And that latched and barred door sounds like a DC 20 door to open without bashing it. Are you denying the party rogue the ability to defeat a closed door on the ground that there is no lock to pick but another closure mechanism (like the opening is caused by pulling a particular book in a bookstand three rooms away?) I don't -- let that poor rogue get some spotlight. In my representation of the magical world of Artificers, thieves tools include a long list of standard password to get Kundarak-protected doors to open themselves, classed by door model -- it's very often that the owner don't change the administrator password on them, leaving it to mellon for some obscure reason.
D&D General How are locks so hard to open?
And that latched and barred door sounds like a DC 20 door to open without bashing it. Are you denying the party rogue the ability to defeat a closed door on the ground that there is no lock to pick but another closure mechanism (like the opening is caused by pulling a particular book in a bookstand three rooms away?) I don't -- let that poor rogue get some spotlight. In my representation of the magical world of Artificers, thieves tools include a long list of standard password to get Kundarak-protected doors to open themselves, classed by door model -- it's very often that the owner don't change the administrator password on them, leaving it to mellon for some obscure reason.
Voadam
Legend
I was going to say this was a callback to the 1e DMG's hidden rules but there is the 5e PH Page 152 under equipment.
"Lock. A key is provided with the lock. Without the key, a creature proficient with thieves' tools can pick this lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity check. Your DM may decide that better locks are available for higher prices."
And PH page 175 under working together "For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves' tools, so a character who lacks that proficiency can't help another character in that task."
Ah thanks for checking that. At first when I re-read what the PHB said about tools, I was about to concede the point, but I remembered Maxperson bringing up the DMG statement some time ago during a discussion about gatekeeping skill checks with proficiency.
It is nice to know that it's referenced in the PHB elsewhere, even if it's somewhat at odds with the description of how tools work.
Voadam
Legend
The 5e Player's Handbook also has language that read in isolation suggests proficiency is not necessary to pick locks.
Page 154
"TOOLS
A tool helps you to do something you couldn't otherwise do, such as craft or repair an item, forge a document, or pick a lock. Your race, class, background, or feats give you proficiency with certain tools. Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool."
This seems to indicate that the tool is necessary and proficiency only adds a bonus on the check.
Also on page 154
"Thieves' Tools. This set of tools includes a small file, a set of lock picks, a small mirror mounted on a metal handle, a set of narrow-bladed scissors, and a pair of pliers. Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks."
Again as written this is consistent with proficiency just adding a bonus, not being a requirement to use the tools.
This seems a natural place to specify that lack of proficiency does not allow use of lock picks (a specific exception to the general rule on proficiency and tool use). It does not mention that fact here though, only in other places.
Mind you, even though it's not explicitly stated, proficiency gating tool can make sense. I mean, before I started watching those lockpicking videos, I would have no idea how to use the various tools of the trade to do much of anything.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Alternately, high quality locks are just the larval form of mimics, hiding in the midst of a manufactured landscape until they reach maturity.
Getting picked is how they spread their pollen to other lock-larvae.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
If I’m DMing, and the lock is pickable, somebody trained in lockpicking will always succeed.
Eventually.
But if there is time pressure, or they don’t want to leave any indication they’ve been there, or there is some other constraint, I might ask for a roll.
Eventually.
But if there is time pressure, or they don’t want to leave any indication they’ve been there, or there is some other constraint, I might ask for a roll.
Bacon Bits
Hero
What an incredibly obscure place to put that.
It's also just questionable game design. Like the options are not pick the lock or you'll never get past it. You can just smash the door or chest or the lock itself. Or disassemble the hinges or the lock itself. It's not a video game where you're limited to the options the designer put there. You can always circumvent the lock Picking a lock has advantages, sure, but it's primary use is expediency. It's odd to make proficiency a requirement here and essentially nowhere else.
It's especially odd when just a few pages later the same book says that any character can use Perception to find traps, followed by an Investigation and perhaps a Thieves' Tools check to disable it... with no requirement for proficiency mentioned at all. It then doubles down that any character can use Arcana to find magical traps.
Wow, that is horrifically worded. Note the wording difference here and with James' DMG quote.
Strictly speaking, it actually suggests you can pick the lock without thieves' tools so long as you have proficiency with them. Alternatively, it suggests that the DC to pick the lock with proficiency is DC 15, but would be something else otherwise. The book as written says either of those more clearly than it says that tools and proficiency with tools are required to pick the lock.
Yeah, the fact that this only appears in kind of limited areas and not under the tools section itself is... incredibly poor writing on WotC's part. Why would I look up doors or locks if I want to know how the rules for Thieves' Tools work?
It's odd enough that I wonder if it was either a late addition or late removal. Or an error. I certainly believe the books are full of simple errors.
Edit: Clarity.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
