D&D 5E How to open a door

[GMMichael]

So conceptually, the difficulty of the lock is not represented directly by the DC rating, it is represented by how great of a measure you succeed or how great of a measure you fail. As a DM, you don't really know how difficult a lock is until the roll is made. You only have indirect control over that by setting a high or low DC.

I'm a huge proponent of going abstract/conceptual with RPG rules. But if you're going to go in this direction with locked doors, you need to take one more step.

If the lockpicker has the (meta) ability to determine how difficult the lock is, the bar should be raised or lowered, not just cast aside. So someone in the party tries to pick a lock that was originally set at DC 15, and fails (by rolling poorly). This person is an awesome lockpicker, which implies that the party's secondary lockpicker (bard) is not likely to be able to open the lock, either. By not allowing the bard to try, you're ruling out luck and operator error (by the first guy) as the culprits. There should still be a -chance-, otherwise the bard is seriously regretting his decision to take some lockpicking ranks.

So when the thief fails, he still doesn't know the DC of the lock. The GM can bump it up at that time, to handle the meta-issue of the lock becoming highly difficult. But don't penalize the other players for taking similar skills.

There's the point that allowing more lockpicking checks makes the game less interesting for the door-bashers. This should be a question of party decisions and circumstances, not rolls. If the party decided to pick the lock in the first place, there must have been a reason that stealth was the preferred method for opening the door. Sure, the barbarian could probably bash the door down, but if that were the best option at the time, he'd already be doing it, instead of letting the lockpickers take a shot.

I'd agree with giving a roll at a locked door, and that the penalty for doing so is that they can't get through the door. I suspect the Angry DM would too. The real question is whether there should be a locked door there at all. But you do need some locked doors going to empty rooms because otherwise they'd know that if the door is locked there MUST be something there, even if they didn't detect it through other means first. Just don't overdo it.

Correction: the penalty for failing a lockpicking check is that you will need a key or a barbarian to get through the door.

What exists behind a door shouldn't be a metagame issue. It should be an in-game issue. Doors are made with locks because someone, somewhere, thought that there should be a reason for locking something in (or out). If that door is locked when PCs find it, it's highly possible that the reason for the door being locked is still in effect. Locked doors shouldn't be dropped into a dungeon just to give the thief something to do; they should be there because there's an in-game reason to lock the door.

 

[Uller]

I haven't read the whole thread, but a couple things that jump out at me that I disagree with:

1) The difficulty of a lock (or presumably any check) is not determined by the DC but the degree by which you succeed of fail. I disagree with this. The difficulty in general is determined by the DC. The difficulty for the character making the check is determined by the roll. It's like trivia questions. A high DC question would be one with an answer very few people would know. For instance a question about an obscure movie or actor that only the most die hard movie fan would know. But when you as an individual attempt to answer the question, you either know it (you roll high even before you add your bonus), you make a good guess (you roll high enough that you beat the DC once you add your prof bonus, or you don't (you roll poorly). The same goes for a lock...it's either one you just know how to pick it without trouble even without your training, your training and experience come into play or it's beyond you.

2) You won't allow another character to make a check unless he has a higher bonus. I disagree with this. Back to the trivia question...maybe your friend who is an expert in movies doesn't know the answer to a question about an obscure B horror movie but by sheer luck you happened to have had a bought of insomnia a couple nights ago and happened to watch that very movie so you know the answer...it's why we roll and add training/ability bonuses...Plus...if you allow a character with greater ability to make a check after a character with lesser ability, then that sets you up for your players to meta game and start having the weakest character make checks first.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I'm a huge proponent of going abstract/conceptual with RPG rules. But if you're going to go in this direction with locked doors, you need to take one more step.

If the lockpicker has the (meta) ability to determine how difficult the lock is, the bar should be raised or lowered, not just cast aside. So someone in the party tries to pick a lock that was originally set at DC 15, and fails (by rolling poorly). This person is an awesome lockpicker, which implies that the party's secondary lockpicker (bard) is not likely to be able to open the lock, either. By not allowing the bard to try, you're ruling out luck and operator error (by the first guy) as the culprits. There should still be a -chance-, otherwise the bard is seriously regretting his decision to take some lockpicking ranks.

So when the thief fails, he still doesn't know the DC of the lock. The GM can bump it up at that time, to handle the meta-issue of the lock becoming highly difficult. But don't penalize the other players for taking similar skills.

There's the point that allowing more lockpicking checks makes the game less interesting for the door-bashers. This should be a question of party decisions and circumstances, not rolls. If the party decided to pick the lock in the first place, there must have been a reason that stealth was the preferred method for opening the door. Sure, the barbarian could probably bash the door down, but if that were the best option at the time, he'd already be doing it, instead of letting the lockpickers take a shot.



Correction: the penalty for failing a lockpicking check is that you will need a key or a barbarian to get through the door.

What exists behind a door shouldn't be a metagame issue. It should be an in-game issue. Doors are made with locks because someone, somewhere, thought that there should be a reason for locking something in (or out). If that door is locked when PCs find it, it's highly possible that the reason for the door being locked is still in effect. Locked doors shouldn't be dropped into a dungeon just to give the thief something to do; they should be there because there's an in-game reason to lock the door.

First, I agree that it's not a metagame issue. I just didn't spell it out as well as you did. My point was based on the original statement that you shouldn't roll if there's no penalty. What I meant by my response is that if there is no penalty, instead of making it automatic, perhaps it doesn't need to be locked in the first place.

And yes, you can get through the door with other methods. Blasting it with a fireball would probably work as well. I was just agreeing with the original post that the door still being locked is a penalty in and of itself. Not an insurmountable one.

I think the DC does reflect the difficulty, and doesn't necessarily need to be changed for another character to try. If the first character did something to alter it (broke a lockpick off inside the lock by accident) then it would be more difficult. Even the simplest of tasks aren't a guarantee for the most skilled. Like a 100 meter dash. The 'best' isn't always the winner, and at times might not even place or finish.

But for multiple characters making checks, I would keep it simple and abstract, and still with one die roll.

If more than one character has the ability to pick locks, then they can help (as per the helping rule), granting advantage on the check. I would still use my addition of a failure indicating a period of time as long as it's within their skill level. That way you still only need to make one check, and it takes into account that multiple characters can try.

Again, if there is a more immediate penalty, then I'd go with a roll each round, but they would also be at advantage if more than one character has the ability and is involved in the attempt.

It would be up to the DM to describe the action. I'm an IT guy, and it doesn't matter which one of my partners and I have the most experience, there are times where the one with the least experience will 'know' the answer faster than the one with more experience. Helping can be looking over your shoulder, noticing that the lock resembles one that they've seen before, a reminder to try a particular technique, or actually physically attempting to pick the lock.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Morrus]

Just as a note, [MENTION=6774924]secondhander[/MENTION], your post is forced black text, which means those of us using the black background can't read it. There's info on how to fix that here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?348563-Dark-Text-on-a-Dark-Background-Tutorial

 

[Cannyjiggit]

First of all, to state my stance, I am in the "roll determines how long it takes" camp, assuming it is a task that can be repeated (usually means something physical rather than an intelligence, wisdom or charisma based skill).

As we're using lockpicking as the example*, consider the following situation that is almost what happened recently in a campaign I am playing in:

The party enters the BBEGs lair while it is relatively empty. Overcomes the gnoll guard defences and partially explores, including finding and opening the Wizards locked bedroom door. They delve deeper but take too long and the wizard returns forcing the party to flee after a short battle. When they return, the wizard has locked his door and is resting in his bedroom. For those in favour of "one roll, succeed or forever be unable to open the lock", what happens now? Can the lock-pick proficient character just instantly open the lock again allowing the party to sneak in and assassinate the wizard? Do they need to roll again and would failure mean they can never open the lock until they gain another level? Both of those seem rather extreme. I personally prefer a repeat of the roll that determines how long it takes them to open the door and then gives the DM a basis for whether or not they will surprise the wizard (probably have the roll also count for the possibility of disturbing the wizard and compare it to his passive perception).

*It is the perfect example because moving the right parts together at the right time is a delicate skill and a simple slip shouldn't stop you from trying again. I speak from a little bit of experience having learned some of it in real life.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Well, if you're the one roll forever camp, then no. But that's why that doesn't make sense to me. They'd have to make another roll, perhaps with advantage since they had already picked that specific lock.

Plus, as you mention, they might disturb the wizard while they attempt it.

Ilbranteloth

 

[machineelf]

Just as a note, [MENTION=6774924]secondhander[/MENTION], your post is forced black text, which means those of us using the black background can't read it. There's info on how to fix that here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?348563-Dark-Text-on-a-Dark-Background-Tutorial

Thank you for letting me know. I've fixed it.

 

[machineelf]

I'm a huge proponent of going abstract/conceptual with RPG rules. But if you're going to go in this direction with locked doors, you need to take one more step.

If the lockpicker has the (meta) ability to determine how difficult the lock is, the bar should be raised or lowered, not just cast aside. So someone in the party tries to pick a lock that was originally set at DC 15, and fails (by rolling poorly).

I accounted for this in my post. The question you raise is the reason why I said that if a lockpicker fails on the roll, only a lockpicker with greater proficiency in lockpicking can retry the roll. And if your party tries to metagame it by having the worst lockpicker try first always, then a better one, and repeat until they let the best try last (thus giving them multiple chances to try to get the door open) then you just only allow the best lockpicker to try if the whole party is present. This make the party try to have the most proficient person at a skill do it if that person is present.

I understand your concern with not allowing the second best person try to lockpick that it results in you ruling out operating error and all. But in my experience with lock-picking (I do pick locks for fun as a hobby), it comes down to skill for the most part, not luck or chance. If a really good lockpicker can't pick a lock, then it's highly unlikely that a lockpicker who is less good will be able to get the lock picked either.

The bard's lockpicking skill will still come in handy, if the main lockpicker is out of the room (the character got separated or maybe isn't there to play that day), if the secondary lockpicker (the bard let's say) is separated or out exploring something on his own, or if the main lockpicker's character dies, and so now the bard becomes the party's main lockpicker.

Sure, the barbarian could probably bash the door down, but if that were the best option at the time, he'd already be doing it, instead of letting the lockpickers take a shot.

I think you slightly miss the idea here. The point stands that there will be some locks that are just too difficult for a lockpicker to pick (especially if that lockpicker is a low level). That's part of the beauty of the system I post about here and use, that you don't have a level 1 character who is just at the lowest level of proficiency able to pick every single door and every single chest, unless the lock is a DC 25-30. That just doesn't seem to make sense to me for them to be that good with lock picking starting at level 1, so good that the only lock that they can't get through at such a beginning skill level is a nearly impossible one.

So what I imagine happening is that the rogue sneaks around very stealthily, and tries to pick the lock, but isn't able to. So now the party has to go to its second best options and either find a key, or have the mage do knock, or have a strong character bash it down (The last two options making a lot of noise). None of those were their first choice, but that's what they are left with if the lock is too difficult. That creates roleplaying decisions and is fun and more realistic. It allows all the various classes and abilities a chance to play a part instead of just having the level 1 lockpicker pick all the locks which he will never fail to pick given enough time. (boring and unrealistic).

 

[machineelf]

Plus...if you allow a character with greater ability to make a check after a character with lesser ability, then that sets you up for your players to meta game and start having the weakest character make checks first.

I know you said you didn't read the whole post, but I discussed this issue later down in it. I was aware that metagame issue could happen, and I accounted for it by simply saying, don't let them do that if they try to do it.

I've read a few replies similar to yours in which people think lockpicking is a lot of luck, and that some lesser lockpicker might just get lucky and happen to be able to get the lock picked. I've done some lockpicking as a hobby. I can tell you that that's not how lockpicking works for the most part. It's really all skill. If a very good lockpicker cannot get the lock picked, it is highly, highly unlikely that someone with a lower skill would be able to fair any better. This is why I think my system does not cause problems with verisimilitude.

 

[machineelf]

Can the lock-pick proficient character just instantly open the lock again allowing the party to sneak in and assassinate the wizard?

I would rule that yes, the lockpicker does not have to roll again unless the wizard has changed the lock. I have some real-world lock-picking experience as well. In my experience (I'd be curious if it were the same for you) once you develop enough skill to get a certain lock open, then you will be able to get that lock open pretty much every time you try after that, unless a lot of time has passed since the last time you tried and you aren't as familiar with the lock anymore. But if you just picked a certain lock, you should be able to pick it again if you try a little bit later, especially if the way the lock feels is fresh in your mind. The time it takes may change (sometimes you'll be able to pick a lock in 5 seconds, sometimes the same lock might take 30 seconds or a minute or two, but if you got it open shortly before, you are going to be able to get it open again.)

That's my experience with actual lock-picking, so in your example I'd just let the rogue pick the lock again without having to roll.

Some locks are just much more difficult. The lockmaker may have put some false pins in it, or some spool pins in it, or something like that that requires more skill to pick. That's what I have in mind when I say a higher skilled picker might be able to get the door open that a lower skilled picker wouldn't have a chance with. And it doesn't make sense that a level 1 lockpicker would be able to bypass a very difficult lock filled with false pins and spool pins given enough time. I'd think the level 1 lockpicker just hasn't developed enough skill yet and some locks would be beyond his capability no matter how many times he tried that day.