D&D General How are locks so hard to open?

[Micah Sweet]

I view it from the perspective of the game, not how things work in our actual or fictional reality.

A way to look at it is that a DC 20 Dexterity (Thieves' Tool) check to resolve picking the lock is potentially the harder way to do it, but it comes with the upside that you don't have to break down the door which creates noise - which may draw unwanted attention - and removes the resource of a door from you. (Doors are incredibly useful in a dungeon tactically.)

This is just another example of presenting meaningful choices to your players. Do you want to pick it? Break down the door? Cast a knock spell? Explore to find another way into the chamber it leads to?

I would prefer to look at the fictional reality over gameplay as much as possible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It absolutelly defies logic. But games have this ludonarrative dissonances. The GAME needs locks to be hard to pick, because lockpicking is a big deal for the trope and the genre. It needs to be a challenge and have different DCs so the player feels rewarded when they succeed in lockpicking. This a matter of realism vs gamedesign. I feel like realism should take a backseat if the gameplay aspects of lockpicking are fun and engaging for the players.

See, that argument implies that realism should ALWAYS take a backseat if the gameplay aspects of anything are fun and engaging for the players. What makes lockpicking any different than other aspects of the game?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Man, I was one of the first people to complain about Knock back in the day, but what they did to that spell instead of just removing it was cruel and unusual.

I disagree. Making it a meaningful choice was a good idea. Now, maybe it doesn't need to include a sonic boom that brings every monster from three surrounding kingdoms to take a look, but modern D&D can't just say "roll for a wandering monster to show up," since that's no longer a core assumption for the game.

I can see them massaging the spell in the 1D&D test, though.

 

[R_J_K75]

While breaking down a door is arguably easier (with the right equipment), picking a lock isn't rocket science.

Trust me I thought about booting the door in, but I have a few doors I need to replace in the house and recently looked at their price, they aren't cheap anymore, and they are odd sizes.

I bought a lock pick set for myself a while back (just out of curiosity) and I was able to get a firm grasp of the basics within an evening.

I'm sure it's like anything, if you're interested in it, are somewhat mechanically inclined and practice its probably not too hard to pick up the fundamentals.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So while D&D worlds are generally a mashup of different eras of history, mixing and matching technological advances to keep them from feeling "too modern", the fact is, even modern locks aren't terribly hard to open with the right tools and you can learn how to bypass them yourself by watching some YouTube videos. Locks during the time periods that D&D tends to mimic should, by rights, be fairly simple to open.

And yet, even first level characters can encounter DC 20 locks (5e's Sunless Citadel, for example) that you only have a 25% chance of opening. Who is making all these devilishly complex locks in the first place?

In a similar vein, Kobolds, often seen as backwards savages, can churn out very complex mechanical traps and no one bats an eye. I've encountered many a "Hallway of Death" over the years, from your basic, Indiana Jones inspired devices all the way to Rube Goldbergian monstrosities that even Grimtooth (of Grimtooth's Traps) would find excessive.

Mechanisms that, mind you, can be found in dank dungeons, where no one has been around to maintain them for decades, if not centuries.

Should locks and traps be all that hard to bypass? What would reasonable DC's be for these things? I'm finding it defies logic to keep using high DC's for these sorts of things, and yet, I'm leery about the consequences of lowering the DC's; if it becomes too easy, then locks and traps just become speed bumps, costing nothing but time to bypass.

Few thoughts:

Not sure on history if locks but tumbler locks go back quite always I believe. But assuming locks were much easier to pick before modern locks, I think though D&D has so many anachronisms that you can justify it. I mean some stuff gets pretty close to modern, not a lot of it feels all that medieval. Being fantasy, they have good locks, regardless of what the case was in our world, is fair.

I’ve watched these videos as well, and I have to say it doesn’t look that easy to me. And we had to try using the info when we lost our key once. I’m sure a professional thief or lock smith can do it with more ease, but also having called a lock smith, it didn’t look like the easiest thing in the world (especially if there were outside pressures)

I don’t think D&D lock picking is based on real locks or their history. I think it’s based on movies. What you see in D&D does seem to translate well to movie pick locking (where suspense is more important than realism)

Others have mentioned this but no YouTube, harder access to lock picking info seems like another valid reason

All that said it certainly sounds like an idea worth exploring. You could try modeling locks in your campaign after your knowledge of real world locks and see how that changes things. That can be a lot of fun too. I once built a dungeon based on mouse trap design videos I had been watching

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Likewise, I've picked a couple locks and it's not all that easy as it's made out to be. Also, I knew that no one had a trap that could cause certain death set up on the lock. It becomes that much more difficult when you have to worry about that, plus having to be quiet about it so that anyone on the other side doesn't hear you working.

In my games there is no YouTube to reference. And yes, modern locks can be bypassed and defeated, but have you actually tried it? It's not as easy (usually) as those YT videos might indicate. There is a huge amount of feel and experience needed to actually use picks to bypass tumblers etc.

Besides, breaking a lock or door is usually much easy. Notice how SWAT teams usually just break in a door instead of pick the lock? Same holds true in most cases in D&D.

 

[NotAYakk]

And as for the basic question, of whether this stuff should be so hard, a DC 10 lock is close to pointless. Even at level 1, characters will essentially walk straight through them. Lower than DC 10 shouldn't even be a skill check, since making people roll on things you intend for them to succeed on just sets the players up for slapstick and is a waste of everyone's time as a DM (IMO).

Trained thieves should walk through most locks.

At level 1 without expertise, a 16 dex rogue has a +5; that is a 20% chance to fail at a DC 10 lock. That is way, way higher than the chance that a party dies against a CR 1 monster.

If you do have "roll again until you pass", any DC under 25 is trivial other than time. If you don't have "roll until you pass", a DC 10 is a perfectly reasonable lock. It is high enough that even a trained rogue can fail on it. If they have expertise, they still have a 10% failure chance.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

If you need a world reason, it could be that, it being a magical world, even your average locks have some kind of folk magic charm on them. Not intentionally casting Arcane Lock, but just by so many people using locks to keep things shut, it suffuses their very nature to incline to stay shut. So a part of lockpicking skillset is also how to break that charm.

I mean, the moment you have locks being in common use, you've left the medieval world far behind already.

 

[Umbran]

So while D&D worlds are generally a mashup of different eras of history, mixing and matching technological advances to keep them from feeling "too modern", the fact is, even modern locks aren't terribly hard to open with the right tools and you can learn how to bypass them yourself by watching some YouTube videos. Locks during the time periods that D&D tends to mimic should, by rights, be fairly simple to open.

Remember that pretty much every modern lock you see is a mass-produced object, and thus the result of standardization. Through the Medieval and Renaissance periods, we are talking about hand-made, individually crafted pieces with idiosyncratic designs. Lock boxes, chests, and safes were not just a hasp with simple padlock - they had fake locks, multiple locks, hidden locks, and elaborate non-standard keys. Opening a fantasy locked item can easily be more like opening not just a lock, but a modern puzzle-box.

 

[James Gasik]

Remember that pretty much every modern lock you see is a mass-produced object, and thus the result of standardization. Through the Medieval and Renaissance periods, lock boxes and safes were not just a hasp with simple padlock - they had fake locks, multiple locks, hidden locks, and elaborate non-standard keys. Opening a fantasy locked item can easily be more like opening not just a lock, but a modern puzzle-box.

If we're talking about a strongbox, perhaps, but would each individual door in a dungeon have such an intricate lock?

 

[Umbran]

If we're talking about a strongbox, perhaps, but would each individual door in a dungeon have such an intricate lock?

Would each individual door in a dungeon have a lock at all?

 

[iserith]

Hahahaha.

Man, I was one of the first people to complain about Knock back in the day, but what they did to that spell instead of just removing it was cruel and unusual.

Like Charm, it's not 'cast this spell to be instantly punished for what people in 3.x did'. Might as well include a 9th level spell that just straight kills the caster instantly and blocks resurrections.

I don't really see much of an issue with it.

I would prefer to look at the fictional reality over gameplay as much as possible.

The great thing about "fictional reality" is that you can make up whatever you want to explain things. Just pick the one that is most satisfying for you and yours. But if the game itself doesn't work well, that can be a harder problem to solve, depending on what we're talking about.

 

[ad_hoc]

If there is no consequence for failure they just succeed.

So if it is time sensitive then that 25% is to see if they can pick it in less than 6 seconds.

I also use checks if the lock is trapped. Other possible complications could be sound or if the character wants to make it look like it wasn't tampered with.

Just opening the lock though? Pretty easy.

 

[Cadence]

Glen Cook's Garrett P.I. (fantasy) series and Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe (1930s-1970s detective) series both have main characters musing on the different qualities of locks - from the trivial to the not trivial.

Garrett's Lord Darcy series makes a big deal out of the professional magic users who make their living working with locks and alarms.

The door to my renovated office IRL sometimes takes three tries to get... using the freaking key!!

 

[Baron Opal II]

After having a chance to play with some, I find latch/spring locks easy to pick with time, hard to pick with speed, and fast to bash open with a hammer. Especially easy if you don't care about what the lock is keeping closed. If they're pre-weathered (black colored steel rather than polished or rusty), greased, and out of direct weather they hold up for a surprising period of time. As in decades.

Pin/tumbler locks are much harder to pick, although still easy if you know what you are doing. I used to have a hot-rodded truck that had as its ignition key a simple small brass key. Which, naturally, I lost one day. Calling a locksmith, I showed him the keyed ignition switch bolted to the bottom of the dash, and asked what he could do. I was expecting him to sell me a new switch with a key. He got out a brass blank and said "let me see what I can do." Over the next 10 minutes he would put the blank in the ignition, wiggle it a bit, file the key, and repeat. Eventually I had two new ignition keys, one filed out by hand and the second a machined copy of the first. "I just listened to what the lock was telling me," he said.

So, from that, I tend to view locks on treasure or doors much like car door locks in reality. They're present just to keep honest people honest, point out that there's a place you're not supposed to go, and eat up time until someone notices you doing something you shouldn't. Or, make it obvious there's been a break-in if it wouldn't be otherwise. If there isn't a time factor or lock isn't special in some manner, the rogue picks the lock. If the fighter has some skeleton keys, okay, they pick the lock and it takes an hour. If time is a factor, then the rogue makes the check to see if it can be done quietly and quickly. If not, the fighter can at least open it quickly, if not quietly.

And, of course, there is the occasional special lock that was hidden, complex, needs two keys turned at once, &c. Those are rare, and a specific to keep out the common rabble and give the PC thief a chance to shine. It also takes more than one check, and not always a Tinkering check.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

DC20 seems appropriate.

A level 1 rogue needs about 20 seconds to open it...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I disagree. Making it a meaningful choice was a good idea. Now, maybe it doesn't need to include a sonic boom that brings every monster from three surrounding kingdoms to take a look, but modern D&D can't just say "roll for a wandering monster to show up," since that's no longer a core assumption for the game.

I can see them massaging the spell in the 1D&D test, though.

Correction: modern D&D has  chosen not to say "roll for a wandering monster to show up". That's on them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't really see much of an issue with it.

The great thing about "fictional reality" is that you can make up whatever you want to explain things. Just pick the one that is most satisfying for you and yours. But if the game itself doesn't work well, that can be a harder problem to solve, depending on what we're talking about.

Yes, but if what you make up is chosen for gamist reasons, I have the same problem again.

 

[iserith]

Yes, but if what you make up is chosen for gamist reasons, I have the same problem again.

If the fictional reason otherwise makes sense, I don't see why it matters how we arrived at that fictional reason. Taking the position you seem to do just seems like choosing a preference that is going to lead to a lot of dissatisfaction in general.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the fictional reason otherwise makes sense, I don't see why it matters how we arrived at that fictional reason. Taking the position you seem to do just seems like choosing a preference that is going to lead to a lot of dissatisfaction in general.

Verisimilitude matters more than gameplay to me. I compromise if I have to.