that's an entirely different point. :P

Collin152
2007-12-28, 07:42 PM
Why private sanctum and Knock?

Aquillion
2007-12-28, 07:52 PM
Detect Secret Doors
Knock
Honestly, I think it's silly to ban these two. I understand your reasoning (you feel that those belong in the rogue's domain), but that's like banning damage spells because damage is the melee class forte, or banning charm person because it can replicate a diplomacy check in some cases.

The thing is, there are lots of ways to find secret doors and get past locks; some rogue skills can be applied to be very effective, quick, and cheap at it, yes, but it isn't a major rogue class feature, just one small use for their skills... and no party is ever really completely dependant on the rogue for that anyway.

Just about anyone can find secret doors without wasting a spell by having the entire party take 20. There are very few doors that can't be broken down by an angry barbarian. Often, secret doors can be guessed with a good map and some common sense; usually, locked doors have keys. The purpose of those spells, as I see it, isn't to let the wizard replace the rogue at finding and opening doors (which they can do, yes, just like the barbarian who takes 20 to bash every flat surface the party encounters); it's to give the players more options and ensure that they don't get completely stymed if, say, their first choice for the job is disabled, or if they're in a situation where they need to do it right now.

Also note that both spells will fail to detect and may trigger magical traps (which are often dangerous even when triggered from what would be a 'safe' distance for a mechanical one.) While there are other magical ways to find and detect those, that's imperfect; many are built so that you risk triggering them by attempting a magical search or dispel. Dealing with situations like that is still the rogue's forte; knock et all just give the party a second option, just like magic missile gives you a second option for damage when the fighter can't damage something. That isn't broken, it's the classes working as intended.

KIDS
2007-12-28, 08:23 PM
The nerf you propose would be completely fine. Some of these spells allow the wizards to be as you said it, "be all end all"; without them they still have several hundred powerful choices. It should be ok, and I daresay that a mage spamming these spells is well on his way to world domination...

Suggestion: replace Polymorph with Shape spells from PHB2 and C.Mage instead of banning all - you'll remove imbalance but preserve flavor.

Nowhere Girl
2007-12-29, 01:29 AM
Honestly, I think it's silly to ban these two.

Why is it silly to ban a 2nd-level spell that's more powerful in accomplishing the only function of a given skill than 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000 ranks in that skill?

I can see an argument for simply revising Knock rather than banning it, but there's no question it's utterly broken as is. It's not broken on the level of Time Stop/Celerity, mind you, but for its level, and for the area it covers, it's broken as hell.

tyckspoon
2007-12-29, 01:32 AM
Why is it silly to ban a 2nd-level spell that's more powerful in accomplishing the only function of a given skill than (big number) ranks in that skill?


I would also ask 'why is there a skill that has only one application?' Open Lock should be part of Disable Device, which cannot be fully imitated by means of Knock.

Reinboom
2007-12-29, 03:07 AM
Detect Secret Doors I don't have a problem with, really, and is something I'm still debating, for reasons the same as knock.
I don't run many Dungeons (or dragons for that matter... hmmm....), so, for me the limited focus of secret doors doesn't matter. You're wasting a spell slot on it anyways.

Knock, however, is something different. I don't think it's particularly reasonable for 2nd level spell to fully remove a skill feature like so, well, sort of. It's reasonable, but, not to the most powerful class ability list. If the bard got knock, I'd be completely fine with it, for example.
I just don't like giving a class that can already remove the functions of other classes more options to do so.

Private Sanctum is more of a personal dislike.

On another note, I also believe fly should have a height limit (10 ft per level, for example), but, that's once again for something very specific.

Cuddly
2007-12-29, 03:28 AM
A wand of summon monster I with a CL of of five or six, and a wand of knock, pretty much negates most reasons to keep a rogue around.

MobiusKlein
2007-12-29, 03:45 AM
A wand of summon monster I with a CL of of five or six, and a wand of knock, pretty much negates most reasons to keep a rogue around.

Add a wand of detect secret doors, and you have the best investment around. 750 for the wand, and you know you will find more than 750 GP worth of treasure behind secret doors while using it. Use expeditious retreat to get 60ft of scan per round.

Dhavaer
2007-12-29, 03:58 AM
I would also ask 'why is there a skill that has only one application?' Open Lock should be part of Disable Device, which cannot be fully imitated by means of Knock.

I agree. d20 Modern works like this, too.

Jothki
2007-12-29, 04:42 AM
Knock, however, is something different. I don't think it's particularly reasonable for 2nd level spell to fully remove a skill feature like so, well, sort of. It's reasonable, but, not to the most powerful class ability list. If the bard got knock, I'd be completely fine with it, for example.

A good way to handle Knock might be to houserule that it provides a circumstance bonus and allows untrained checks for that lock. Knock would thus cause most weaker locks to open at a touch, but someone with training would still be needed for the more difficult ones.

Emperor Demonking
2007-12-29, 06:12 AM
Rope Trick
Magnificent Mansion

These seem to be more about play style than power and it won't weaken them.

Time Stop

Nooooooooooo, the prescious spell, won't kill them

Shivering Touch
Ray of Stupidity

Yeah, easy for some battles to be won.

Celerity (lesser and greater as well)
Polymorph (and all spells that change your form or anyone else's form)

Obviously.


Yeah one of the main problems is that a wizard can do everything. So removing or changing knock, is pretty clever.

Sebastian
2007-12-29, 07:53 AM
Banning Rope Trick is a silly idea. It's definitely not game-breaking, and it allows the party to rest in peace :smallamused: .


I have to disagree, it is game breaking because it make too easy for the party to rest, you cast it and when you come out you are at 100% strength again (if you are 5th level or more), it is the equivalent of the final fantasy save point. It bring all the dangers out of outdoor travel. and most of the dangers outside of adventuring

And you never see magnificent mansion because rope trick make it useless. It does all the same things at a much lower spell slot, MM have only a better fluff. What is the point to use MM when you can use RT?

I say, ban rope trick and keep Magnificent Masnion, it is a 7th level spell after all, if you want to waste one 7th level slot for a good night sleep I don't see a problem with it.

Cuddly
2007-12-29, 07:56 AM
8th level is the bare minimum to get a full nights rest, and you are abruptly woken with 1d6 falling damage every day.

Sebastian
2007-12-29, 08:14 AM
I always figured Rope Trick created a dark pit of utter averageness, with the only source of light being the entrance. Not a good place to prepare spells in.

nothing that a continual flame spell (or a lantern) can't fix

Ne0
2007-12-29, 08:15 AM
PLEASE, delete Rope Trick! It's probably the worst spell ever thought of! This is one of those things that make me agree with the 'D&D is becoming anime argument'.

DM: "You see an old, yet well mantained tavern by the road. It's still fully lit, and you can hear the typical noise of other adventurers drinking, laughing and exchanging stories."
Player: "Good. My wizard casts Rope Trick, and pulls himself up."
DM: "What? Why? There's a perfectly serveceable tavern over there! Laughter, joy, and everything! I spent an entire day making NPC's for that tavern!"
Player: "Yeah, I'm not taking the risk. Those vampire's are still around, and it's what a 30 Int Wizard would do."

Sebastian
2007-12-29, 08:24 AM
8th level is the bare minimum to get a full nights rest, and you are abruptly woken with 1d6 falling damage every day.

oh, right, i mixed the duration with MM.

Well, make it 9th level, or 5th if you use a Extended Rope Trick (or even less if you can afford a scroll or wand prepared at the right caster level.

And you get the falling damage only if you put the rope trick at 10 feet or higher. :smalltongue:

Talya
2007-12-29, 10:14 AM
Rope trick is fine so long as you treat it's "Fluff" as a mechanical rule.


Note: It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one.

If someone brings a bag of holding inside a rope trick, make sure you treat it as if they stuck a bag of holding inside another bag of holding.

Riffington
2007-12-29, 10:41 AM
You can get rid of every spell listed here and wizards will still be the uber class.

However, I would not specifically get rid of knock. I would just allow sufficiently skilled lock craftsmen to devise locks that cannot be opened by that spell. (I mean, if you're going to the trouble of making a lock that'd stump Leonardo Davinci, surely you can plan around a 2nd level spell).

A few ways to accomplish this:
1. In addition to a complex lock, put a hundred separate one-pin locks on the door - the key opens all of them. This wouldn't add much to a Rogue's DC because the one-pin locks are trivial, but it requires 51 castings of Knock to open.

2. Put a lock on the door, and a lock on the first lock. This second lock does not technically hold the door locked, and thus is not opened by the Knock spell. However, it exerts more force on the first lock than the Knock spell can handle (it can't handle the force of a portcullis, for example).

3. Place two locks on the door. The second lock triggers a nonmagical trap when opened: a small explosion that destroys the first lock, rendering the door entirely inoperable. The correct way to open the door is to unlock the first lock, which allows it to slide, slide the lock, then unlock the second. The knock spell won't slide the lock since that's not technically necessary to unbar the door except insofar as it avoids triggering a trap.

4. Incorporate a rope or vine into the lock's mechanism.

A.Sondergaard
2007-12-29, 10:53 AM
This...
-Arcane Lock now has a 250gp M component (instead of as listed)....being in the same list of restrictions as this...

-Knock functions as-stated in regards to barriers held closed by magical spells...sounds kind of wrong. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Aquillion
2007-12-29, 02:15 PM
Why is it silly to ban a 2nd-level spell that's more powerful in accomplishing the only function of a given skill than 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000 ranks in that skill?

I can see an argument for simply revising Knock rather than banning it, but there's no question it's utterly broken as is. It's not broken on the level of Time Stop/Celerity, mind you, but for its level, and for the area it covers, it's broken as hell.What skill are you talking about? I wasn't aware that there was any skill whose only function was unlocking locks.

Even if the broadly-applicable Disable Device skill really was only for locks, Knock can't copy it. Knock simply pulls the door open; if there are any traps on it, it will very likely trigger them. With magical traps (which are the rogue's real forte when it comes to this sort of thing) this can be disastrous. (Note that many magical traps are designed to go off if you make an attempt to dispel or detect them by magical means, too.)

And, again, as I noted: Sure, it can open doors your rogue possibly couldn't. So can an angry barbarian with a magic greatsword; the rules for bashing down doors are quite forgiving. Your DM tends to DM-fiat doors as unbreakable? That's no different from DM-fiating them as enchanted against knock. The only differences between using Knock on a door as opposed to bashing it is that knock is faster and more quiet, but consumes a certain amount of resources. Both are weaker than a fully-skilled rogue, who can examine a door for magical traps and remove them while disarming it, both quietly, quickly, and efficiently.

The rogue can also do this for every door the party encounters. Whoops, you've run into more than six locked doors today? Well, your wizard can't go around knocking and casting detect magic on every one. Some of them might even have had more than two locks on them. And hey, guess what, you've just run into a portcullis with a complicated mechanism holding it shut -- too bad knock specifically doesn't handle that. Of course, your Barbarian can still probably smash it down... I guess barbarians need to have their strength nerfed?

Opening locked doors is not intended to be a major feature of any class. Yes, thematically rogues have a cheaper and easier time of it than anyone else, and can avoid traps and so on; but the game's designers wisely realized that every party, whether it has a specific class or not, absolutely needs a way to get past locked doors (being stuck at them is no fun). Therefore, the rules provide a way for nearly every major character type to open a locked door with minimal fuss. If you, as a DM, are throwing down locked, non-trapped, non-enchanted / unbreakable doors to player above level one or so intending them to be a major challenge specifically for the rogue... well, it isn't going to work, and that's that. Knock isn't the only reason for that; cheap locked doors just aren't supposed to pose a major problem for heroic adventurers.

Wizards have ways to open doors, yes. Barbarians have ways to open doors, too. Rogues have ways to copy wizard spells. None are likely to use those abilities except in a special case that calls for them, or when their party's primary option has failed. I don't disagree that wizards have broken spells, but knock isn't one of them.

Artanis
2007-12-29, 02:19 PM
What skill are you talking about? I wasn't aware that there was any skill whose only function was unlocking locks.
Open Lock. It opens locks...and nothing else.

Riffington
2007-12-29, 03:19 PM
So can an angry barbarian with a magic greatsword; the rules for bashing down doors are quite forgiving. Your DM tends to DM-fiat doors as unbreakable?

It is much easier for many DMs to see the flaws in the Barbarian door-opening strategy (loud, destructive, and slow) than the limitations of the Knock spell (that high-DC locks will likely be crafted in ways that thwart the spell).

Aquillion
2007-12-29, 04:09 PM
It is much easier for many DMs to see the flaws in the Barbarian door-opening strategy (loud, destructive, and slow) than the limitations of the Knock spell (that high-DC locks will likely be crafted in ways that thwart the spell).Easy: Large numbers of locks on a single door, large numbers of locked doors overall, magically-trapped doors, doors with mechanical alarms on them, locks enchanted against knock, portcullises and other entranceways that knock doesn't cover, barred doors or doors held by other things that knock doesn't cover...

It's not hard to throw large numbers of locks at the players. So, they break into the enemy treasury... and inside, there are ten or twenty large, heavy lead coffers, locked and possibly trapped. What does the wizard do? What does the rogue do? Yes, the wizard could get them open eventually... but so could anyone else, if they're just going to stuff them in their bag of holding and take them home. The rogue can open them right there in a matter of minutes, and let the party take just what they need, saving valuable time, storage space, and so on. It's not like this is a very rare or outlandish situation, too.

Wizards aren't likely to prepare very many copies of knock, and sorcerers are unlikely to use it at all; it's very, very, improbable that your wizard will have more than one knock prepared when a rogue is available, so a door with three locks (or more than one locked door in the entire day's adventure) is going to thwart him. (Unless he can convince the entire party to rest 8 hours so he can prepare it again, which sort of steals the 'slow' disadvantage from the barbarian.)

A wand of knock costs an absurd 4,500 gp for something your rogue can do for free. Scrolls of knock are a more reasonable 150 gp, but it's still a waste of gold for something the rogue can do for free. These things -- along with the knock spell itself -- are nice options for very specific situations (when the rogue doesn't have time to fiddle with the lock, and the barbarian doesn't have time to bash it.) But they aren't general-purpose solutions; they're tricks for specific situations which the wizard can prepare with some foresight.

I think that, in measuring knock, you forgot how arcane spellcasting works; wizards have to prepare their spells (while no Sorcerer is going to waste a precious spell slot for it), and aren't going to want to give up more generally-useful things like Glitterdust just so they can be a second-rate rogue who can, to a limited extent, emulate one facet of one rogue skill. The spell works perfectly within that context.

I would say, on reflection, that knock is therefore probably one of the most well-balanced spells on the wizard's list.

Spells are better than spells. Always, without exception. They're intended to be; nearly every single time a spell and skill overlap, the spell strictly dominates. Detect Thoughts vs Sense Motive? Climb, Balance, or Jump vs Fly? Escape Artist vs Dimension Door or Freedom of Movement? The Heal skill vs... well, any healing spell, ever, even the cantrips?

The reason skills are useful is because a highly-skilled character can have all their skills ready to use at any time, and can use then as often as they want without penalty. They aren't supposed to compete with magic; the two are supposed to complement each other, with skills being used whenever possible, and magic filling the gaps in desperate situations where skills don't cut it.

valadil
2007-12-29, 04:34 PM
Rope trick is fine so long as you treat it's "Fluff" as a mechanical rule.

If someone brings a bag of holding inside a rope trick, make sure you treat it as if they stuck a bag of holding inside another bag of holding.

That's how we've always played with it and assumed everyone else played that way too. Usually that means our loot gets buried outside.

If a GM wanted to be truly rude to players he could have an NPC sneak an empty bag of holding into a PC's clothing and wait for that PC to unsuspectingly go through a rope trick or other extra dimensional space.

Reinboom
2007-12-29, 04:41 PM
Wizards aren't likely to prepare very many copies of knock, and sorcerers are unlikely to use it at all; it's very, very, improbable that your wizard will have more than one knock prepared when a rogue is available, so a door with three locks (or more than one locked door in the entire day's adventure) is going to thwart him. (Unless he can convince the entire party to rest 8 hours so he can prepare it again, which sort of steals the 'slow' disadvantage from the barbarian.)

Reminder:
Wizards don't have to prepare all their spell slots at the beginning of the day.


More to the topic:
Knock exceeds open lock for other reasons, knock has range. Medium range is nothing to scoff at and not many traps are going to hit at that range. I would say, the wizard is safer using knock than a rogue who can fail their DC.

Even more to the topic:
For nerfing spellcasters, I've been playing around with the idea of giving "forcing" casters to lose caster levels.
Which would both 1) encourage the less used and more looked over prestige classes and 2) slow down their exponential growth of power.

Aquillion
2007-12-29, 05:35 PM
Reminder:
Wizards don't have to prepare all their spell slots at the beginning of the day.Preparing a new spell takes 15 minutes, putting them behind the barbarian again; that's still a slot they won't be able to use in combat, so they're wasting resources; and they're still not likely to do this with more than one slot, giving them (at most) two seperate doors/chests, or one door/chest with three to four locks (more than that, they're screwed and have wasted their spells.) And, of course, without a very, very high int, they're not even capable of preparing enough spells to deal with the roomful of many small, crudely-locked chests that a rogue can search through in a matter of minutes.


More to the topic:
Knock exceeds open lock for other reasons, knock has range. Medium range is nothing to scoff at and not many traps are going to hit at that range. I would say, the wizard is safer using knock than a rogue who can fail their DC.Only against a small subset of traps. If a chest is trapped to destroy the contents when opened, knock won't help at all. Against alarms, summon traps, traps that affect a wide area, traps that destroy or block the door or trigger something else undesirable and so on, it's a significantly worse option, since the rogue can check for traps first, then disarm them. Even traps not intended as alarms can make knock a noisy option compared to a quick-and-easy series of (unlikely to fail) maxed skill checks.

Again: Give me a reasonable build and spell memorization setup -- one someone would actually use -- that would let a wizard deal with more than three or four locked items in a day, or one important item with many locks, without wasting time or spending gold. It's not a stretch for that to happen from time to time, especially in an adventure where the DM wants opening locks to actually matter. What does the wizard do?

(Remember, a situational solution doesn't count; that will only complement the rogue, rather than replacing them. A wizard has to be able to open all six locked doors along a long hallway and peek inside, or open every one of the several-dozen locked chests in a vault to search for treasure, all without spending any cash, wasting more than a few minutes, or burning significant resources, while dealing with potential traps and alarms. A rogue can do this without breaking a sweat; if a wizard can't, they're only a situational complement to the rogue, not a replacement.)

I still don't understand the focus on knock, too. Why does knock bother people more than, say, Fly vs Climb / Jump, or any of the other skill / spell comparisons I mentioned above? Give me a reason... I'm honestly curious. As far as I can tell, knock merely complements disable device; it can be useful in some specific situations, and in emergencies, but I don't think anyone's made a valid argument that it could ever overshadow even a small facet of the rogue.

Saph
2007-12-29, 05:54 PM
Aquillion is right. Knock isn't at all an unbalanced spell - it's one of the most balanced spells on the list. Remember that wizards have strictly limited resources. Each knock they cast is one less glitterdust or alter self or invisibility. As a wizard, there's no way I'm going to devote all of those powerful second-level spell slots to replicating what another class can do without expending any resources at all. The wizard's job is to do what the other party members can't, not to duplicate what they already can.

And if you have an unlimited amount of time to rememorise and recast knock spells over and over again . . . then anybody can open the lock anyway! Locks are only an obstacle when your freedom of action time is restricted.

Rope Trick is a much worse spell, because you only need one casting of it a day to completely remove a large part of an adventure (finding a place to rest and keeping watch.) It's sensible from the point of view of the PCs, but less interesting, and makes the game feel a lot less like LotR-style travelling through dangerous territory, and a lot more like a Final-Fantasy style save point.

- Saph

Yami
2007-12-29, 06:14 PM
Honestly I just use a wizard/beguiler U-magus to nerf my vancian casters.

I'm actually fine with both knock and rope trick, but then we always carry around bags of holding and thusly never use it. Likewise I'd hate to see knock go, if only because my current DM is a real pain about locked doors. (Barbarian can't break through it, rouge can't pick it while taking twenty... what's that? you don't have knock? I guess your not getting in here then.)

Aquillion
2007-12-29, 06:28 PM
Rope trick is mostly a matter of how you want your games to go. Some groups like focusing on the details of finding a safe place to rest and setting up a defensible camp every night; those groups should ban it. Others just like to smooth over those details and get back to kicking down doors, negotiating with monsters, and fighting battles; for those groups, it's as much an important game mechanic as it is a spell.

deadseashoals
2007-12-29, 06:36 PM
Just do it. Rope trick isn't that broken but it's occasionally a headache, and MMM is basically the same thing, but if you don't want to deal with that kind of thing, it wouldn't be a huge nerf either.

Actually, I'm kind of iffy on timestop too. It doesn't actually do anything, unless you use it to set up broken spell combos, and it's a ninth level spell. Aim your wrath at gate and shapechange before timestop.

Also, don't forget to ban polymorph any object if you're banning polymorph.

Kaelik
2007-12-29, 06:36 PM
Honestly I just use a wizard/beguiler U-magus to nerf my vancian casters.

I'm actually fine with both knock and rope trick, but then we always carry around bags of holding and thusly never use it. Likewise I'd hate to see knock go, if only because my current DM is a real pain about locked doors. (Barbarian can't break through it, rouge can't pick it while taking twenty... what's that? you don't have knock? I guess your not getting in here then.)

Adamantium Dagger + Barbarian= Nothing that can't be hacked through. Worst case, just hack through the wall next to the door.

horseboy
2007-12-29, 07:22 PM
About knock:

Given the high percent of cross over between Chaotic Stupid and thieves, is it really that bad of a thing that they would be gone?

They're inclusion as one of the "iconic four" has always felt trite to me. I mean really, if kobolds/goblins/orcs really do live here, then why is there going to be a trap in every hallway? Quick show of hands, how many of us have a giant boiling pot of oil over our bedroom doorways? Then with 3.x it just gets worse, I mean how in the Hell do they afford that? Most of those things are WAY past their WBL. Oh, it's a crypt huh? Then how come all the zombies haven't set them off already. Oh, and how is the EVIL necromancer training them to remember to relock the doors? My sister with her 5 kids would really like to know. For such things to come up often enough to require a specialist in the field is just way too much of a verisimilitude breaker.

But for the OP, I think Kizara's list is a good place to start.

Frosty
2007-12-29, 08:42 PM
It seems like thre's two camps here: One camp feels that it's the spell progression that needs to be fixed, and the other feels that if we remove the problematic spells, the class will be fine.

EvilElitest
2007-12-29, 09:05 PM
The sad thing is, a lot of those spell are really fun, but certainly game breaking, i think it would be better to nerf the spell (making them less powerful and/or getting them at a higher level or more limitations ect) because the flavor is great
from,
EE

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-12-29, 09:16 PM
Why is it silly to ban a 2nd-level spell that's more powerful in accomplishing the only function of a given skill than 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000 ranks in that skill?

I can see an argument for simply revising Knock rather than banning it, but there's no question it's utterly broken as is. It's not broken on the level of Time Stop/Celerity, mind you, but for its level, and for the area it covers, it's broken as hell.

Or you just send in the Barbarian with his Greataxe to hack the door to pieces...

Seriously, locks are not generally a major problem. Also, it doesn't disarm any traps on aforementioned door, so any party who relies on it rather than a skillmonkey is going to really regret it in one of my games...

Aquillion
2007-12-29, 10:44 PM
About knock:

Given the high percent of cross over between Chaotic Stupid and thieves, is it really that bad of a thing that they would be gone?

They're inclusion as one of the "iconic four" has always felt trite to me. I mean really, if kobolds/goblins/orcs really do live here, then why is there going to be a trap in every hallway? Quick show of hands, how many of us have a giant boiling pot of oil over our bedroom doorways? Then with 3.x it just gets worse, I mean how in the Hell do they afford that? Most of those things are WAY past their WBL. Oh, it's a crypt huh? Then how come all the zombies haven't set them off already. Oh, and how is the EVIL necromancer training them to remember to relock the doors? My sister with her 5 kids would really like to know. For such things to come up often enough to require a specialist in the field is just way too much of a verisimilitude breaker.Well, there's also the fact that locks aren't really one of the major parts of being a rogue, no matter how iconic they are. WotC knows they can't believably play a role in every adventure... that's why they come down to one use for one skill that, overall, isn't considered to be one of the major skill-monkey skills in any case. (Not on the level of, say, spot, move silently, hide, listen, etc.)

Rogues are one of the more versatile classes in that they can serve a lot of roles depending on how you build them, but in general the core, nearly-irreplacable skill-monkey role is in the awareness-type skills... not just for straightforward traps, but ambushes, hidden opponents, structural dangers, secret doors (no, detect secret doors doesn't replace this--you can't cast it in every single room, and a rogue can search for everything else at the same time), hidden treasures, and so on.

Zombies aren't likely to have traps, but it's quite believable to have one lurking in a pile of junk in the shadowy corner of a room, waiting to lunge out at the first weak-looking character who wanders by... a spot check would certainly come in handy there. The evil necromancer could also have set up some magical traps designed to combat living things. There could still be several trapped, rusty locked metal boxes scattered around, half-buried and hard to notice (what, are the zombies going to be getting curious and opening them?) And so on.

These things are very tricky for magic-using characters to deal with without wasting spells every few steps; when they're damaging, melee-types can soak them up and healer-types can try and heal the damage they do, but generally that's not as good of an option as avoiding them in the first place. And for hidden treasure, not having a skill-monkey can mean missing out on a great deal of the loot... there really aren't very many spells that will help you search for treasure you don't know exists, while a barbarian who bashes every flat surface is likely to destroy as much treasure as he reveals.

horseboy
2007-12-29, 10:59 PM
Well, there's also the fact that locks aren't really one of the major parts of being a rogue, no matter how iconic they are. WotC knows they can't believably play a role in every adventure... that's why they come down to one use for one skill that, overall, isn't considered to be one of the major skill-monkey skills in any case. (Not on the level of, say, spot, move silently, hide, listen, etc.)

Yes, but a D'zilla can do every thing there except for what knock does. Alternately a ranger with a bag of tricks. So, yeah, why not leave knock and just get rid of rogue?

Cuddly
2007-12-29, 11:01 PM
Aquillion is right. Knock isn't at all an unbalanced spell - it's one of the most balanced spells on the list. Remember that wizards have strictly limited resources. Each knock they cast is one less glitterdust or alter self or invisibility. As a wizard, there's no way I'm going to devote all of those powerful second-level spell slots to replicating what another class can do without expending any resources at all. The wizard's job is to do what the other party members can't, not to duplicate what they already can.

And if you have an unlimited amount of time to rememorise and recast knock spells over and over again . . . then anybody can open the lock anyway! Locks are only an obstacle when your freedom of action time is restricted.

Rope Trick is a much worse spell, because you only need one casting of it a day to completely remove a large part of an adventure (finding a place to rest and keeping watch.) It's sensible from the point of view of the PCs, but less interesting, and makes the game feel a lot less like LotR-style travelling through dangerous territory, and a lot more like a Final-Fantasy style save point.

- Saph

Scrolls are cheap. Wands are cheaper. Smart parties invest in wands.

For 1,125 gp/character in a party of four (22.5gp per person per lock to unlock), you can get rid of the rogue and get a new party member who can:
1) do damage against targets who aren't just flanked/flat-footed/vulnerable to criticals
2) isn't so squishy
3) can cast spells
4) do something unique

lord of pixies
2007-12-29, 11:15 PM
i personaly like rope trick. once a party i was in used it to survive a huricane!!!!

Kompera
2007-12-29, 11:19 PM
For nerfing spellcasters, I've been playing around with the idea of giving "forcing" casters to lose caster levels.
Which would both 1) encourage the less used and more looked over prestige classes and 2) slow down their exponential growth of power.To a poster asking for ideas on how to design a low magic primitive/bronze age setting I once suggested limiting caster levels to every other level. So you'd end up with a group that might look like this at 6th level:

Barbarian 6
Rogue 3 / Sorcerer 3
Fighter 2 / Rogue 1 / Priest 3
Bard 6

With this limitation, you'll never have to deal with players casting spells above 5th level (until Epic, at least), and that level of spell casting blended with the higher level characters balance should be much more easily maintained.

An option other than limiting caster levels would be to savagely curtail the number of spells, by many more than the list provided by Kizara. In original D&D there were about 12 spells per level. (And we liked it!:smalltongue:) And the list of spells got shorter as the spell level went up. Limiting options limits ways to combine effects and min/max, and also removes the design challenges involved in coming up with a reasonably unique spell after there are already 49 other 2nd level Wizard spells (there are 50....50!...50 2nd level Wizard spells in the PH alone. I won't even take a guess at how many 2nd level Wizard spells there are if a few caster focused splat books are included.) which leads to spells such as Glitterdust being printed. There is no real reason that the Players Handbook needs to have 1/3 of it's pages devoted to spells lists and descriptions. Doing so only serves to clearly demonstrate the focus the game places on the casting classes, and the inevitable balance issues which such a focus forces on a game system.


I'd hate to see knock go, if only because my current DM is a real pain about locked doors. (Barbarian can't break through it, rouge can't pick it while taking twenty... what's that? you don't have knock? I guess your not getting in here then.)If your GM makes walls that can't be broken down by a Barbarian with a magic weapon and places traps the Rogue can't pick taking 20, just to force the Wizard to memorize a Knock spell, you've got larger issues in the campaign than trying to balance Wizards.

I'd suggest that your group forget about fighting monsters for their treasure. That's thinking small time. Instead, try to chip away some of the wondrous material the dungeon walls are made of, and transport the locked chests back to civilization where no doubt artisans and kings will be willing to pay very highly for both. Then you can sell them the location of such a rich trove of invulnerable building materials and masterpiece mechanical engineering. You'll retire rich and happy, and will never have to swing a sword again.


About knock:
Given the high percent of cross over between Chaotic Stupid and thieves, is it really that bad of a thing that they would be gone?
They're inclusion as one of the "iconic four" has always felt trite to me.Chaotic Stupid comes with the player, not the character class. Thieves/Rogues probably originated with the Hobbit, one of the source books D&D was based upon. Bilbo was hired as a "burglar" by a group of Dwarves. Having a skill monkey class is a good thing. The inclusion of a class which relies more on skills than finger waggling (spells) or sword swinging allows for the GM to challenge the players in ways that don't have to involve pitched battle.

Cuddly
2007-12-29, 11:22 PM
I've thought about limiting wizards to two schools of spells. They would automatically specialize in evocation, and then be free to choose any other school they wanted.

Of course, they'd be allowed to take a feat that would let them learn int modifier # of spells that they didn't specialize in.

I'd also make them choose between the bonus feats, or the familiar. Not both, though.

Kompera
2007-12-29, 11:41 PM
i personaly like rope trick. once a party i was in used it to survive a huricane!!!!You've actually keyed on one of the objections to spells such as Rope Trick. There is a Survival skill which can be used to both predict the arrival of a hurricane and provide saving throw bonuses against severe weather such as a hurricane. Having a spell like Rope Trick tends to make players who invested in Survival less useful, and Wizards more useful.

horseboy
2007-12-29, 11:48 PM
Chaotic Stupid comes with the player, not the character class. Thieves/Rogues probably originated with the Hobbit, one of the source books D&D was based upon. Bilbo was hired as a "burglar" by a group of Dwarves. Having a skill monkey class is a good thing. The inclusion of a class which relies more on skills than finger waggling (spells) or sword swinging allows for the GM to challenge the players in ways that don't have to involve pitched battle.
More that the class invites the play style. To the point that I have never seen a thief played not as chaotic stupid, even when played by otherwise competent players. Besides, no sacred cows are to be left slaughtered this edition, right? So, now comes the obvious question, when you've got a ranger (or a druid) and a wizard with knock, why bother with rogue?

Kompera
2007-12-30, 01:26 AM
More that the class invites the play style. To the point that I have never seen a thief played not as chaotic stupid, even when played by otherwise competent players.Again, behavior comes with the player, not the character class. You seem to be unlucky in the people you game with, I've played next to many intelligent and competent people who had "Rogue" written on the character record sheet and who didn't let that force them into idiotic "Chaotic Stupid" behavior.


Besides, no sacred cows are to be left slaughtered this edition, right? So, now comes the obvious question, when you've got a ranger (or a druid) and a wizard with knock, why bother with rogue?I'm not sure I understand either what your point is, or your two questions. Who says that Knock will be a spell in 4e? And what does a Ranger have to do with the question of Rogues, other than that both classes come from the same author's source work? (For the sake of clarity: Aragorn = Ranger, Bilbo = Rogue)
Something is going well above my head here, because "the obvious question" is not making itself very obvious for me, sorry.

Frosty
2007-12-30, 01:28 AM
In Dungeonscape, Ranger have the abilty to give up the Track feat and in return gain Trapfinding and Disable Device.

horseboy
2007-12-30, 01:45 AM
Again, behavior comes with the player, not the character class. You seem to be unlucky in the people you game with, I've played next to many intelligent and competent people who had "Rogue" written on the character record sheet and who didn't let that force them into idiotic "Chaotic Stupid" behavior.

I'm not sure I understand either what your point is, or your two questions. Who says that Knock will be a spell in 4e? And what does a Ranger have to do with the question of Rogues, other than that both classes come from the same author's source work? (For the sake of clarity: Aragorn = Ranger, Bilbo = Rogue)
Something is going well above my head here, because "the obvious question" is not making itself very obvious for me, sorry.
Everything you listed that a rogue "is for" a ranger can do at least as well. Given how badly rogues tend to get played, why keep them around?l

Kompera
2007-12-30, 02:04 AM
Everything you listed that a rogue "is for" a ranger can do at least as well. Given how badly rogues tend to get played, why keep them around?lYou must be mistaking me with some other poster. In this thread (or any other I can recall) I have not made a list of things a Rogue "is for". That said, Rogues have a skill list which is different in many ways from a Rangers, so I still miss your point about Rangers being able to replace Rogues as a core class.

And yet again, the player is responsible for his or her actions, not the character class. If the players you play with can't play a Rogue without being reduced to idiocy, I'd ask your same question: "why keep them around?"

Aquillion
2007-12-30, 04:26 AM
Yes, but a D'zilla can do every thing there except for what knock does. Alternately a ranger with a bag of tricks. So, yeah, why not leave knock and just get rid of rogue?First, the ranger's basic concept has always been part skillmonkey, part warrior, with a bit of spellcasting thrown in as well. They can, indeed, replace rogues in many cases. They are intended to be able to; most of the core classes are not strictly required, and they're set up with some overlap so nobody is forced to play a specific class because 'we need a rogue' or whatever. So I'll reply to the D'zilla, not the ranger; sure, a ranger is part rogue, but we already know that. A ranger or bard who focuses on their skill-monkey side is, not to put a fine point on it, pretty much a rogue. In fact, a rogue can use ranger or bard flavor without any problems at all; many do. (Dashing rogue types, or rough rural bandit types, say.)

Still, from the 'bag of tricks' line, I assume you follow the mistaken belief that summoned fodder are a universal and infallible replacement for trapfinding. I've already given several reasons why this isn't the case, and several things that are very hard to do without a real skill-monkey, but I'll put them down in more detail here:

* For animals, not every place is suitable for using them. Many areas are filled with steps, doors, ladders, and other things that animals or unintelligent creatures cannot deal with effectively. While you could use an animal to search one small area in a place like that, you wouldn't be able to reuse them, making them ineffective in the long term (you only get ten animals from your bag of tricks per week. If you have to summon a new one every few rooms, you aren't going to last long.)

* Likewise, summon spells have a duration measured in rounds. In a large area, with long corridors between between 'important' areas, you'll be forced to summon a new creature every time... this will cause casters to rapidly run out.

* There are some traps that the party suffers for triggering no matter what, regardless of how many dozen feet they are away from it at the time. For instance, when the party is deep in hostile territory or when there are nasty high-CR creatures around they're avoiding, alarms are fatal. Other traps can cause a deadfall that will seal off key areas, or will destroy treasure that they might otherwise have won. Still others will summon, release, or animate dangerous creatures that will proceed to hunt the party down. And remember: Using summons, they can't get too far from the party in the short duration given, while animals are of limited intelligence and can't explore without someone nearby to direct them. The party generally still has to be close enough for those traps, and many others, to still pose a distance... a trap that collapses the entire room or area, or floods an area with poison gas, or simply does something to everyone in sight range is still very likely to catch some or all of the party members in its effect.

* Digging and excavation are not realistic solutions (at least, not if you want to do them on the 'avoid the dungeon and go wherever you want' scale.) First, they take time. In the time it takes to do that, you could have looted five dungeons just by using a proper skillmonkey. Second, the party often wants to keep a low profile; all the problems with triggering alarms come up here. Third, unless the party has skills as structual engineers, it is quite fair to have things collapse on them... of course, this might seem like it involves a lot of houserules, which brings me to point four: You're Not Supposed To Play That Way. If you really want to mine instead of adventuring, you should be playing a different game.

* Time limits. Sometimes, the party wants to do things quickly. Burning spells in a situation like that is often unrealistic. Additionally, even if the party has no time limit, trying to deal with a dungeon's traps in many small, seperate incursions raises the risks of detection dramatically. If the dungeon is inhabited, someone will notice the players setting off all these traps. They will rearm the, possibly change or move them, set up new traps, reinforce defenses, move treasures elsewhere... you get the idea.

* Hidden treasure. Often, there is valuable treasure scattered over the dungeon that is difficult to find without a search check. Animals can't search for it usefully, since they won't recognize what's valuable to a human. Summoned things (even if they have a decent search check -- is there anything like that?) won't be able to search every single room the way a skill-monkey can, not without running out of summons.

Kaelik
2007-12-30, 04:41 AM
I think you are being a bit unfair in attributing too much to a rogue, that is why taking a Ranger is useful. Specifically the Ranger variant that gets Disable Device and Search as class skills, plus Trapfinding. IE, open locks with some other method, use the Ranger for skillmonkey stuff.

Secondly, add to the list of Rogue substitutes a Cleric with the Kobold Domain. Trapfinding and class skills.

Aquillion
2007-12-30, 04:57 AM
I think you are being a bit unfair in attributing too much to a rogue, that is why taking a Ranger is useful. Specifically the Ranger variant that gets Disable Device and Search as class skills, plus Trapfinding. IE, open locks with some other method, use the Ranger for skillmonkey stuff.

Secondly, add to the list of Rogue substitutes a Cleric with the Kobold Domain. Trapfinding and class skills.Well, like I said, the overlap between the rogue and the ranger is intentional... rangers are certainly intended to serve as an alternative skillmonkey. But I still don't think it completely renders rogues obsolete. Again, what do you do with a long corridor filled with locked doors, or a room with dozens of heavy locked coffers? Sometimes there are too many locks to magic them all, and while bashing can be fun, it has its limits (it attracts attention, can take time, and can destroy the treasure you're trying to get if you use it on locked containers.)

Saph
2007-12-30, 09:57 AM
Scrolls are cheap. Wands are cheaper. Smart parties invest in wands.

For 1,125 gp/character in a party of four (22.5gp per person per lock to unlock), you can get rid of the rogue and get a new party member who can:

You're talking to someone whose main character (check the link in my sig) went around with a wand of knock. :P

It's not a replacement. First, it's expensive. 4,500 gp is not cheap. (By the time it is cheap, then locks aren't generally a big deal anyway.) Second, it runs out. Third, it doesn't do any of the other things rogues do - opening locks is really only a sideline for rogues. A typical rogue has Spot, Listen, Search (with trapfinding), Disable Device, Use Magic Device, Hide, and Move Silently all maxed, along with a few others of his choice. Want to calculate how much gold it would cost to duplicate all of those abilities?

- Saph

horseboy
2007-12-30, 12:47 PM
Well, like I said, the overlap between the rogue and the ranger is intentional... rangers are certainly intended to serve as an alternative skillmonkey. But I still don't think it completely renders rogues obsolete. Again, what do you do with a long corridor filled with locked doors, or a room with dozens of heavy locked coffers? Sometimes there are too many locks to magic them all, and while bashing can be fun, it has its limits (it attracts attention, can take time, and can destroy the treasure you're trying to get if you use it on locked containers.)

That's just it, in 20+ years of play that situation has NEVER come up. Ergo, it, to me, falls under copious amounts of DM fiat, trying to give his jerk ass of a friend bonus time to force the party to put up with his shenanigans. Of course, in a D&D game, were that to happen, then everybody else would just get up from the table while he shines, to go get themselves something to snack on/drink/smoke/watch TV until something interesting occurred.

Aquillion
2007-12-30, 01:42 PM
That's just it, in 20+ years of play that situation has NEVER come up. Ergo, it, to me, falls under copious amounts of DM fiat, trying to give his jerk ass of a friend bonus time to force the party to put up with his shenanigans. Of course, in a D&D game, were that to happen, then everybody else would just get up from the table while he shines, to go get themselves something to snack on/drink/smoke/watch TV until something interesting occurred.Rogue: Ok, I start searching chests for traps, then opening them if I don't find say.
DM: (Rolls a handful of dice a few times.) Ok, you find the following...

Gee, so time-consuming. So you're saying, in all your campaigns, you've never encountered more than two or three locks in a single day? Look, if you play with DMs who barely use locks and traps, it's not a surprise that you don't think that rogues are important or useful. In most actual adventures, though, players will sometimes encounter more locks over the course of an adventure than their spellcaster has prepared knock spells. Burning out a wand of knock every so often just because you hate rogues is an option, sure, but you can't pretend that it's a preferable one, especially when you're regularly setting off trapped chests and doors, firing alarms, and so on.

horseboy
2007-12-30, 02:08 PM
Rogue: Ok, I start searching chests for traps, then opening them if I don't find say.
DM: (Rolls a handful of dice a few times.) Ok, you find the following...

Gee, so time-consuming. Yup. Or you could play so that EVERYONE gets to go looking for things, keeping everyone interested and rolling. Far more likely to keep everyone at the table.


So you're saying, in all your campaigns, you've never encountered more than two or three locks in a single day? Not that I can ever remember happening. Of course, we hate dungeon crawls.

Look, if you play with DMs who barely use locks and traps, it's not a surprise that you don't think that rogues are important or useful. In most actual adventures, though, players will sometimes encounter more locks over the course of an adventure than their spellcaster has prepared knock spells. Burning out a wand of knock every so often just because you hate rogues is an option, sure, but you can't pretend that it's a preferable one, especially when you're regularly setting off trapped chests and doors, firing alarms, and so on.

That's just it. You don't have to pick every lock in a place. Beings live there. They've got to get passed these alarms and locked doors and traps themselves without setting them off. That means they have keys. You only need a knock or two to hold you over until you start getting keys into stuff.

Reinboom
2007-12-30, 02:43 PM
-snip-
(Remember, a situational solution doesn't count; that will only complement the rogue, rather than replacing them. A wizard has to be able to open all six locked doors along a long hallway and peek inside, or open every one of the several-dozen locked chests in a vault to search for treasure, all without spending any cash, wasting more than a few minutes, or burning significant resources, while dealing with potential traps and alarms. A rogue can do this without breaking a sweat; if a wizard can't, they're only a situational complement to the rogue, not a replacement.)

I still don't understand the focus on knock, too. Why does knock bother people more than, say, Fly vs Climb / Jump, or any of the other skill / spell comparisons I mentioned above? Give me a reason... I'm honestly curious. As far as I can tell, knock merely complements disable device; it can be useful in some specific situations, and in emergencies, but I don't think anyone's made a valid argument that it could ever overshadow even a small facet of the rogue.

You have presented the opposite here though, a situation where open lock is absolutely needed. I simply don't play that way.

In my current campaign, for example, there has been a total of 1 dungeon. It's been running for months. This dungeon had 1 locked... anything.
Knock provides me a really specific issue since it imposes upon a class focused task that otherwise doesn't come up and should be the time to shine. It's also easier to adjudicate for knock if it doesn't exist. Removing options removes utility belts. Yes, there are more powerful things to ban, or use, than knock. Except where knock comes up. 1 knock used over an invisibility rather than 1 invisibility used over a knock... they do different things and have different power in different situations.

I believe I did mention fly earlier, and fly does bother me. It accomplishes something different, however, and I've been trying to debate (with myself =it happens a lot) how to change it for awhile...



I'm actually fine with both knock and rope trick, but then we always carry around bags of holding and thusly never use it. Likewise I'd hate to see knock go, if only because my current DM is a real pain about locked doors. (Barbarian can't break through it, rouge can't pick it while taking twenty... what's that? you don't have knock? I guess your not getting in here then.)

If Knock didn't exist, then your DM wouldn't put knock-only situations. Or, if he did, you need to have a discussion with your DM.


It seems like thre's two camps here: One camp feels that it's the spell progression that needs to be fixed, and the other feels that if we remove the problematic spells, the class will be fine.

I'm in both camps...


The sad thing is, a lot of those spell are really fun, but certainly game breaking, i think it would be better to nerf the spell (making them less powerful and/or getting them at a higher level or more limitations ect) because the flavor is great
from,
EE

This is my main issue with trying to fix/change Fly without removing it.


To a poster asking for ideas on how to design a low magic primitive/bronze age setting I once suggested limiting caster levels to every other level. So you'd end up with a group that might look like this at 6th level:

Barbarian 6
Rogue 3 / Sorcerer 3
Fighter 2 / Rogue 1 / Priest 3
Bard 6

With this limitation, you'll never have to deal with players casting spells above 5th level (until Epic, at least), and that level of spell casting blended with the higher level characters balance should be much more easily maintained.

I would only do this while emphasizing "there are no more multiclassing experience penalties"
Getting them to level 4, then half their advancement from there wouldn't be too bad, which gets them to level 6 spells.


You're talking to someone whose main character (check the link in my sig) went around with a wand of knock. :P

It's not a replacement. First, it's expensive. 4,500 gp is not cheap. (By the time it is cheap, then locks aren't generally a big deal anyway.) Second, it runs out. Third, it doesn't do any of the other things rogues do - opening locks is really only a sideline for rogues. A typical rogue has Spot, Listen, Search (with trapfinding), Disable Device, Use Magic Device, Hide, and Move Silently all maxed, along with a few others of his choice. Want to calculate how much gold it would cost to duplicate all of those abilities?

- Saph

Not considering things that are already covered by other classes (spot/listen) or things that a caster always has (invisibility)...
Can't. Too campaign dependent. Might be expensive for you, but I would say, a couple level 1 wands and a few low level scrolls for me. This would get me through until the cost of them doesn't matter.


Rogue: Ok, I start searching chests for traps, then opening them if I don't find say.
DM: (Rolls a handful of dice a few times.) Ok, you find the following...

Gee, so time-consuming. So you're saying, in all your campaigns, you've never encountered more than two or three locks in a single day? Look, if you play with DMs who barely use locks and traps, it's not a surprise that you don't think that rogues are important or useful. In most actual adventures, though, players will sometimes encounter more locks over the course of an adventure than their spellcaster has prepared knock spells. Burning out a wand of knock every so often just because you hate rogues is an option, sure, but you can't pretend that it's a preferable one, especially when you're regularly setting off trapped chests and doors, firing alarms, and so on.

Campaign dependent. Since, I believe most of this started with me putting knock on my banned list...
This is an important thing to note: It's campaign dependent. Knock may seem like a waste to you, but in other campaigns it can be disruptive. It may seem like a strange, or specific scenario or situation to you, but in other campaigns it's normal.
It's on my banned list for a reason.

Aside, why is your way of playing any more of an actual adventure than another persons?


=====
A different question, instead of wondering why to remove knock...
Why does knock need to be there at all?
What does removing it hurt? Currently, I can only think of situations - at least in my campaigns - where keeping it has been more annoying than removing it.

Kaelik
2007-12-30, 02:46 PM
Rogue: Ok, I start searching chests for traps, then opening them if I don't find say.
DM: (Rolls a handful of dice a few times.) Ok, you find the following...

Gee, so time-consuming. So you're saying, in all your campaigns, you've never encountered more than two or three locks in a single day? Look, if you play with DMs who barely use locks and traps, it's not a surprise that you don't think that rogues are important or useful. In most actual adventures, though, players will sometimes encounter more locks over the course of an adventure than their spellcaster has prepared knock spells. Burning out a wand of knock every so often just because you hate rogues is an option, sure, but you can't pretend that it's a preferable one, especially when you're regularly setting off trapped chests and doors, firing alarms, and so on.

You are arguing against a Straw Man here.

The idea is, instead of Iconic four, try something like:

Ranger with Trapfinding and class skills
Cleric
Fighter
Wizard

or

Cleric with Kobold Domain (Trapfinding and class skills) and Domination domain (More class skills, also really kickass spells).
Cleric
Fighter
Wizard

Now you have to parties that are better at fighting then the iconic four. You also can deal with traps just as well. Now you come across a lock, this is the situation:

1) Break it down
2) Cast knock
3) Use a key
4) Find a way around

If you build either of these parties then the only thing you are worse against is locked doors. But you can still deal with them in a lot of ways. And if your DM sets up a series of locked doors that you can't bypass and have to defeat quietly, well then guess what, they are a terrible DM. Because they basically sat down and said, "How can I punish them for not taking Rogue?" Which is terrible DMing to punish them for playing the characters they wanted instead of the Iconic Four.

horseboy
2007-12-30, 02:59 PM
=====
A different question, instead of wondering why to remove knock...
Why does knock need to be there at all?
What does removing it hurt? Currently, I can only think of situations - at least in my campaigns - where keeping it has been more annoying than removing it.
That was my question about the rogue. After all, I find Knock far less disruptive than rogues.

You are arguing against a Straw Man here.

The idea is, instead of Iconic four, try something like:

Ranger with Trapfinding and class skills
Cleric
Fighter
Wizard
Or better yet, do away with trapfinding all together. After all it's a lame, heavy handed way the system forces you to do something. Why can't anyone with a good enough spot be able to spot the wire coming off the door/chest/whatever?

Frosty
2007-12-30, 03:05 PM
That's why I say use a Beguiler. You still get trapfinding...and you get level 9 spells!

Kompera
2007-12-30, 10:14 PM
The idea is, instead of Iconic four, try something like:

Ranger with Trapfinding and class skills
Cleric
Fighter
Wizard

or

Cleric with Kobold Domain (Trapfinding and class skills) and Domination domain (More class skills, also really kickass spells).
Cleric
Fighter
Wizard

Now you have to parties that are better at fighting then the iconic four. You also can deal with traps just as well.
Except traps are not the only thing the iconic Rogue is good at.

Who does the scouting? Not the Clerics in their plate armor. And hopefully not the Wizard with his low HP and cross-class Spot and Listen skills. That leaves the Ranger, a class only represented by your first group, and a class which lacks a long list of other skills very useful to any adventuring group. And for the skills it does have, has less skill points to spread amongst them than the Rogue.

And you can't play either of your two groups in Core, unless I missed the Ranger option to take Trapfinding and the Kobold and Domination domains.

So all you've really proved is that with enough splat books at your disposal you can make just about anything out of any character class. But I think that this is fairly well known already, and most consider it to be cheese and don't allow it in their games.

Kaelik
2007-12-30, 10:52 PM
Except traps are not the only thing the iconic Rogue is good at.

Who does the scouting? Not the Clerics in their plate armor. And hopefully not the Wizard with his low HP and cross-class Spot and Listen skills. That leaves the Ranger, a class only represented by your first group, and a class which lacks a long list of other skills very useful to any adventuring group. And for the skills it does have, has less skill points to spread amongst them than the Rogue.

And you can't play either of your two groups in Core, unless I missed the Ranger option to take Trapfinding and the Kobold and Domination domains.

So all you've really proved is that with enough splat books at your disposal you can make just about anything out of any character class. But I think that this is fairly well known already, and most consider it to be cheese and don't allow it in their games.

Who does the scouting? Not the Wizards and Clerics with Arcane sight/Clairvoyance. Not the Ranger. Not the people with Invisibility.

And please not the Core fallacy. Just because something can't be done in Core doesn't mean it isn't a good idea in all those games that aren't core (most of them.) The whole point is that the Rogue class isn't that great, and that given several options to replace them with a better character, you should. The Rogue is not essential in any way, and can be replaced.

Cuddly
2007-12-30, 11:01 PM
You're talking to someone whose main character (check the link in my sig) went around with a wand of knock. :P

It's not a replacement. First, it's expensive. 4,500 gp is not cheap. (By the time it is cheap, then locks aren't generally a big deal anyway.) Second, it runs out. Third, it doesn't do any of the other things rogues do - opening locks is really only a sideline for rogues. A typical rogue has Spot, Listen, Search (with trapfinding), Disable Device, Use Magic Device, Hide, and Move Silently all maxed, along with a few others of his choice. Want to calculate how much gold it would cost to duplicate all of those abilities?

- Saph

Uh, one ranger?
UMD isn't that great, except to have the rogue do something useful in battle with those randomly looted wands and stuff. Besides, UMD costs money for most purposes. Charges ain't free.

In my campaign, the fighter has the lockpicking tool- an adamantine warhammer.

Kompera
2007-12-30, 11:35 PM
Who does the scouting? Not the Wizards and Clerics with Arcane sight/Clairvoyance. Not the Ranger. Not the people with Invisibility.Right. Use up your spells scouting rather than have a party member who can do it all day long, who has a gross of other useful skills as well, and who can contribute to a fight. And one who can move silently, which Invisibility does not grant. Nor does Invisibility grant a decent Spot or Listen check. But I'm sure you've got spells for that, too, and then narcolepsy on demand to regain them all. Sounds like a real fun game, for the Wizard at least.

Horseboy suggests that the other players would be bored and leave the table if the Rogue has a few traps to locate and disarm, or a few locks to pick. But wouldn't a little intellectual honesty suggest that replacing a Rogue's skill set with a caster player's skill set does not eliminate the situation, it merely transfers the boredom to the players other than the casters. And I'm sure we all know how little spotlight time casters get, and how much keeping them from being bored is important to game balance.


And please not the Core fallacy. Just because something can't be done in Core doesn't mean it isn't a good idea in all those games that aren't core (most of them.) The whole point is that the Rogue class isn't that great, and that given several options to replace them with a better character, you should. The Rogue is not essential in any way, and can be replaced.What poll have you taken to support your assertion that most games run outside core?

The whole point seems to be that you think that the Rogue class isn't that great, and you're willing to go to any extreme to try to make that point.

As has been demonstrated many times on these boards, every other class can be replaced by spell casters, but that doesn't make the Rogue a poor choice for a core class concept. Rogues are not Monks, nor are they single classed Fighters.

And please, not the "core fallacy" fallacy. Just because something can be done with free access to splat books doesn't mean it is a good idea in all those games that are core or close to core. Every game does not have to allow Punpun, or even a handful of splat books, no matter how you may enjoy playing.

horseboy
2007-12-30, 11:50 PM
Horseboy suggests that the other players would be bored and leave the table if the Rogue has a few traps to locate and disarm, or a few locks to pick. But wouldn't a little intellectual honesty suggest that replacing a Rogue's skill set with a caster player's skill set does not eliminate the situation, it merely transfers the boredom to the players other than the casters. And I'm sure we all know how little spotlight time casters get, and how much keeping them from being bored is important to game balance.

Actually, with the exception of Knock, I'm suggesting that EVERYONE gets to do the job of the just one person. That way everyone is involved. Rogues in trap heavy environments suffer the "decker syndrome", only instead of just one break to get it over with, you've got to do it every time in every room.

Kompera
2007-12-31, 12:12 AM
Rogues in trap heavy environments suffer the "decker syndrome", only instead of just one break to get it over with, you've got to do it every time in every room.
Can you explain "decker syndrome", please? I've googled it, but aside from an amusing double decker pie recipe in an irritable bowel syndrome cookbook, I didn't find anything which seemed appropriate.

tyckspoon
2007-12-31, 12:18 AM
Can you explain "decker syndrome", please? I've googled it, but aside from an amusing double decker pie recipe in an irritable bowel syndrome cookbook, I didn't find anything which seemed appropriate.

Deckers are the hacker archetype of character in Shadowrun. When a scene comes up that requires the Decker's skills, they're the only ones who participate in it. All the rules about interacting with AIs and hacking security programs and cybercombat- the only person who ever bothers to deal with those things is the decker. So when he's doing his thing, the rest of the group has nothing much to do (and in character may well just be standing around waiting for the decker to unplug and announce that he's done.)

Kompera
2007-12-31, 02:29 AM
Thanks for the explanation, tyckspoon. I've played Shadowrun, almost so long ago that I've forgotten much beyond the need for huge handsfull of dice.

I find horseboy's analogy to be flawed. In no D&D game I've been in has the group had to spend a lot of idle time while the Rogue did the things which Rogues are good at. No more idle time then when the character with CHA is using their Diplomacy skill to chat with a local nobleman, or any number of other situations where one player is temporarily in the spotlight, roleplaying or using one skill or another, or just chatting with the GM about things their character would know as a member of the game world but which the player can't know unless the GM informs him.

Aquillion
2007-12-31, 05:54 AM
You have presented the opposite here though, a situation where open lock is absolutely needed. I simply don't play that way.

In my current campaign, for example, there has been a total of 1 dungeon. It's been running for months. This dungeon had 1 locked... anything.
Knock provides me a really specific issue since it imposes upon a class focused task that otherwise doesn't come up and should be the time to shine. It's also easier to adjudicate for knock if it doesn't exist. Removing options removes utility belts. Yes, there are more powerful things to ban, or use, than knock. Except where knock comes up. 1 knock used over an invisibility rather than 1 invisibility used over a knock... they do different things and have different power in different situations.Oh! You should have said that earlier. In other words, all your other words aside, you've concede that lock isn't mechanically imbalanced in your games; I don't see how, after admitting your campaign has had only a single lock, you could argue anything else.

I'm happy with that. As long as you admit that your objection is merely to the flavor of knock, and not any mechanical or gameplay issue (and I think, no matter what, you have conceded that by admitting that you banned it despite only having a single lock in the campaign world)

My assumption is that players will always come up with their own ways of solving solutions, and the the game is designed to encourage this; there are always multiple ways of overcoming any challenge. I presented a (quite plausable) situation where open lock is at least better than knock to show that it is not made redundant by the spell by a long shot; but I don't think that that's the only way the players could react to it. On the other hand...


You have presented the opposite here though, a situation where open lock is absolutely needed. I simply don't play that way.But... you do. You decided to create a situation where open lock was absolutely needed, and forcibly removed all alternatives. If the players try and solve the situation using a spell, that spell is removed; if the barbarian tries to bash it with his greataxe, it's magically unbreakable; if they try and steal the key, it's nowhere to be found, or the jailer breaks it when he falls, or whatever else will make sure that the players solve the lock the way it was intended.

And that's fine. Like you said, it's a matter of gameplay styles; you're free to run it however you like. But I do have one question:

By putting only a single lock in the game world, you've made Open Lock a useless skill. I assume you do, on some level, understand this; banning Knock isn't going to change the fact that rogues are going to have better things to spend skill points on than on a skill that comes up once in an entire campaign.

If the players are complaining that Open Lock is useless in your gameworld... do you honestly, seriously believe that Knock is the problem there? Don't you think that, you know, the fact that there was only one lock, ever, might have something to do with it?

And, for that matter, don't you think you might've made Knock useless anyway? No wizard is going to prepare it if they never encounter locks. What, are they going to ask the party to wait 15 minutes so they can prepare it in a conveniently empty slot when the rogue could open the door in two rounds? (Assuming they took the Open Lock skill, which they wouldn't have if they knew you barely use locks...)

In fact, you created a situation that needs Open Lock even moreso than I did. The occasional-very-rare-lock renders Knock just as useless as the dozens-of-locks-in-a-row scenerio, since wizards have to prepare spells (and sorcerers are never going to waste a slot on this). A rogue can at least have all their skills ready all the time, so (assuming anyone is going to spend anything worrying about locks, which is very unlikely with only one in the game) the rogue is still the best bet. (After the barbarian with the greataxe, but that's a constant.)


Rogues in trap heavy environments suffer the "decker syndrome", only instead of just one break to get it over with, you've got to do it every time in every room.Nonsense. You don't simply throw a bunch of locks at the party at once, and nothing else, or a bunch of traps and nothing else; you use them as part of a larger, more complicated environment, one with roaming creatures to watch for, other things in the room to explore or examine, prisoners to interrogate, or whatever else fits into the situation. The rogue typically goes over locked boxes, say, when everyone else is going over the rest of the loot, healing after combat, and doing similar things.

Saph
2007-12-31, 07:23 AM
Uh, one ranger?
UMD isn't that great, except to have the rogue do something useful in battle with those randomly looted wands and stuff. Besides, UMD costs money for most purposes. Charges ain't free.

. . . weren't you the one who was just recommending using a 4,500 gp wand?

Never mind. What you're saying now is to replace the rogue with a ranger, which I don't have any argument with. The reason I was posting was to say there's no real reason to remove knock.

- Saph

Reinboom
2008-01-01, 02:02 PM
-snip-

... what? :smallconfused:
You are putting words that I have never said down....


Oh! You should have said that earlier. In other words, all your other words aside, you've concede that lock isn't mechanically imbalanced in your games; I don't see how, after admitting your campaign has had only a single lock, you could argue anything else.

I'm happy with that. As long as you admit that your objection is merely to the flavor of knock, and not any mechanical or gameplay issue (and I think, no matter what, you have conceded that by admitting that you banned it despite only having a single lock in the campaign world)
Knock is banned for one thing I don't want to worry about or see. The reason it's this way is because it's a spell, it's given to something that already can do everything, and I simply want to limit this group of classes that much more.


My assumption is that players will always come up with their own ways of solving solutions, and the the game is designed to encourage this; there are always multiple ways of overcoming any challenge. I presented a (quite plausable) situation where open lock is at least better than knock to show that it is not made redundant by the spell by a long shot; but I don't think that that's the only way the players could react to it. On the other hand...

But... you do. You decided to create a situation where open lock was absolutely needed, and forcibly removed all alternatives. If the players try and solve the situation using a spell, that spell is removed; if the barbarian tries to bash it with his greataxe, it's magically unbreakable; if they try and steal the key, it's nowhere to be found, or the jailer breaks it when he falls, or whatever else will make sure that the players solve the lock the way it was intended.
You are putting down things that never happened here, or I never said.
The players smashed the door.


And that's fine. Like you said, it's a matter of gameplay styles; you're free to run it however you like. But I do have one question:

By putting only a single lock in the game world, you've made Open Lock a useless skill. I assume you do, on some level, understand this; banning Knock isn't going to change the fact that rogues are going to have better things to spend skill points on than on a skill that comes up once in an entire campaign.

If the players are complaining that Open Lock is useless in your gameworld... do you honestly, seriously believe that Knock is the problem there? Don't you think that, you know, the fact that there was only one lock, ever, might have something to do with it?

Where have I said they are complaining that open lock is useless in my gameworld? :smallconfused:
The players are free to play to their skills in my gameworld, not be limited by the world to them. I've ran the basis of this campaign three times (and every time, it's been different). The 2nd party used open lock an incredible number of times, they decided to be.. less honorable than the other parties.
Aside, the players make of their skills what they want of them.
I still have considered folding open lock and disable device together, yet.


And, for that matter, don't you think you might've made Knock useless anyway? No wizard is going to prepare it if they never encounter locks. What, are they going to ask the party to wait 15 minutes so they can prepare it in a conveniently empty slot when the rogue could open the door in two rounds? (Assuming they took the Open Lock skill, which they wouldn't have if they knew you barely use locks...)

In fact, you created a situation that needs Open Lock even moreso than I did. The occasional-very-rare-lock renders Knock just as useless as the dozens-of-locks-in-a-row scenerio, since wizards have to prepare spells (and sorcerers are never going to waste a slot on this). A rogue can at least have all their skills ready all the time, so (assuming anyone is going to spend anything worrying about locks, which is very unlikely with only one in the game) the rogue is still the best bet. (After the barbarian with the greataxe, but that's a constant.)
Read above.