Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mommy was an Orc 03-22-07, 10:56 AM	Oh, oh... I challenge thee, scurrilous Rogue Uh, sure...that's fair Arcane Trickster gestures briefly, moves up to the Knight and taps him on the shoulder. All the Knight's armor falls off... New FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) Page 25 says that you can use Disable Device to sabotage armor. Instant Locksmith is an LG Core Swift Action spell that lets you make a Disable Device check as a free action(and get +2 to the roll actually) As many decent level rogues can nail this check automatically, the only question really is whether or not they picked up this spell. The questioner was asking about whether or not you could do the delayed sabotage as opposed to the instant sabotage. If you can do the delayed sabotage, you can do the instant. Silly Sage.
Howie23 03-22-07, 11:38 AM	Oh, oh... Page 25 says that you can use Disable Device to sabotage armor. Is there a defined mechanic for "sabotaged armor?" Otherwise, I'm thinking that a balanced response in the realm of applying hastily donned penalties rather than "falls off." David
Timlagor 03-22-07, 12:30 PM	I'd simply rule that you can't use DD on an attended item.
Mommy was an Orc 03-22-07, 12:33 PM	Is there a defined mechanic for "sabotaged armor?" Otherwise, I'm thinking that a balanced response in the realm of applying hastily donned penalties rather than "falls off." David Unfortunately, yes. The FAQ... The question in the FAQ is whether or not a Rogue could sabotage the straps to make someone's armor fall off after a time. The Sage answered yes, but the DM had leeway to decide if that was 1d4 rounds or minutes. Which completely missed the point. If you can sabotage someone armor to fall off after a time, you can sabotage it to fall off right this instant - do you just break the wagon wheel or do you make it fall off a few minutes later as an example. Now normally, the DM would have the easy option of declaring it a complex action, so no Rogue is going to stand around for a few rounds trying to pull that off. Instant Locksmith changes that to essentially a swift action spell, removing the one thing really standing in the way.
ShinAkuma2 03-22-07, 12:38 PM	Which completely missed the point. If you can sabotage someone armor to fall off after a time, you can sabotage it to fall off right this instant - do you just break the wagon wheel or do you make it fall off a few minutes later as an example. Which means you didn't read the entry. Simply "breaking" something is not using Disable Device. That's, well, breaking it. Once you sabotage a simple mechanical object, you have no control over exactly when it'll fall apart.
Mommy was an Orc 03-22-07, 12:47 PM	Which means you didn't read the entry. Simply "breaking" something is not using Disable Device. That's, well, breaking it. Once you sabotage a simple mechanical object, you have no control over exactly when it'll fall apart. I was using breaking and sabotage in a non-rules sense. A jammed lock is a broken lock. You can make the wheel fall right off by using Disable Device, even if the wagon is not moving. If it is a device, you can do this. A wagon without a wheel is a broken wagon, even if someone could put the wheel back on. You're not choosing to sabotage the armor, you're choosing to disable device the armor in such a way that it instantly no longer functions as armor. If Armor is a device(and the Sage has said such), then that's that.
Howie23 03-22-07, 12:56 PM	Unfortunately, yes. The FAQ... The question in the FAQ is whether or not a Rogue could sabotage the straps to make someone's armor fall off after a time. The Sage answered yes, but the DM had leeway to decide if that was 1d4 rounds or minutes. Which completely missed the point. If you can sabotage someone armor to fall off after a time, you can sabotage it to fall off right this instant - do you just break the wagon wheel or do you make it fall off a few minutes later as an example. Now normally, the DM would have the easy option of declaring it a complex action, so no Rogue is going to stand around for a few rounds trying to pull that off. Instant Locksmith changes that to essentially a swift action spell, removing the one thing really standing in the way. I'm sorry, but having read the FAQ, attempting to use it to prove that a single swift disable device can be used to rig armor to immediately fall off is a stretch. The FAQ implies that you are disabling multiple buckles to make this happen, and the the judge has leeway on determining when. If you want to make a case for "*poof* the knight is naked", enjoy the intellectual exercise. David
Mommy was an Orc 03-22-07, 02:04 PM	I'm sorry, but having read the FAQ, attempting to use it to prove that a single swift disable device can be used to rig armor to immediately fall off is a stretch. The FAQ implies that you are disabling multiple buckles to make this happen, and the the judge has leeway on determining when. If you want to make a case for "*poof* the knight is naked", enjoy the intellectual exercise. It requires 1 DC 25 check and 2d4 rounds to disable a wickedly tricky device. If you cast Instant Locksmith, you do those 2d4 rounds of actions as a free action. Unless you're arguing armor is more complex than that, you don't actually have that leeway.
Howie23 03-22-07, 02:12 PM	It requires 1 DC 25 check and 2d4 rounds to disable a wickedly tricky device. If you cast Instant Locksmith, you do those 2d4 rounds of actions as a free action. Unless you're arguing armor is more complex than that, you don't actually have that leeway. Have fun. David
Mattastrophic 03-22-07, 02:24 PM	MWaO is right. Using Disable Device on armor is a Disable Device check. Instant Locksmith lets you make a Disable Device check as a free action. Thus, with Instant Locksmith, using Disable Device on armor is a free action. It works. Wow. It may sound broke at first, but then I slap myself and remember that rogues are the mathematically most disadvantaged class in the game, and thus any bump to their "power" is a good thing. -Matt's characters usually don't appear to be wearing armor, so he's covered. Unless the assassin chick really wants to get one of them out of his clothes...
Timlagor 03-22-07, 02:27 PM	I'd simply rule that you can't use DD on an attended item. Quoted because everyone seems to have completely ignored my post.
Mattastrophic 03-22-07, 02:30 PM	Quoted because everyone seems to have completely ignored my post. You weren't ignored. The FAQ entry overruled you, so it's a moot point. -Matt
ShinAkuma2 03-22-07, 02:34 PM	*sigh* You also can rig simple devices such as saddles or wagon wheels to work normally for a while and then fail or fall off some time later (usually after 1d4 rounds or minutes of use). You can’t sabotage a piece of parchment, or a shirt, or a pane of glass—you can only break them Can you give a shred of evidence that destroying a wagon wheel is using Disable Device? If you can't, then why do you try to show that destroying armor is comparable? As it stands, you CAN Disable Device armor. However, that doesn't mean it's going to work immediately, as is suggested by the Disable Device skill description. You cast your spell, you make your check, and Hooray! The armor is sabotaged. 1d4 rounds or minutes later, DM's discretion, it falls apart.
trollbill 03-22-07, 02:46 PM	You weren't ignored. The FAQ entry overruled you, so it's a moot point. -Matt The FAQ makes no statement what so ever as to the state of the item (worn or not) at the time the Disable Device check is made. It only mentions it could be disabled to malfunction when used/worn. Ergo, a LG Judge would be within his/her legal rights to apply modifiers, claim is would provoke an AoO, or even disallow it if the item is in the possession of someone unwilling to have the item Disabled. I am not sure I would completely disallow it myself, but I would make it very difficult to accomplish. *sigh* Can you give a shred of evidence that destroying a wagon wheel is using Disable Device? If you can't, then why do you try to show that destroying armor is comparable? Player's Handbook, page 72, Disable Device, first sentence: Use this skill to disarm a trap, jam a lock (in either the open or closed position), or rig a wagon wheel to fall off. Furthermore, I note that the Sage uses the following words in his statement: Ultimately, the Sage thinks it’d be fair to use Disable Device to sabotage pretty much any item with moving parts. By his terminology, the Sage is voicing his opinion on this particular matter, not making an official binding ruling. He is making, and has in the past made, a statement that essentially boils down to this being a decent House Rule. House Rules, from sources other than the Circle, are not binding on LG.
Mommy was an Orc 03-22-07, 03:02 PM	Can you give a shred of evidence that destroying a wagon wheel is using Disable Device? If you can't, then why do you try to show that destroying armor is comparable? Disabling (or rigging or jamming) a fairly simple device has a DC of 10 Note that you have the option of rigging a wagon wheel to fall off over time. You also have the straight up option of simply disabling the wagon wheel to fall off in one round with a Disable Device check. The only problem with Armor is whether or not it counts as a device and what kind of device is it. The FAQ says it is a device. It can therefore be disabled. The FAQ says it can be rigged and the only things that can be rigged are simple devices. i.e. Armor is a simple device.
Munkwunk 03-22-07, 03:44 PM	One thing is clear from the FAQ ruling: a suit of armor can be rigged to fail. It is clear that you cannot precisely time it so that the armor fails "after the next time the wearer is hit" but it is up to the judge to determine how long it takes for the armor to cease functioning. I think all the benefit you can get from Instant Locksmith would be the time it takes to actually perform the Disable Device check. One cool idea would be to use long Spoon Thieves' Tools to disable armor from a distance, thus avoiding any potential AOOs a judge might throw at you. It seems pretty clear to me that one could disable the armor in an instant, causing it to immediately cease functioning, without using the <b>option</b> of a "rigged delay" like the FAQ is talking about. In this case, it would be a free action to make the enemy's armor cease functioning to any useful extent. I could understand simply imposing a "donned hastily" penalty to the wearer, since I couldn't see the armor falling off completely, and certain types of armor would essentially be "immune" to Disable entirely, since chain shrits, hide armor, and the like don't ahve straps. More complex suits of armor like full plate, which specifically mention having straps and buckles to help distribute weight, would be susceptible to this form of Disable Device, though. I think it's pretty darn clever, and I totally allow a rogue to do something like this. I probably would simply use the "donned hastily" rules though, since your helmet, grieves, gauntlets, etc. aren't going to jump straight from yoru body, but the buckles and such will loosen and fail to an extent that you can't carry the weight evenly anymore, for example.
Howie23 03-22-07, 03:56 PM	MWaO is right. Any judge who nerfs this is technically violating the rules, i.e. cheating. I guess I'll let myself get sucked into this after all. You responded to my post, "have fun." That is, go have fun continuing with the intellectual exercise of trying to prove that this works in such a way as to say that the armor instantly falls off. The FAQ entry says armor is a mechanical device. It goes on to say that it has buckles and such. In other words, it is multiple simple mechanical devices. Yes, the latter statement is an interpretation on my part, to which you'll say, "no it says it is one device." It is a judge's job to interpret rules; that isn't cheating. Such as: how many devices? Is it a single complex device or several compound devices? What is the result of a disabled buckle? How many buckles would be required for part of the armor to come off or be "disabled"? What is the game mechanic of the disabled armor? Part of my discounting statement to the tactic was that it wouldn't immediately fall off in aggregate. First off, the ruling says that. It provides the 1d4 rounds/minutes statement, which can be expanded to say at some indeterminant time that the judge determines. If a character has succeeded in the steps needed to get the armor to fail, it will happen at some point, in some way. The FAQ says armor can be rigged to fail. It says nothing worn vs. waiting to be donned. Tim's statement about attended objects are not overruled by the FAQ. Can you get to the requisite devices when worn? This becomes a question of judgement. Using Disable Device on armor is a Disable Device check. Instant Locksmith lets you make a Disable Device check as a free action. Thus, with Instant Locksmith, using Disable Device on armor is a free action. Armor can be disabled. How many checks is up to the judge, as I've indicated above, and in full recognition of the FAQ's comment about armor is a device. While attended? That's up to the judge; the FAQ is silent on it. Yes, Instant locksmith allows you to disable a device as a free action. You'll need an appropriate tool, per disable device. You'll need access to the device (you can't pick a lock on the other side of the wall), and Instant iocksmith gives you a single check (one check on one device). Instant Locksmith allows you to make a check, not instantly succeed, nor do so via a touch attack. It works. Wow. It may sound broke at first, but then I slap myself and remember that rogues are the mathematically most disadvantaged class in the game, and thus any bump to their power is a good thing. Which, spite a fine sarcastic tone, is completely irrelevant. I also have developed a pet peeve from this board regarding judges who allow something by rules as written, then when presented with a use of those rules, disallow it because they think it's too broken. You responded to my post, so I'll choose to take the luxary of replying as if you have responded directly to me. I didn't disallow it. I said nothing, and implied nothing, about brokenness. I said it was a stretch to demonstrate that that the FAQ allowed *poof* no armor. That was directed at the compound actions and the instant timing. I encourage and reward creativity at my tables. The idea of, "how can I take advantage of this," demonstrates creative thought. It's an idea that might lead to other creative uses. The fact that Mommy has suggested it, and you have asserted that he is correct, stems from a particular viewpoint. The fact that others don't share that viewpoint doesn't mean that they are out to get you, nerf your ideas for the hell of it, or are playing a "good idea but broken, so I'll deny it" card. Saying "No, that doesn't work," isn't cheating. David
DroidTrooper 03-22-07, 04:25 PM	In all seriousness. It takes 1 full minute or 5 rounds with help to remove Medium armor. That to me implies it takes 10 actions (ie 10 buckles or simple actions.) Heavy armor takes at least 2 minutes or 1 minute with help, so its take at least 20 rounds for a single person to remove it. You claim a rogue can total remove this armor from a person in 1 full round action normal (or 2d4 if its complex). I just don't see it. You never even look at dealing with an attended object. I cannot fathom a way you are going to do this without at least making a touch attack to armor that is being worn. Meaning its still going to take at least a standard action. I can see a single succesful check, making the rendering the armor 'donned hastily'. If you make a second check, I might render the user nonproficient with the armor in its current state. I just don't see the armor is piled at his feet is going to happen.
Mommy was an Orc 03-22-07, 05:29 PM	In all seriousness. It takes 1 full minute or 5 rounds with help to remove Medium armor. That to me implies it takes 10 actions (ie 10 buckles or simple actions.) Heavy armor takes at least 2 minutes or 1 minute with help, so its take at least 20 rounds for a single person to remove it. You claim a rogue can total remove this armor from a person in 1 full round action normal (or 2d4 if its complex). I just don't see it. Generally speaking, when someone takes their armor off, they're usually looking to wear it the next day...the Rogue disabling someone's armor isn't laboring under that restriction.
Howie23 03-22-07, 05:38 PM	Generally speaking, when someone takes their armor off, they're usually looking to wear it the next day...the Rogue disabling someone's armor isn't laboring under that restriction. A fully armored fighter is bullrushed off of the deck of a ship. His first thought is that he should have listened when the crew laughed at him wearing heavy armor at sea. His second thought is how quickly he can get out of it and swim. He hastily removes it, and it sinks to the ocean floor. David
thorinXXX 03-22-07, 05:44 PM	Sure you can sabotage the armor. But the actual effects of the sabotage are up to the DM to determine, as is the DC. Oh, and anyone who disagrees with my interpretation must be cheating.:rolleyes:
TheBlackFlail 03-22-07, 07:24 PM	When one sabotages a device, it is typically while it is not in use (such as the PHB mentioned wagon wheel, you sabotage a parked wagon, not one in motion). In order to sabotage a suit of armor you would need access to the straps which hold it on, which are frequently tucked inside the armor. Thus I would say that in order to sabotage a suit of armor while someone is wearing it you would suffer enormous penalties for trying to fiddle with devices which are partially UNDER a suit of armor worn by someone who does not wish their armor thus fiddled (like say +20 or more to the DC) with and that they would get attacks of opportunity against you to prevent it, since you would have to wander into their space wielding just your thieves tools. Incidentally I highly doubt that either the person who asked the question to Sage Advice or Andy Collins considered the question in the way you people are twisting it. Most likely the consideration was if you could tweak a suit of armor not currently being worn to break after someone puts it on.
Timlagor 03-23-07, 06:59 AM	You weren't ignored. The FAQ entry overruled you, so it's a moot point. -Matt The FAQ says you can DD some armour. It doesn't say that you can do so while it is being worn
solbergb 03-26-07, 01:52 PM	My inclination is to apply the "hastily donned" penalty if the rogue is successful. I think the argument that there are too many "devices" in the armor to make it just fall off is relevant, and some pieces don't have buckles/straps even on heavy armor. I'm less convinced by the argument that some armor would be immune - chain shirt or padded armor is theoretically just pretty much a single piece of clothing, but "disabling" this would be the equivalent of tugging the cap down over the eyes, loosening belt buckles, attaching some piece of it to some other piece (eg, tangling the skirt of a chain shirt with the scabbard). If there wasn't "don hastily" penalties for chain shirts I might agree. I suspect this middle ground would be accepted by rogues at my table with little argument, and it passes several tests of judge rulings. 1. It is essentially consistent with the FAQ ruling (I'm not imposing time penalty, and I'm allowing the armor to be "Disabled" to some extent, and multiple attempts could probably start causing pieces of heavy armor to fall off, lowering the AC bonus) 2. It is essentially consistent with the PHB "don hastily" rules 3. It doesn't violate common sense too much. Plate armor that is sabotaged is still covering most of the body of the person. It should just make the armor something of a trap to wear. 4. it doesn't remove one of the significant downsides of armor (mobility issues) with an immediate action check. 5. It doesn't violate the PHB rule that armor can't be sundered, which is the closest thing to "cut all the straps" the rules have in the game. 6. It rewards rogues for a clever tactic without making it a tactic that will be used every single time vs armored opponents.
catsclaw 03-26-07, 03:56 PM	I still haven't seen anyone address the most serious issue with the tactic -- the DCs for Disable Device assume a stationary target. Armor which is being worn not only prevents complete access to the straps and clasps, but it's usually being worn by someone trying to do bodily harm to you. They're certainly not going to allow you to fiddle with the bindings, even if you're quick about it. I'm not sure what the increase in DC is for disabling a trap which is being actively being waved in front of your face by someone who doesn't want you to touch it, but I'd guess at least +20, with maybe an extra +2 because the straps are occluded. That should put the Disable Device DC around 37, and I'd probably say it provokes an AOO as well.
Mommy was an Orc 03-26-07, 04:11 PM	I'm not sure what the increase in DC is for disabling a trap which is being actively being waved in front of your face by someone who doesn't want you to touch it, but I'd guess at least +20, with maybe an extra +2 because the straps are occluded. That should put the Disable Device DC around 37, and I'd probably say it provokes an AOO as well. Armor can be rigged, it is therefore a simple device(DC 10). You're also not technically allowed to put massive modifiers for circumstance into a check. Max is +2(yes, I realize there's a spirit of the rules thing going on here - with this and alarm, the people on the FAQ are out to lunch, I'm not planning to do this) - and in general, free actions don't provoke. But even if you do put a +22 onto it, that's still a DC 32. Easily hittable by your average mid-high level Rogue casting Instant Locksmith once you add the +2 into it.
trollbill 03-26-07, 04:31 PM	Armor can be rigged, it is therefore a simple device(DC 10). You're also not technically allowed to put massive modifiers for circumstance into a check. Max is +2(yes, I realize there's a spirit of the rules thing going on here - with this and alarm, the people on the FAQ are out to lunch, I'm not planning to do this) - and in general, free actions don't provoke. But even if you do put a +22 onto it, that's still a DC 32. Easily hittable by your average mid-high level Rogue casting Instant Locksmith once you add the +2 into it. Even at that though, there is a lot of room for interpretation as to what, exactly, the effects of Disabling Armor are. There is also this little inconsistancy that almost every rule that allows you to do something to equipment used/worn by an opponent requires some from of opposed roll or saving throw on the part of the opponent. So claiming that simply because the Sage states that it can be done means it can be done with the ease you keep implying it can be done is, based on precedent, a dubious stretch. The idea that the DC of doing something to an object not in an opponent's possesion is the same as doing something to an object that is, has no support in the rules.
Timlagor 03-26-07, 06:27 PM	There is no limit to the size of circumstance modifiers. +/-2 is merely what they recommend when you feel something is needed but don't really know what to do about it.
catsclaw 03-26-07, 07:10 PM	Armor can be rigged, it is therefore a simple device(DC 10).Not according to the FAQ. "Treat them as either simple or tricky devices." If you've looked over a set of full plate, and the associated interlocking sets of chain, leather, and cloth that the plate rides on, I think it clearly qualifies as a tricky device. Assuming a "mid-high level rogue" gets a +20 on their check, and another +2 from instant locksmith, they're only going to hit a DC 37 check 30% of the time. And it's going to cost them their action to even try. And it'll provoke an AOO. I'm even tempted to allow a successful AOO to stop the attempt. And as others have pointed out, I don't believe there is a absolute limit to the circumstance modifiers a GM can apply to a skill check. The PHB certainly doesn't restrict itself; if you can point out the rule that does, please do.
MikeJS 03-26-07, 07:45 PM	Arcane Trickster gestures briefly, moves up to the Knight and taps him on the shoulder. All the Knight's armor falls off...Entirely beside the legality point of the discussion, this now leaves the modest-CON d6 hit-die rogue standing adjacent to a likely full-BAB, high-CON, d10+d12 classes PC with a lot of weapon feats and a best attack-bonus double his character level. "Thanks, Li'l Squirt! I don't really need the stuff that much anymore anyway, seeing as I have Shock Trooper. Truth be told, the reason you're standing in front of me right now is because you blew your will-save versus my Knight's Challenge ability or Goad feat; it's a nifty little trick I have to make you annoying flouncy, bouncy types come to me for a full-attack."
clannagh 03-26-07, 09:17 PM	a few thoughts - disabling the armor doesn't necessarily mean fall off, especially something like a chain shirt that is dropped over someones head, assuming a GM allows it he then needs to work out, based on the description of the armor, exactly what happens for that type of armor - the same GM had better also work out what state this leaves the armor in afterwards becasue if players can do it, you can guarantee EBG's in mod's will start to do it very soon afterwards
Timlagor 03-27-07, 04:51 AM	Entirely beside the legality point of the discussion, this now leaves the modest-CON d6 hit-die rogue standing adjacent to a likely full-BAB, high-CON, d10+d12 classes PC with a lot of weapon feats and a best attack-bonus double his character level. This is an Arcane Trickstser.. what makes you think he's visible?
Arvagor 03-27-07, 08:26 AM	If he's high enough level to cast greater invisibility, maybe; otherwise, your Disable Device attempt is close enough to being an "attack", IMO, that it would break regular invisibility. (You're taking an action directed at an attended object - the armor - but it is "Actions directed at unattended objects [that] do not break the spell".)
Mommy was an Orc 03-27-07, 09:01 AM	And as others have pointed out, I don't believe there is a absolute limit to the circumstance modifiers a GM can apply to a skill check. The PHB certainly doesn't restrict itself; if you can point out the rule that does, please do. Page 64 of PHB - it is different than the SRD in that it specifically says "The DM can alter the chance of success in four ways to take into account exceptional circumstances." instead of "The chance of success can be altered in four ways to take into account exceptional circumstances." and all the modifiers are +2 or add 2 to the DC.
catsclaw 03-27-07, 10:14 AM	Page 64 of PHB - it is different than the SRD in that it specifically says "The DM can alter the chance of success in four ways to take into account exceptional circumstances." instead of "The chance of success can be altered in four ways to take into account exceptional circumstances." and all the modifiers are +2 or add 2 to the DC.That's fair enough -- I've always assumed the four ways were add to the DC, subtract from the DC, add to the roll, and subtract from the roll (and the +2 or -2 were just examples) but it's ambiguous at best. Of course, two subheads later is "Practically Impossible Tasks" which explicitly allows the DM to set DCs of 40, 60, or higher. so it's a moot point anyway.
Arvagor 03-27-07, 07:22 PM	Page 64 of PHB - [...] and all the modifiers are +2 or add 2 to the DC.Page 30 of the DMG - Going Beyond the Rule: It's certainly acceptable to modify this rule. For extremely favorable or unfavorable circumstances, you can use modifiers greater than +2 and less than -2. For example, you can decide that a task is practically impossible and modify the roll or the DC by 20. Feel free to modify these numbers as you see fit, using modifiers from 2 to 20.Seeing as the DMG is our authoritative source for the DM, I think the DMG wins out over the PHB ;)