Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
And I got a read at -5 but then it opened on the next attempt
Does anyone know if you can mod locks positive?
I believe that if you can see the lock, but fail the first attempt, you get a positive mod on future attempts.
"So, what does that green line on the graph represent?"
"Oh, that's the projection of a hypothetical offspring from a union between Sauron and Cruella de Ville; we use that as a baseline for determining character alignment."
"So, what does that green line on the graph represent?"
"Oh, that's the projection of a hypothetical offspring from a union between Sauron and Cruella de Ville; we use that as a baseline for determining character alignment."
>I'll try to get my next -5 on a non-picker and see what happens. Same vein, lockrot oil on a fumbled lock? Will it blend - errr - go positive?
It takes a lot of data to prove it one way or another. You don't see the mod directly.
You could do it yourself. Thats a character with over 200 ranks in picking getting the read off a -5 lock. Its just a mattter of making the right pick. You will need someone with decent LM to keep relocking the box anyway.
I don't know about the lockrot oil. I haven't seen any, but it would be fun to see whether it did anything to a -5 lock.
It takes a lot of data to prove it one way or another. You don't see the mod directly.
You could do it yourself. Thats a character with over 200 ranks in picking getting the read off a -5 lock. Its just a mattter of making the right pick. You will need someone with decent LM to keep relocking the box anyway.
I don't know about the lockrot oil. I haven't seen any, but it would be fun to see whether it did anything to a -5 lock.
You could have someone with LFM make you a lock of the size you want to test, too. It's an easily repeatable test, so I would think getting a sufficiently large enough data set would be only a matter of putting the time into the research.
BTW, could someone explain to me exactly what you're talking about? I take it you're talking about modding a -5 lock beyond an effective value of 0? Do I understand that correctly?
It might be easier to test that if you 'degrade' the picker, perhaps by using injuries and/or scars. There are probably other negative modifiers you could use, too.
On the other hand... perhaps the best test would be to take someone with a very small total skill.
Use a -5 lock. Only use undamaged, store-bought copper lockpicks. Create a character with no picking ranks and a -1 DEX bonus. That should require a roll of 107 to pick. Picking the lock without the benefit of an open roll will therefore require modding the lock down to a +2 or better value. If you manage to open the lock without an open roll, then you know you can mod the lock past zero.
On the other hand, if you get at least 2 'sees', and roll a 99 or better without opening the lock, then you know that you can't mod the lock past 0.
Notes: My test numbers make two assumptions that I'm not sure I'm remembering correctly. If they're wrong, then adjust the numbers accordingly:
1) After the all the calculations are done, a value of 101 is needed to open the lock. 100 does not open the lock.
2) Modding the lock down lowers the effective value by 4. The correct value might be 5 instead.
BTW, could someone explain to me exactly what you're talking about? I take it you're talking about modding a -5 lock beyond an effective value of 0? Do I understand that correctly?
It might be easier to test that if you 'degrade' the picker, perhaps by using injuries and/or scars. There are probably other negative modifiers you could use, too.
On the other hand... perhaps the best test would be to take someone with a very small total skill.
Use a -5 lock. Only use undamaged, store-bought copper lockpicks. Create a character with no picking ranks and a -1 DEX bonus. That should require a roll of 107 to pick. Picking the lock without the benefit of an open roll will therefore require modding the lock down to a +2 or better value. If you manage to open the lock without an open roll, then you know you can mod the lock past zero.
On the other hand, if you get at least 2 'sees', and roll a 99 or better without opening the lock, then you know that you can't mod the lock past 0.
Notes: My test numbers make two assumptions that I'm not sure I'm remembering correctly. If they're wrong, then adjust the numbers accordingly:
1) After the all the calculations are done, a value of 101 is needed to open the lock. 100 does not open the lock.
2) Modding the lock down lowers the effective value by 4. The correct value might be 5 instead.
>2) Modding the lock down lowers the effective value by 4. The correct value might be 5 instead.
It is 5, although it was long believed to be 4, Anorian did exactly this sort of test to check it was 5 after opening a lock on a roll he thought should have just failed.
The locks system works in multiples of 5, probably because it was fairly crudely converted from a d20 to a d100 system at some point in its development. It would be quite surprising if it was 4. Things like the maxlock used for calculating whether you get a rep or not are rounded to a multiple of 5.
>You could have someone with LFM make you a lock of the size you want to test, too. It's an easily repeatable test, so I would think getting a sufficiently large enough data set would be only a matter of putting the time into the research.
I should have thought of that. Making a -1500 lock to play with is pretty expensive, but a -5 lock is dirt cheap.
>BTW, could someone explain to me exactly what you're talking about? I take it you're talking about modding a -5 lock beyond an effective value of 0? Do I understand that correctly?
Yes. And the same with lockrot oil. I expect modding would work and lockrot wouldn't but it would take a test to be sure.
>It might be easier to test that if you 'degrade' the picker, perhaps by using injuries and/or scars. There are probably other negative modifiers you could use, too.
I wonder if its possible to get a rep off a +5 lock, by suitably degrading the picker as well as lockrotting a box.
It is 5, although it was long believed to be 4, Anorian did exactly this sort of test to check it was 5 after opening a lock on a roll he thought should have just failed.
The locks system works in multiples of 5, probably because it was fairly crudely converted from a d20 to a d100 system at some point in its development. It would be quite surprising if it was 4. Things like the maxlock used for calculating whether you get a rep or not are rounded to a multiple of 5.
>You could have someone with LFM make you a lock of the size you want to test, too. It's an easily repeatable test, so I would think getting a sufficiently large enough data set would be only a matter of putting the time into the research.
I should have thought of that. Making a -1500 lock to play with is pretty expensive, but a -5 lock is dirt cheap.
>BTW, could someone explain to me exactly what you're talking about? I take it you're talking about modding a -5 lock beyond an effective value of 0? Do I understand that correctly?
Yes. And the same with lockrot oil. I expect modding would work and lockrot wouldn't but it would take a test to be sure.
>It might be easier to test that if you 'degrade' the picker, perhaps by using injuries and/or scars. There are probably other negative modifiers you could use, too.
I wonder if its possible to get a rep off a +5 lock, by suitably degrading the picker as well as lockrotting a box.
Alchemy creation, there's 2 versions (lesser and greater) - I believe they're both tar (greater is noxious brown tar I think).
They temporarily make the lock easier. The change in difficulty is visible - greater takes 75 off the difficulty, so if you're trying to open a -1000 and pour some on it it'll raise it to -925.
Quite handy stuff, not terribly common though.
Here's the recipe for greater:
http://www.virilneus.com/recipes/recipeview.php?rid=579
-Keleborrn.
They temporarily make the lock easier. The change in difficulty is visible - greater takes 75 off the difficulty, so if you're trying to open a -1000 and pour some on it it'll raise it to -925.
Quite handy stuff, not terribly common though.
Here's the recipe for greater:
http://www.virilneus.com/recipes/recipeview.php?rid=579
-Keleborrn.
A flask of noxious dark tar is the greater, I don't know the name of the lesser item:
http://www.virilneus.com/shops/index.php?itemname=noxious
http://www.virilneus.com/shops/index.php?itemname=noxious
According to KP thats the lesser, the minor is brown (-25) and the greater is black(-150) (and -75 fits with being the lesser).
They are all noxious ... tar though, and only the the lesser (dark) is showing up in shops.
Is the dark glimmering crystal in the recipe made from the trap component or is it an alchemy drop? I don't remember ever seeing one and can't find any information except that it appears in the recipes.
They are all noxious ... tar though, and only the the lesser (dark) is showing up in shops.
Is the dark glimmering crystal in the recipe made from the trap component or is it an alchemy drop? I don't remember ever seeing one and can't find any information except that it appears in the recipes.
>1) After the all the calculations are done, a value of 101 is needed to open the lock. 100 does not open the lock.
I didn't see this confirmed elsewhere, so I'll do that. 101 required for definite. Everything rounds down (Lore bonus, etc), so any result via human calculation that falls inbetween 100 and 101 is considered a 100 (no success) by the system.
Far as I can tell there's no good way to determine at what point(s) the rounding occurs, unfortunately. Given the various components that make up the locklore formula, it makes a difference, albeit not one that many people would actually care about.
What was I talking about again?
>It is 5, although it was long believed to be 4, Anorian did exactly this sort of test to check it was 5 after opening a lock on a roll he thought should have just failed.
Warm fuzzies (or as close to that sort of thing as I get), thanks for the nod. And yeah, it's 5. It's been years, but I'm guessing I made both those observations at around the same point in research (aka poking at d100 data), in that one is dependant on t'other type thing.
-Anorian
I didn't see this confirmed elsewhere, so I'll do that. 101 required for definite. Everything rounds down (Lore bonus, etc), so any result via human calculation that falls inbetween 100 and 101 is considered a 100 (no success) by the system.
Far as I can tell there's no good way to determine at what point(s) the rounding occurs, unfortunately. Given the various components that make up the locklore formula, it makes a difference, albeit not one that many people would actually care about.
What was I talking about again?
>It is 5, although it was long believed to be 4, Anorian did exactly this sort of test to check it was 5 after opening a lock on a roll he thought should have just failed.
Warm fuzzies (or as close to that sort of thing as I get), thanks for the nod. And yeah, it's 5. It's been years, but I'm guessing I made both those observations at around the same point in research (aka poking at d100 data), in that one is dependant on t'other type thing.
-Anorian
