Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Avalongod" data-source="post: 7531146" data-attributes="member: 68229">It's a good 2cp.Note, wizards don't have shield proficiency so while carrying one, can't cast spells and have disadvantage on all str and dex checks.&nbsp; Not worth it for most shields (sure, you can drop the shield to cast spells, but why were you carrying it in the first place then?)Some of the stuff with locks probably comes from DM style.&nbsp; My understanding of the &quot;take 20&quot; rules in 5e is that if a.) you are pretty much undisturbed and b.) the cost of failure is negligible, than a task can be assumed to succeed via multiple tries, particularly if c.) the DC is reasonably low.&nbsp; The epitome here is not needing to roll survival to pitch a tent.&nbsp; Condition A probably doesn't come into play in most active adventuring scenarios.&nbsp; For an intricate lock even if we were to allow that there was no cost for failure (and back to this in a second), it could reasonably take more than an hour's (SR) tinkering to eventually get it.&nbsp; But then, for condition B., I'd argue for an intricate lock there's be some reasonable potential for damaging the lock picks or the lock itself through endless tinkering.&nbsp; So, as DM myself, I wouldn't allow &quot;take 20&quot; on high DC locks as it's probably reasonable to think a character (and you're correct, doesn't need to be a rogue, I was just thinking stereotypically) would come to the conclusion &quot;I just can't get this lock and might break it if I keep trying.&quot;&nbsp; Cheers!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Avalongod, post: 7531146, member: 68229"] It's a good 2cp. Note, wizards don't have shield proficiency so while carrying one, can't cast spells and have disadvantage on all str and dex checks. Not worth it for most shields (sure, you can drop the shield to cast spells, but why were you carrying it in the first place then?) Some of the stuff with locks probably comes from DM style. My understanding of the "take 20" rules in 5e is that if a.) you are pretty much undisturbed and b.) the cost of failure is negligible, than a task can be assumed to succeed via multiple tries, particularly if c.) the DC is reasonably low. The epitome here is not needing to roll survival to pitch a tent. Condition A probably doesn't come into play in most active adventuring scenarios. For an intricate lock even if we were to allow that there was no cost for failure (and back to this in a second), it could reasonably take more than an hour's (SR) tinkering to eventually get it. But then, for condition B., I'd argue for an intricate lock there's be some reasonable potential for damaging the lock picks or the lock itself through endless tinkering. So, as DM myself, I wouldn't allow "take 20" on high DC locks as it's probably reasonable to think a character (and you're correct, doesn't need to be a rogue, I was just thinking stereotypically) would come to the conclusion "I just can't get this lock and might break it if I keep trying." Cheers! [/QUOTE]

Verification