D&D 5E (2014) Manacled by Thieves' Tools

[Mistwell]

Yeah the game has no "take 20" rule...no retries until a long rest is how I run it.

 

[abirdcall]

Yeah the game has no "take 20" rule...no retries until a long rest is how I run it.

5e's version of take 20 is for the DM to decide that the action succeeds without a roll.

 

[iserith]

Is the intent of the 5e skill system to basically allow retries on a failure? I am not talking about a retry if you fail to persuade someone. I am talking specifically about:

1. Lockpicking. The DCs are so low that it wouldn't take even someone not proficient in thieves' tools and with a 12 Dex more than a minute to pick most locks. Seems too easy.

2. Manacles. The strength DC is low enough that if you allow a retry almost anyone can break through them in a minute's time.

My house rule is that with lockpicking you can retry but if you fail by 5 or more you break the pick off in the lock and the DC rises by a lot (and it will take time and rolls to clear the lock).

With manacles, I revert back to the old bend bars/lift gates rules from 1e and 2e wherein you get one try, and unless circumstances change (e.g. your Str goes up), then if you fail...that's it.

So I would allow a barbarian, for example, to try once to bust the manacles with his normal Str check and then if he rages I would allow another shot with advantage.

How do you handle these two items?

The issues you raise seem to come from playing the game in a way that has (1) the DM calling for an ability check for just about any fictional action that smells like a check could apply to it or (2) the players asking to make ability checks in lieu of (or in addition to) stating a fictional goal and a fictional approach to achieving that goal.

If the DM instead requires players to articulate a goal and approach when dealing with a challenge and decides upon success, failure, or uncertainty after taking everything into consideration and is the only person at the table who calls for a check in the latter case, then these issues do not arise.

So how do I handle these two situations? When it comes to picking a lock, I examine what's at stake and decide whether the player's stated goal and approach for the character succeeds, fails, or is uncertain, calling for a roll in the latter case. In most cases, a failed check will result in successfully picking the lock, but taking more time than desired, alerting monsters in the process, or breaking lock picks. In the case of breaking manacles, then a failed check might mean breaking the manacles, but losing some hit points or hit dice in the process, alerting monsters, or taking a lot of time doing it. Of course, a check may never be required, depending on the situation and the player's stated goal and approach.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think the manacles in the PHB should be listed under Manacles (exceptionally poor quality). The idea that they can be broken out of or slipped out of 1/20th of the time is ludicrous, even if you're disallowing or limiting retries. I would allow retries and set the DC to something like 24, which means it is incredibly rare for someone to be capable of breaking or slipping out of them without assistance, and even then, it is unlikely to be done in a single round. This makes manacles meaningful during an escape.

In the case of picking locks... I've not spent 250 days learning the skill, and I wouldn't characterize myself as particularly dexterous, but I can pick a basic modern lock with the appropriate tools, and there's essentially zero chance of fouling the lock or failing to open it. If you take 1 minute as being "too long for combat, but not long enough to read a book or take a rest", then it sounds appropriate. It's simply not that difficult to pick a modern lock with the appropriate tools. Real life medieval locks are trivial in comparison with a modern one.

The real defense against someone picking a lock is to not let someone spend time prodding your locks with tools.

If you want to make elaborate locks that are actually interesting (instead of arbitrary pass/fail/find the key), then you need to pair the lock with something else, like water/sand/guards flooding the room or some other timing element.

 

[redrick]

I'm confused as to where you get "a minute's time." Even if a character is retrying something, it is up to the DM to determine how much time that action takes. Most out-of-combat actions in my campaign are assumed to take 5-10 minutes.

Beyond that, yeah, it's up to the DM to decide where checks are and aren't appropriate, and what the consequences of failing a check are. As others have said. Since a character has a 5% chance at succeeding on any ability check (once the DM has allowed the player to make it), there's no action that a character couldn't succeed at, given the opportunity to attempt it 20 or so times.

Most of my campaigns are dungeon-based, so time is important, as every 10 or 20 minutes triggers another wandering monster check. So I generally will allow repeated checks, with the understanding that spending 30 minutes trying to pick a lock in a room (3 tries) will risk facing wandering monsters without getting any closer to the goal (since I'm reducing xp for combat right now, getting the actual treasure is key.) If the risk of losing 30 minutes is inconsequential, I probably wouldn't even bother asking for a check, or maybe just a "check to see how long it takes."

 

[LordEntrails]

I'll add that I only allow those proficient with a given tool to try the related check. And something like a chance to open a lock requires proficiency with the tool, not just a high Dex.

Think of this, if you don't know about pins and tumblers, you could be a Circe de Soliel acrobat and you would never have the faintest idea how to pick a lock. Same idea for playing an instrument, creating a herbalism potion etc.

 

[Sunseeker]

Most of the time when I run checks to figure out a puzzle, I do them the way death saves work, 3 successes before 3 fails. But these are not additional attempts, this is one continued attempt. Basically where the one guy is working on the lock and the camera flashes back to them a couple times before they get the door open and the aliens arrive.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I use the "no retries unless the circumstances change" rule.

I believe 5e's attempt to avoid retries (eg "I keep looking for a secret door until I roll a 20") is passive checks. I don't like passive checks for a number of reasons however (primarily because it makes hiding too easy, same guy spots everything, and static vs static issue re traps) and so I simply use the no retries rule, instead.

It works well and is as flexible as the DM needs it to be. I was very surprised the "no retries rule" was absent in the DMG options, actually.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

If there is no cost for an attempt then the GM should simply tell the player "You succeed". If a character can just keep trying again and again then there is no point in rolling anything.

If there is a cost for an attempt (which includes time!) then the GM should make the ticking clock visible and let the player decide.

GM: It will take 10 seconds for each attempt to pick the lock. Behind the cell doors you can see the timer counting down. In 120 seconds the bomb goes off, demolishing the building. What do you do?

GM: It takes one round to attempt to lift the burning beam off the trapped person. Each round they take 1d6 damage from the weight and the fire. What do you do?

GM: You will get to make a Knowledge roll at the end of each day spent researching in the library. There are five days until the coronation of the evil prince. What do you do?


To quote AngyGM:
Players can only ask questions or declare actions, and they should never have to refer to skill names to do it. Only ask for a roll if the PC can succeed, can fail, and there is a risk or cost for failure. One roll is sufficient, unless that roll changes the situation. Of course, you can roll multiple times if there is a ticking clock the party can see, but don’t overdo that. And when designing complex encounters, focus on approaches and make sure each approach has at least one reason to prefer it and one reason to avoid it. - See more at: http://theangrygm.com/five-simple-rules-for-dating-my-teenaged-skill-system/#sthash.LLwFAPWu.dpuf

 

[pedro2112]

I'll add that I only allow those proficient with a given tool to try the related check. And something like a chance to open a lock requires proficiency with the tool, not just a high Dex.

Think of this, if you don't know about pins and tumblers, you could be a Circe de Soliel acrobat and you would never have the faintest idea how to pick a lock. Same idea for playing an instrument, creating a herbalism potion etc.

This is actually RAW for locks. Under the description for locks in the PHB, it states that one needs a proficiency in thieves tools to attempt a dex check to open the lock.