arcane lock

[Sean Waters]

Re: arcane lock

 

DC is Difficulty Check -- the roll required on Total Skill + d20 to accomplish a given task. Most tasks are set somewhere between 10 & 30 (yes, just like HERO, but the mechanics are linear instead of bell curved).

 

And I am entirely familiar with 3.5, and I stand behind my build of FW (which has nothing to do with the validity of anyone else's build) but since I wrote one of the conversions in question:

 

Personal Immunity does precisely what I say it does, as GM & Arbiter in this case. "Here's a Force Wall that holds the door shut. You, caster, are personally immune to the effects of your own Force Wall. You done gone and ignored it. Congratz."

 

I don't see a big deal; it got paid for. At the end of the day, it's an appropriately purchased special effect. So... where does the argument come from?

 

 

It most categorically does not work that way. If it did you would not need indirect to attack through your own FW. You can, of course decide that it does IN YOUR GAME, but that is not the way PI and FW interact. In fact, as far as I am aware there is no point at all in buying PI for FW.

 

Now DnD defines doors by hardness (HeroDEF), Hitpoints (HeroBODY) and the DC of the STR check to break it open (you can burst a door open without destroying the door - all you need to do is break the area round the lock.

 

The spell Arcane Lock has no effect at all on the hardness or hitpoints of a door, so should not be adding DEF or BODY in Hero. Basically we assume that a normal closed door has a STR of 10 to burst open, and you do a STR check. AL would add STR to the door, making it harder to burst open but no harder to damage.

 

NOW, and this is where this particular simulation really does not work, even if I am quite wrong about what I said above, both entangle and FW put a protective coat on the door. The suggestions made would mean that you need do, at most 4 BODY (one or two perfectly average hammer blows, for example) to break this protective coating, and then you can lockpick the door as normal, open it, whatever.

 

That simply is not how the DnD spell AL works. It makes no odds how much damage you do to the door, short of actually destroying it, it remains locked until the spell is dispelled, the duration expires etc.

 

The suggestions are fine for a spell that makes a door hard to open, but they are not a good way of simualting the particular spell we are looking at.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: arcane lock

 

Then rather than lambast everyone about how we're wrong, why not post YOUR version of the spell?

[Sean Waters]

Re: arcane lock

 

Then rather than lambast everyone about how we're wrong' date=' why not post YOUR version of the spell?[/quote']

 

No need to be touchy. I notice that none of my detractors seem to be addressing the points I make.

 

I will run something up for you to have a look at later. I'm off to see Ken Dodd!

[Hyper-Man]

Re: arcane lock

 

according to the FAQ answer below it appears (someone else can ask Steve L. for further clarification if they want) that the caster CAN move freely through a Force Wall he creates with Personaly Immunity. He just can't fire attacks through it (that would require Indirect instead). It's very similar to a character with Invisibility as opposed to a character with an attack with Invisible Power Effects.

 

http://www.herogames.com/SupportFAQs/revisedrules/POWER%20ADVANTAGES%20AND%20ADDERS.htm

 

Q: Can a character put Personal Immunity on his Force Wall?

 

A: If you mean, so that the character can automatically fire through his own FW without having to break through it, no. If you mean, to somehow prevent yourself from being englobed in it, yes — but since it’s a Constant Power, a character could just turn off the globe anyway.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: arcane lock

 

No need to be touchy. I notice that none of my detractors seem to be addressing the points I make.

 

I will run something up for you to have a look at later. I'm off to see Ken Dodd!

 

There is a need to be touchy, and I apologize to the mods in advance for actual getting my hackles up, but I do get aggravated when after 50+ hours of work someone comes along and says "Well, you're all wrong," and offers absolutely no suggestions as to how to make it "correct."

 

As I agree with Killer Shrike, I submit that in fact Personal Immunity is a perfectly legal way to get around this spell because I wrote it that way. As GM, that's my prerogative. I don't mind if you disagree. I mind if you sit around insisting the rest of us are wrong without posting how you would do it.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: arcane lock

 

according to the FAQ answer below it appears (someone else can ask Steve L. for further clarification if they want) that the caster CAN move freely through a Force Wall he creates with Personaly Immunity.

 

Freakazoid, you're my HERO.

 

(you must spread some reputation around before giving it to Hyper-Man again)

[Sean Waters]

Re: arcane lock

 

according to the FAQ answer below it appears (someone else can ask Steve L. for further clarification if they want) that the caster CAN move freely through a Force Wall he creates with Personaly Immunity. He just can't fire attacks through it (that would require Indirect instead). It's very similar to a character with Invisibility as opposed to a character with an attack with Invisible Power Effects.

 

http://www.herogames.com/SupportFAQs/revisedrules/POWER%20ADVANTAGES%20AND%20ADDERS.htm

 

Q: Can a character apply Personal Immunity to his Entangle to allow him to either (a) affect the target without damaging the Entangle, even though other persons still damage the Entangle when they attack it, and/or ( pass through Entangle barriers freely?

 

 

 

A: No to both.

 

 

 

 

...and under 'Personal immunity'

 

Q: Can a character apply Personal Immunity to his Entangle to allow him to either (a) affect the target without damaging the Entangle, even though other persons still damage the Entangle when they attack it, and/or ( pass through Entangle barriers freely?

 

 

 

A: No to both.

 

 

 

The FW thing prevents an attack that englobes succeeding, but doesn't allow you to pass through the wall without taking it down, at least that is how I read it, looking at it contextually with entangle.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: arcane lock

 

...and under 'Personal immunity'

 

 

 

The FW thing prevents an attack that englobes succeeding, but doesn't allow you to pass through the wall without taking it down, at least that is how I read it, looking at it contextually with entangle.

 

Entangle is a fire-and-forget effect Endurance wise. Force Wall is not. Sci-Fi has plenty of examples of force wall like barriers that only let certain people pass. It's usually done by use of some sort of carried device. Now as I stated earlier, a Linked and Limited Desolidification as well as a Supress might be a more accurate way to model this effect but cost wise it will probably be about the same (inside of 5 points real cost difference).

 

Anyway, if you disagree with my interpretation ask Steve L. for confirmation.

[Sean Waters]

Re: arcane lock

 

There is a need to be touchy, and I apologize to the mods in advance for actual getting my hackles up, but I do get aggravated when after 50+ hours of work someone comes along and says "Well, you're all wrong," and offers absolutely no suggestions as to how to make it "correct."

 

As I agree with Killer Shrike, I submit that in fact Personal Immunity is a perfectly legal way to get around this spell because I wrote it that way. As GM, that's my prerogative. I don't mind if you disagree. I mind if you sit around insisting the rest of us are wrong without posting how you would do it.

 

First off, I don't think there is anything wrong with people suggesting that a build does not work for stated reasons, even if they don't have an alternative build. Second, no need to worry about offending me: I probably shouldn't have made the 'touchy' comment. Sorry.

 

For what it is worth I don't think that you can simulate this in an entirely straightforward way. You can get the effect exactly right, that's easy, but the rest of the spell becomes a bit odd: let me show you what I mean...

 

Arcane Lock creates a magical lock on the door. It does not jam or freeze any existing lock: indeed you don't need to have a lock on the door at all to AL it.

 

Now I'm sorry if it is an old saw, but the way to do this to my mind is with transform, as I suggested in a much earlier post. Not a full build, I'll give you, but the bones of what I'd use. I'm assuming, as you are simulating DnD you allow STR rolls to break objects, instead of destroying them with damage.

 

Transform target to locked door that opens for the caster, and or for 10 minutes after a knock spell is cast. Transform removed by effluxion of time or a dispel magic that would remove the original transform attempt. The locked door is harder to open than usual (-4 on STR rolls to break door).

 

THAT is the exact build, or as near as you can get without using d20. However, it is the exact build for the effect only. The problem with this particular build is that not all doors have the same BODY, so not all doors are as easy to effect. Ho0wever, very few doors will exceed 50kg in weight, which, for an unliving object translates to 6 BODY (page 449 of the book), or 2 dice of standard effect. You can either decide that a 'locked' door is harder to open, or buy 4 negative skill levels with STR check (12 points) at 0 END, persistent, 24 points total, or 24/5=5 more BODY to do on the transform.

 

SO, either a 2d6 or 4d6 standard effect major transform (30 or 60 active points), and add limitations to suit. If you are going for the 4d6 version you might as well up the door body to 7, or a 100kg door for the same cost.

 

Limitations; gestures, incantations and OAF (-1 1/2)

 

You can add 'only works on doors, chests or portals' -2 and (if that is how your magic system works) 1 charge -2 and maybe 'all or nothing' -1/2

 

Real cost: 4 to 13, depending on build and limtiations.

 

Now this does not work on 'area of door', but to be fair, neither does anyone else's, and this at least takes into account the door size: higher levels of the spell, or rather spells cast by higher level characters would have to cost more, or you would need to cast the spell more than once for really big doors (unless you also buy it with 'all or nothing'. That's what I meant by 'the exact build for effect only' - without knowing how you want to handle the DnD concept of increasing effect with increasing level of caster I cannot help much with the final version that does precisely what Al does.

 

How is that?

[Sean Waters]

Re: arcane lock

 

Entangle is a fire-and-forget effect Endurance wise. Force Wall is not. Sci-Fi has plenty of examples of force wall like barriers that only let certain people pass. It's usually done by use of some sort of carried device. Now as I stated earlier, a Linked and Limited Desolidification as well as a Supress might be a more accurate way to model this effect but cost wise it will probably be about the same (inside of 5 points real cost difference).

 

Anyway, if you disagree with my interpretation ask Steve L. for confirmation.

 

OK: now before I post it, here is the question:

 

If a character has force wall with personal immunity, does the advantage let him pass through or otherwise ignore a force wall he has erected without damaging it and without turning it off and on (without special GM permisson for a specific build)?

 

That's neutral and open as far as I can see, and covers the relevant point: anyone disagree?

 

Once the door is opened by you anyone can pass through, but superssing it to zero requires a restart.

[Sean Waters]

Re: arcane lock

 

My build from the conversion prefabs:

 

14 Arcane Lock: Force Wall (6 PD; 2" long and 2" tall) (Alterable Size), Limited Power Power loses less than a fourth of its effectiveness (Supressed for 10 minutes by Knock, or Dispelled by Dispel Magic; +0), Personal Immunity (The Caster May Pass Through His Own Arcane Lock; +1/4), 1 Continuing Charge lasting 1 Year (+1 1/4) (60 Active Points); OAF (Gold Powder worth 25 Silver; -1), Spell (Abjuration; -1/2), Requires An Abjuration Roll (-1/2), No Range (-1/2), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4), Restricted Shape (Only for doors, chests, portals, etc.; -1/4)

 

Constructive criticism: needs an ED component or the transparent advantage.

[Sean Waters]

Re: arcane lock

 

**unhelpful post removed by Seany**

[Killer Shrike]

Re: arcane lock

 

It most categorically does not work that way. If it did you would not need indirect to attack through your own FW. You can' date=' of course decide that it does IN YOUR GAME, but that is not the way PI and FW interact. In fact, as far as I am aware there is no point at all in buying PI for FW.[/quote']

You'll note that my version doesn't apply it to FW, it applies it to Entangle.

 

In the context of this particular build, I personally think that PI accurately captures the idea of "the caster ignores the (b)locking effect". YMMV, obviously.

[Sean Waters]

Re: arcane lock

 

You'll note that my version doesn't apply it to FW, it applies it to Entangle.

 

In the context of this particular build, I personally think that PI accurately captures the idea of "the caster ignores the (b)locking effect". YMMV, obviously.

 

My view does vary, and I think I have the support of the FAQ (as posted above) BUT that is not to say that doing it this way is not perfectly valid in this instance, and for this build.

 

The problem from my limited perspective is that if you overcome the (b)lock and open the door then you really do have to re-make the entangle to (b)lock it again.

 

I don't think that this build is unbalanced so, whether or not it conforms with the rules as writ probably does not matter so long as it is flagged as a power allowed by the GM and not as an example of a power that is acceptable as a matter of principle, i.e. you can't quote this use to support other uses (like, for example, entangling someone with a PI entangle, then punching them through the entangle without damaging it).

[Killer Shrike]

Re: arcane lock

 

My view does vary, and I think I have the support of the FAQ (as posted above) BUT that is not to say that doing it this way is not perfectly valid in this instance, and for this build.

 

The problem from my limited perspective is that if you overcome the (b)lock and open the door then you really do have to re-make the entangle to (b)lock it again.

 

Very well, if it makes you happy, rather than PI...I shall instead use a custom Advantage that allows a person to pass thru a "lock" effect that they themselves created / activated. I think it should be worth about a +1/4, and I shall call it... Passage Induction.

 

Man, I sure am glad that got hashed out. We can all rest easy now knowing that I'm not inadvertently using Personal Immunity incorrectly.

 

I don't think that this build is unbalanced so, whether or not it conforms with the rules as writ probably does not matter so long as it is flagged as a power allowed by the GM and not as an example of a power that is acceptable as a matter of principle, i.e. you can't quote this use to support other uses (like, for example, entangling someone with a PI entangle, then punching them through the entangle without damaging it).

 

Nor would I, have I, or did I. I think it was pretty clear what the intended purpose of the construct was, and I don't think that it was unreasonable in its construction. A selective effect like that is totally genre appropriate, but its expense to do in the HERO System 100% exactly is out of line with its utility and the typical strata of effect such a spell is typically thought of as belonging to. Thus, I'm comfortable with a short cut via a small advantage; Personal Immunity is close enough for me in this context and thus I used it.

 

As always, if you don't like it don't use it. It's NBD to me either way.

[Sean Waters]

Re: arcane lock

 

Very well, if it makes you happy, rather than PI...I shall instead use a custom Advantage that allows a person to pass thru a "lock" effect that they themselves created / activated. I think it should be worth about a +1/4, and I shall call it... Passage Induction.

 

Man, I sure am glad that got hashed out. We can all rest easy now knowing that I'm not inadvertently using Personal Immunity incorrectly.

 

Nor would I, have I, or did I. I think it was pretty clear what the intended purpose of the construct was, and I don't think that it was unreasonable in its construction. A selective effect like that is totally genre appropriate, but its expense to do in the HERO System 100% exactly is out of line with its utility and the typical strata of effect such a spell is typically thought of as belonging to. Thus, I'm comfortable with a short cut via a small advantage; Personal Immunity is close enough for me in this context and thus I used it.

 

As always, if you don't like it don't use it. It's NBD to me either way.

 

 

 

If you'd said it was a house rule, we could have saved this virtual rainforest

 

On a serious note though I do think that applying the rules as writ is important in examples, especially official ones, but even individual ones posted for public consumption.

 

Nothing wrong with changing rules or applications, but I really do believe that it is helpful for a better understanding of the system by everyone to know when we are not using core rules, or when we are but we are changing their use. As my old woodwork teacher said, "If you know how to use it right, then you can progress to using it wrong and still getting good results". That was right before he cut his hand off on a band saw.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: arcane lock

 

As I stated earlier, the Personal Immunity could be replaced by a more accurate build for essentially the same cost:

 

24 Arcane Lock (Alternative Part 1): Force Wall (6 PD/6 ED; 2" long and 2" tall) (Alterable Size), Limited Power Power loses less than a fourth of its effectiveness (Supressed for 10 minutes by Knock, or Dispelled by Dispel Magic; +0), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; +1), 1 Continuing Charge lasting 1 Year (+1 1/4) (127 Active Points); OAF (Gold Powder worth 25 Silver; -1), Limited Power Only To Block Doors ((Effectively Adds an Invisible 6 DEF; must be penetrated to use Lockpicking); -1), Spell (Abjuration; -1/2), Requires An Abjuration Roll (-1/2), No Range (-1/2), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4), Restricted Shape (Only for doors, chests, portals, etc.; -1/4) - END=[1 cc]

 

1 Arcane Lock (Alternative Part 2): Teleportation 1", Linked (Arcane Lock (Alternative Part 1); Greater Power is Constant or in use most or all of the time; Lesser Instant Power can be used in any Phase in which greater Constant Power is in use; +0), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Usable As Attack (+1) (5 Active Points); Limited Power Only to allow passage of caster or contents through portal or container protected by own Arcane Lock spell (-2), OAF (Gold Powder worth 25 Silver; -1), Spell (-1/2), Requires An Abjurationl Roll (-1/2), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4), Must Pass Through Intervening Space (-1/4) - END=0

 

Part 1 could just as easily be done with Entangle as Killer Shrike's version. Since the Teleport is a seperate power it's cost is independent from that of the Force Wall or Entangle and will always be as cheap or cheaper than the Personal Immunity variant.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: arcane lock

 

If you'd said it was a house rule, we could have saved this virtual rainforest

 

On a serious note though I do think that applying the rules as writ is important in examples, especially official ones, but even individual ones posted for public consumption.

 

Nothing wrong with changing rules or applications, but I really do believe that it is helpful for a better understanding of the system by everyone to know when we are not using core rules, or when we are but we are changing their use.

 

And I generally agree, have said similar things in the past, and generally note in my material when Im straying off the beaten path -- its important to know what is and is not legal.

 

However, if you have to take a foray into a FAQ to clarify something, then its clearly open for interpretation in the actual printed rules, and thus people will have different interpretations of such. By the time a clarification comes out, assuming it is even noticed, a particular groups interpretation may have become entrenched.

 

Also, Im not posting examples, Im referring to material on my website that was primarily developed for use in my own games, and is shared w/ the community at large as a courtesy.

 

Additionally, I did the 1800 odd spell write-ups about three & 1/2 years ago...a lot has transpired in the errata and FAQ in those years. I think it was pre-Revised even...I'm pretty sure the ruling you cite wasnt available at that time. Regardless theres no way Im going to go back and keep them up to date as things are clarified, changed, expanded upon as part of the natural course of the game's evolution.

 

Finally, it is very well accepted that the HERO System is a tool kit game, and ultimately it is not only acceptable, it is expected that a GM will interpret the rules as they see fit in their own games.

 

What it boils down to for me is this: Some constructs are simply wrong / broken / don't make sense internally, and by all means get up on the pulpit and decry it to the masses. But some things simply just don't matter, and making a fuss about them serves no good purpose. So, thanks for pointing out the relevant FAQ entries. I stand corrected, your rules-fu is very strong. If I ever get around to revising the old spell conversion Ill keep it in mind, but the write up still stands as a way to do it, and I still think its viable.

 

I look forward to the day when you have provided a similar body of work for the community to use so that I can return the favor and point out areas where you have strayed from the "one true path" of HERO canon.

[Sean Waters]

Re: arcane lock

 

......................I look forward to the day when you have provided a similar body of work for the community to use so that I can return the favor and point out areas where you have strayed from the "one true path" of HERO canon.

 

Never going to happen, my friend, but it makes my comments and opinions no less valid.

 

To be perfectly honset most of the stuff I construct is so mind-numbingly straightforward there is very little chance to get anything wrong, but I do try and exploit every opportunity I get. Do point out my bloopers: I need all the help I can get.

 

Also, for the record, I'm very impressed by the amount of work and detail you have produced and posted or otherwise made available, as I have said previously. Even though I will doubtless keep poking at perceived problems, I am not trying to do anyone down, I promise.

[Sean Waters]

Re: arcane lock

 

As I stated earlier, the Personal Immunity could be replaced by a more accurate build for essentially the same cost:

 

24 Arcane Lock (Alternative Part 1): Force Wall (6 PD/6 ED; 2" long and 2" tall) (Alterable Size), Limited Power Power loses less than a fourth of its effectiveness (Supressed for 10 minutes by Knock, or Dispelled by Dispel Magic; +0), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; +1), 1 Continuing Charge lasting 1 Year (+1 1/4) (127 Active Points); OAF (Gold Powder worth 25 Silver; -1), Limited Power Only To Block Doors ((Effectively Adds an Invisible 6 DEF; must be penetrated to use Lockpicking); -1), Spell (Abjuration; -1/2), Requires An Abjuration Roll (-1/2), No Range (-1/2), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4), Restricted Shape (Only for doors, chests, portals, etc.; -1/4) - END=[1 cc]

 

1 Arcane Lock (Alternative Part 2): Teleportation 1", Linked (Arcane Lock (Alternative Part 1); Greater Power is Constant or in use most or all of the time; Lesser Instant Power can be used in any Phase in which greater Constant Power is in use; +0), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Usable As Attack (+1) (5 Active Points); Limited Power Only to allow passage of caster or contents through portal or container protected by own Arcane Lock spell (-2), OAF (Gold Powder worth 25 Silver; -1), Spell (-1/2), Requires An Abjurationl Roll (-1/2), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4), Must Pass Through Intervening Space (-1/4) - END=0

 

Part 1 could just as easily be done with Entangle as Killer Shrike's version. Since the Teleport is a seperate power it's cost is independent from that of the Force Wall or Entangle and will always be as cheap or cheaper than the Personal Immunity variant.

 

The TP would need to be built as a gate because the mage can open the door to allow others to pass through, but a very cool idea.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: arcane lock

 

Never going to happen, my friend, but it makes my comments and opinions no less valid.

 

To be perfectly honset most of the stuff I construct is so mind-numbingly straightforward there is very little chance to get anything wrong, but I do try and exploit every opportunity I get. Do point out my bloopers: I need all the help I can get.

 

Also, for the record, I'm very impressed by the amount of work and detail you have produced and posted or otherwise made available, as I have said previously. Even though I will doubtless keep poking at perceived problems, I am not trying to do anyone down, I promise.

 

Fair enough.

[CourtFool]

Re: arcane lock

 

Change Environment anyone? Or how about my all time favorite...Extra Dimensional Movement?

[Dust Raven]

Re: arcane lock

 

How about some TK, Persistent, Uncontrolled, Only To Hold Door Shut For Everyone But Character (plus all those other applicable Modifiers)? Wouldn't that solve just about everything? You can even make it AE to cover a room of doors/openable stuff.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: arcane lock

 

Let's take a look at the 'source' we are trying to convert.

 

From:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/arcaneLock.htm

Arcane Lock

Abjuration

Level: Sor/Wiz 2

Components: V, S, M

Casting Time: 1 standard action

Range: Touch

Target: The door, chest, or portal touched, up to 30 sq. ft./level in size

Duration: Permanent

Saving Throw: None

Spell Resistance: No

 

An arcane lock spell cast upon a door, chest, or portal magically locks it. You can freely pass your own arcane lock without affecting it; otherwise,

a door or object secured with this spell can be opened only by breaking in or with a successful dispel magic or knock spell. Add 10 to the normal DC to break open a door or portal affected by this spell.

(A knock spell does not remove an arcane lock; it only suppresses the effect for 10 minutes.)

Material Component

 

Gold dust worth 25 gp.

Not only does the spell stop lockpicking but it also protects the door from mundane physical damage too.

 

Dust Raven,

 

how can Telekinesis be used to protect a door or object from taking damage?

[Sean Waters]

Re: arcane lock

 

Dust Raven,

 

how can Telekinesis be used to protect a door or object from taking damage?

 

My understanding of the AL spell is that it does not protect the door, it simply makes it more difficult to burst open. What AL does, in terms, is keeps any lock on the door locked and adds another, to beef up security. It does not toughen the door itself.

 

Basically you take a door. You can get through it (assuming you can't just open it), in Hero terms by either;

 

1. Doing enough damage to get 3 Body through its 4 defence (say - I'm making the numbers up), which would destroy it, OR

 

2. Making a strength check against the strength of the door, which we can assume is (for this purpose) 10. You roll STR, door rolls STR, if you get a higher BODY total the door bursts open (but is not destroyed - well maybe some damage to the lock and hinges, or the doorframe, but still, basically, an intact door. Back at university I lost the key to my room in the first week and got in and out all year by popping the lock with a little shoulder pressure.

 

Now AL, to my reading, doesn't do a thing about 1. above, but increases the door's strength for purposes of popping it open.

 

I base this on the DnD rules which allow you to, for example, force open a chest without (necessarily) damaging it, and certainly without destroying it.

 

Hero tends to use Body delivered as the main method to determine if you get through something, but this is more like, I suppose, arm wrestling the inanimate: if you win, it yields.

 

That was a bit long winded and confusing, but the conclusion that i bumble towars is that TK does work for the effect....almost.

 

I say almost because the strength of the LOCKED door PLUS a bonus is used by the AL to determine the strength you have to beat. TK on its own would not prevent you opening the lock on the door, and thus reducing the strength you need to exceed tot he strength of the TK alone.

 

You'd need a minor linked transform to keep the lock shut, and if you are using transform anyway.....