D&D 5E Meaningful Consequences of Failure for Picking Locks

jayoungr said:

Hoard of the Dragon Queen has a good example of how to make a lock interesting, with multiple possible outcomes. Early on in the adventure (p. 8), the PCs need to open a grate blocking an old tunnel which has not been used for a long time:

Click to expand...

Great example.

OK, so where in the rules does it specifically lay out how many times something can be attempted, or is it up to the DM?

How are other skill checks determined? If you fail Stealth- you become noticed by the bad guys. Fail Sleight of Hand- you get noticed, or maybe if you fail by 5 or more to get noticed. Fail Survival- you get lost or something.

Some of these are opposed checks while others interact with things and have a static roll. Opening a lock should be one of these. Is there is an opposed check or is it a static DC. I see some talking about how bad you fail equals what happens on the other side of the door. But what happens when there is nothing on the other side, like breaking into a crypt. I like the thought of sliding DCs where it takes more time, but you eventually get in. Although the thief gets a power to try and pick something as a bonus action which may offset this.

If picking a lock is a static DC, than I can go with only one check and if you fail you cannot get in. Maybe if you fail by 5 then the pick breaks and you may suffer disadvantage on follow-on checks on other locks. You could be relegated to other means of getting in as described on earlier posts involving strength and magic.

I mentioned earlier that locks are designed to get through in order for the adventure to go on. I tend to think that if there is no consequence for failing, like a monster hearing you and setting surprise, then you have more of a static check where you can either succeed or fail. If you fail, you resort to strength or magic.

aco175 said:

But what happens when there is nothing on the other side, like breaking into a crypt. I like the thought of sliding DCs where it takes more time, but you eventually get in. Although the thief gets a power to try and pick something as a bonus action which may offset this.

Click to expand...

then i would ask why the lock isn't picked yet, and why it even exists. if you have infinite time, which a crypt might have, it would probably be unlocked already.

Lanefan said:

The idea behind no-reroll is that the one roll you make represents your best attempt, period; as opposed to just one of many attempts where you can just try again. (in other words, it builds all the rolls into one)

Click to expand...

If you want players to be uncertain exactly which attempt actually constitutes their "best attempt", another way to do it would be for your first roll to represent your first attempt. If you want to keep trying, the DM secretly rolls another d20: this represents your "best attempt" if you keep trying all day, which might be better than your first attempt (if you get a better idea) or might not (if you're just beating your head against a wall). After that, every time you pay the cost to re-attempt, the DM secretly re-rolls your attempt but caps it at the secret maximum.

This way, you can re-try twenty times if you want to, and it might be futile, or maybe the lock actually opens on the twenty-first try. There's no way to know for sure--but most players will probably only retry once or twice at most. If you impose a suitably high cost in time, materials, narrative creativity ("what are you doing differently this time?), or other consequences, they might only retry in emergencies. "We HAVE to get through this door or the trolls are gonna find us--Bombur, could you use the last of your Oil of Slipperiness on Bilbo's lockpicks and see if that helps? If that doesn't work, maybe Gonzo can soften up the metal with a Burning Hands through the keyhole and then Bilbo can retry again?"

For purely physical athletic tasks, this isn't appropriate: you're not going to be significantly better at jumping over a chasm than you were the first time you tried. For creative tasks like lock-picking and spell research, where you might or might not get a sudden break, it might be appropriate.

aco175 said:

If picking a lock is a static DC, than I can go with only one check and if you fail you cannot get in. [...] You could be relegated to other means of getting in as described on earlier posts involving strength and magic.

Click to expand...

This is probably what I'll end up doing. In the Sunless Citadel, for example, most of the doors are wooden, so they can easily be forced open or broken down if lockpicking doesn't work. The way I see it, the party has three tiers of options, from best to worst:

Tier 1. Thieves' tools. The rogue successfully picks the lock. This is the quietest and easiest method.
Tier 2. Strength (Athletics). The brawny characters attempt to force open the door. Every attempt is noisy and results in a wandering monster check. The DCs are low enough to succeed in 1-2 attempts on average.
Tier 3. Damage. The characters decide to destroy the door by attacking it. Every attack is noisy and results in a wandering monster check. The door has enough hit points to withstand 3-5 attacks on average.

This is all assuming that the party wants to go through the door in the first place. They can always just ignore it or find the key (all the locked doors in Sunless Citadel are shortcuts or secret areas, so they're not necessary to progression).

Also I'll probably incorporate the idea that the thieves' tools are damaged if the check fails by 5 or 10. The first time it happens, the tools are damaged and have disadvantage on all future checks; the second time, they break. Just to keep things interesting, I might add other options and turn it into a table, like so:

Lockpicking fails by 5-10:
01-50 - the tools are damaged; already damaged tools break.
51-75 - the door's lock is mangled; any future attempts to unlock it have disadvantage.
76-100 - the character accidentally drops a tool, which clatters to the floor. Make a wandering monsters check.

This is the rule I use for retries:



Note that the times I gave were just examples. I'd use whichever times (and how many chances you got) made sense.

And the following rule takes care of the problem of everyone in the party just trying it.



When I say "assign results", I'm meaning randomly distribute them amongst the party. Also, this rule isn't meant to replace the standard group success or failure rules--it is meant to apply in situations that the standard one doesn't make sense in (which in my opinion, is more often than not).

egomann said:

OK, so where in the rules does it specifically lay out how many times something can be attempted, or is it up to the DM?

Click to expand...

The DMG says you can normally accomplish any task that isn't impossible by taking 20 times as long. Presumably they mean a task is impossible for you if a roll of 20 still wouldn't give you a high enough number (this is then essentially the "take 20" roll from earlier editions).

It also provides some guidance to the DM on when he might disallow new attempts.

It isn't nearly restricted enough for my tastes.

Hi there,

I pick locks as a hobby (got hooked at a local con's lockpick village). Realistically speaking, if you fail once you can keep trying until you get it most of the time. Unless you're working with something abnormally complicated (or have really crappy/cheap tools) your tools won't just break like in Skyrim. And if they do you might as well move on because that means there's a piece of metal stuck in it. No more tries (possible great consequence for a critical fumble). What will happen with a tumbler lock, though, is that the lock will gradually wear down. You damage the lock every single time you pick it. Eventually the tumblers will become so loose that it might not open at all, or (more likely) will open with one good bump. That takes a lot of trying though. A lot of very lazy lock pickers will just use a rake and saw it back and forth in the lock until it gives. It takes a lot of dexterity and patience to pick a lock.

So a consequence there could be that they bust the lock. Using time and noise as a consequence is also a good way to introduce encounters, as suggested above. You might also consider frustration as an effect. The more they fail the more frustrated they get, incurring a -1 to their roll until they take a break or do something to calm down, etc.

I went back and checked to see exactly what the older editions say on this issue:

1E: "Opening Locks may be attempted by any given thief but once per lock. If the [check fails], the thief has failed; and no amount of trying will ever enable him or her to succeed with that lock..."

2E: "A thief can try to pick a particular lock only once per experience level. If
the attempt fails, the lock is simply too difficult for the character..."

Looks like 3E is the first edition that allows re-trying.

Shiroiken said:

Then why have the lock at all? Or if you have the lock for world reasons, why bother requiring a roll? Unless the delay matters, all this does is allow the party to Long Rest before continuing.

There needs to be consequences, and that's where adventure design comes in. If you cannot pick the lock, you could use the Knock spell or you could smash the door, but both of those have noise factors. This could add an encounter (as guards come running), make the encounter harder (as the enemy gathers together), ruin surprise, or even provide a chance for the party to be surprised. A unassailable lock might force the party to go a long way around (taking time and causing additional combats). Finally, a treasure room might become inaccessible, denying the party loot.

Click to expand...

Why do people have locks in the real world? Not so the local thieves can have a chance to use their skills. There are consequences. It keeps them out.

People use locks to keep people out of things. And if somebody really wants to get past it, they will. It's a deterrent, slows things down. That's all. And if somebody is proficient in picking a lock, they'll eventually get in. Why? Because most people aren't building and installing locks to foil people who know how to pick a lock. That's a very small percentage of the population, and designing a pick-proof lock is more complex and expensive. And in a pseudo-medieval fantasy world, if you're going to go to that trouble, you're better off considering a trap or magical protection.

If the lock is on a door with no other immediate threat, then there isn't any problem taking more time to try. On the other hand, it does potentially cause noise. So if there's something on the other side, there are more chances for them to hear it.

I'm not a fan of the idea that "there has to be consequences" just for the sake of consequences. Most of the time the locks don't serve a mechanical in-game purpose, they serve a world and story purpose. My world isn't designed to always provide consequences, or police the use of rests, or even to make it interesting.

If you're in a place where people live, such as a dwarven stronghold, then I'd expect each residence to have a lock, and I'd expect it to be locked when nobody is home, or if it's during "night." If it's abandoned, it depends on why, and what has happened since, as to whether those doors are locked now. It has absolutely nothing to do with what sort of consequences or challenges it presents a party of adventurers.

If there are nearby creatures or guards that might be on patrol, or hear them attempting to pick the locks (or the impatient adventurers waiting for them to pick the lock) then fine. But I'm not throwing them in in case somebody fails their first skill check.

Nor am I going to nerf a character's abilities due to a bad roll. Somebody with expertise in picking locks shouldn't "fail forever" because they rolled a 3. Nor should they have to wait until after a short rest, gaining a level, or any other arbitrary way DMs try to make a lock permanent. If you're really intent on their failure sticking, then make it a lock they can't pick. Otherwise, they can pick it, eventually.

Of course, while they are trying, the rest of the party is doing something. Maybe it is a good time to take a quick break and have a snack. Adventuring is hard work. Maybe they pick on the rogue for not being able to pick the lock. Maybe they get tired of waiting and just kick down the door. Maybe they wander down the other passages a bit to investigate alternatives. The rest of the world doesn't come to a halt just because they are spending a few minutes picking a lock.

I also don't do re-rolls. If the lock is within the capability of the PC (20 + skill modifier), then they will eventually get it. I use the difference between the roll and the DC as an element of time. If there's no other threat at the time, then I just tell them it takes a few moments. If there are other considerations, I let it play out.

For locks they cannot pick because they are not skilled enough - first I'll mention that it's a well made lock, not like any they have specifically seen before. If there is no other threat, then I'll also eventually tell them that they've been working at it for a few minutes, and they just aren't getting it. They can choose to take more time or not. If there's a more imminent threat, I'll just let it play out.

One of the things that I find is severely lacking in modern D&D is the passage of time. You don't have to play out all of the time that passes. But it used to be that there were a lot of empty rooms, and rooms with little of interest. In my campaigns, characters act like, well, people. Most of the time about 8 hours of adventuring a day is more than enough. They expect to have things like breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and a break every once and a while as well. What takes many groups a day in game time, takes mine several days. The exploration of a large catacombs (look up maps for the real ones in Paris and Rome), made more difficult due to a few non-standard rooms that made mapping difficult, literally took the party months to explore and exit - and it was about 3 months of game time, once a week.